The last two pages give an interesting take on beauty. After Howard has blown almost every chance of restoring his family, and marriage and career, he has nothing to say about his theories and actually contradicts them. In the end, Howard, a man for whom words dictate his entire life and his inability to really communicate with anyone, is utterly speechless and is forced to at last realize the truth about what is art and what is beauty. He is forced in his tenure speech to talk about the actual painting, to talk about actual beauty, to say - as Victoria so mockingly suggested - 'I like the tomato.' This is especially true when he only sees Kiki in the audience. He recognizes the beauty in her and that he has lost her. This is the first time I think we get a straight-forward definition of beauty - it is the mind's recognition of the loss of something needed or desired. Howard cannot see the true beauty in Kiki and the beauty she brought to his life until she is lost. For the first time, Howard and the audience are able to recognize something with beauty and love for what it really is.
The painting, he finally admits, says something and it says "I love this woman." This is what he finally tries to say to Kiki - ironically when it is so far too late. He finally explains that paintings and art can speak to us and say things, however he does not really recognize this until the very end. In some ways, Howard brought this all on himself, intentionally or unintentionally destroying his own life. It may be possible that Howard felt guilty or troubled by the fact that he may have been better off than his parents. Perhaps, he felt that because his father was such a disappointment to him, he could not ever fully succeed - as shown with his procrastination with his novel, his deliberate intimidation in his classes, his avoidance of his father for years and thus his distance with his own family.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
The last bits On Beauty
Claire views the affair in a different light that Howard, believing and claiming she is the victim of a female malady of self-imposed destruction. However, she is a completely self-obsessed woman. In order to make herself feel better about her own life, she purposefully and successfully destroyed the happiest marriage she knew.
Claire also gives us a commentary about the politics of the university. She says that anything beautiful is suspect of objectification. At the end of the novel, Zadie Smith de-objectifies what is beauty and what is not. Zadie recognizes that there is a conflict between being able to talk about beauty and having to objectify and define it. This is best represented with Howard, who is the first to say there is no definition of beauty, and is completely above it, yet is the first person to pull down his pants when a beautiful woman comes on to him - one of whom is a student. What is ironic about this is that Monty is also sleeping continuously with another student, Chantelle.
These are the moments that question what or who an intellectual is. Monty, who is defending intellectual purity is only doing so to defend his own reputation after sleeping with a student. At the party when Zora finds out that Carl and Vee are in love, Carl tries to tell Zora that Vee slept with Howard and while Victoria freaks out about it, Jerome figures out what Howard has done. Carl, who sees all the lies and deception recognizes that the intellectual atmosphere they are trying to create is nothing but smoke and mirrors. They think they are intellectual and are intelligent but have no idea what is going on in their own lives. Consequently after this, Carl does not return to Wellington, having seen everything and the falsity of the intellectual world. He says, "You have your college degrees, but you don't even live right. You people are all the same."
There is also a lot of racial tensions and conflict at the end, especially between Levi and Kiki. When Levi steals the painting, he accuses his mother of being a black woman sell out who does not pay their housekeeper even minimum wage. Zadie Smith points out that there is no morality in any of these characters, despite their claim to it. Levi steals, Kiki underpays immigrants, Zora sells out her father for her academic achievement, Howard cheats, Monty cheats, Carlene keeps secrets from her family, Monty sleeps with students, etc. At the end, there is the down spiraling of beauty as well. At the end, Kiki moves out, Howard, who can no longer work at the university, lives with the children, who are furious with him but still talk to him.
What happens to beauty on the last two pages??
Literary Theory with Chris
Literary theory encompasses the varying ways to read and make meaning of a text. From the 1920s to 1950s, there was the idea of "New Criticism." It was a way of seeking out contradictions in a text and figuring out how those contradictions unified the text and created meaning. These contradictions are there for a reason, and create meaning rather than canceling each other out. In this way of thinking, you look at just the text itself, centered around what the author meant. With the evolution of literary theory, this notion of authorial intent loses its importance. In the 1960s, there are cultural revolutions in America, England, and France. A lot of the ideas carried over into the study of English literature. Some of these ideas included psychoanalysis and studies of the unconscious. Such Freudian views are supposed to direct our thoughts and actions so that we understand the latent contents of dreams (books) in order to understands ourselves(books). This idea developed into the Psychoanalytic theory of literature. A similar thing happened with Feminist theory, in which we read texts to discover hidden (or not hidden) meanings about female desire, empowerment, equality, sexuality, gender politics, and POWER. Queer theory also develops, focusing upon gender issues, power, hetero-normative ways of thinking, etc. Basically, Queer theory asks 'How is queer identity constructed in a text?' Deconstruction is a theory that came about in the 1970s. It maintains that there are a lot of privileged oppositions in the world, and that speech is always privileged over writing. Accordingly, we privilege the faculty of reason over all else. Historically (in the West) reason has been used to judge what makes a human a human. Thus, we are logocentric-- historically, Westerners have judged "others" as lacking the faculty of reason, privileging out culture over others'. Beyond this, the work of deconstruction looks to question these ideas of opposition and privilege. It is a way of questioning how language discloses meaning.
Literary theories thus quickly become charged with political meaning. This is really the beginning of the Academy as a political space; it has come a long way from New Criticism. Such ideas come up against a lot of criticism for those who say that we should not be looking for such political elements within texts. We are now looking for cultural significance rather than the intentions of the author. Within the larger picture, each text has a cultural meaning. Texts are now seen has having larger social significance, and we cannot analyze them without analyzing the culture as well.
The definition of "text" also emerges and expands. Text is now thought of as including poems, novels, plays, films, television, digital images, art, CD's, music, clothing, graffiti, advertising, etc. A text is a thus a cultural artifact and can be interpreted in some way. This also causes trouble because we are dealing with so many different texts that can be brought into the classroom and studied. Thus, the classroom becomes highly politicized. Conservatives do not want all this "stuff" contaminating the "real art/text" of the academy.
Common to all these theories are ideas of power, subjectivity, political significance, cultural significance, and types of representation. With so many different theories, we are able to analyze texts from a variety of perspectives.
Literary theories thus quickly become charged with political meaning. This is really the beginning of the Academy as a political space; it has come a long way from New Criticism. Such ideas come up against a lot of criticism for those who say that we should not be looking for such political elements within texts. We are now looking for cultural significance rather than the intentions of the author. Within the larger picture, each text has a cultural meaning. Texts are now seen has having larger social significance, and we cannot analyze them without analyzing the culture as well.
The definition of "text" also emerges and expands. Text is now thought of as including poems, novels, plays, films, television, digital images, art, CD's, music, clothing, graffiti, advertising, etc. A text is a thus a cultural artifact and can be interpreted in some way. This also causes trouble because we are dealing with so many different texts that can be brought into the classroom and studied. Thus, the classroom becomes highly politicized. Conservatives do not want all this "stuff" contaminating the "real art/text" of the academy.
Common to all these theories are ideas of power, subjectivity, political significance, cultural significance, and types of representation. With so many different theories, we are able to analyze texts from a variety of perspectives.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
On the beauty of "On Beauty"
Class discussion notes from Friday 4/17 and Monday 4/20
A lot of what we discussed of this novel this round was the poem written by the character Claire Malcomb and about its meaning and beauty. The poem, entitled the same as the novel uses a repetition of lines, pronouns, and subjects to blur the line between the beautiful and the non-beautiful, portraying the idea that true beauty is impossible to know.
This connects to what we discussed about Smith's characterization of both sides of the culture war: the Belseys on the liberal no-great-art left and the Kippses on the conservative only-great-great art right. Throughout the novel, both the left and the right contradict themselves and feed off of each other. For example, Howard a man who preaches there is no real genius, no real great art, and no real great beauty falls into an affair with the stereotypical beauty, a woman like himself, white, petite, and intellectual. By the same token, Monty Kipps, a man who preaches against all things liberal, progressive and in some sense anti discriminatory finds himself best friends with a homosexual male. However not only do these sides contradict themselves, they also blur their own lines of distinction, as shown especially through the relationship of Kiki and Carlene. Kiki who was initially greatly offended at Carlene's idea of living for whom instead of for what, later finds herself screaming and Howard that she "gave her life" to him in their marriage. This whole novel, plot and theme asks us as readers to reanalyze the boundaries that we think are so concrete around us.
This is also shown in Claire's conversation with Zora about Carl and the upcoming faculty meeting. Claire asking Zora to speak on behalf of Carl and the other poets in the class who are not students at Wellington implies that Carl does not have a voice, that he could not persuade them on his own. What is strikingly ironic about this is that Carl is the only person in that class who does have a voice. He attracts tons of attention and recognition at the Bus Stop, and is the only true poet of the class, as well as the only self-made intellectual. He learns, not for the university, resume or grades, but for the betterment of himself. This is something which contradicts the emphasis places on the intellectualism valued highly by both the Belseys and the Kippses.
A thought for the future is are the sides really that different? How do the families defy certain social expectations? How do things end up?
A lot of what we discussed of this novel this round was the poem written by the character Claire Malcomb and about its meaning and beauty. The poem, entitled the same as the novel uses a repetition of lines, pronouns, and subjects to blur the line between the beautiful and the non-beautiful, portraying the idea that true beauty is impossible to know.
This connects to what we discussed about Smith's characterization of both sides of the culture war: the Belseys on the liberal no-great-art left and the Kippses on the conservative only-great-great art right. Throughout the novel, both the left and the right contradict themselves and feed off of each other. For example, Howard a man who preaches there is no real genius, no real great art, and no real great beauty falls into an affair with the stereotypical beauty, a woman like himself, white, petite, and intellectual. By the same token, Monty Kipps, a man who preaches against all things liberal, progressive and in some sense anti discriminatory finds himself best friends with a homosexual male. However not only do these sides contradict themselves, they also blur their own lines of distinction, as shown especially through the relationship of Kiki and Carlene. Kiki who was initially greatly offended at Carlene's idea of living for whom instead of for what, later finds herself screaming and Howard that she "gave her life" to him in their marriage. This whole novel, plot and theme asks us as readers to reanalyze the boundaries that we think are so concrete around us.
This is also shown in Claire's conversation with Zora about Carl and the upcoming faculty meeting. Claire asking Zora to speak on behalf of Carl and the other poets in the class who are not students at Wellington implies that Carl does not have a voice, that he could not persuade them on his own. What is strikingly ironic about this is that Carl is the only person in that class who does have a voice. He attracts tons of attention and recognition at the Bus Stop, and is the only true poet of the class, as well as the only self-made intellectual. He learns, not for the university, resume or grades, but for the betterment of himself. This is something which contradicts the emphasis places on the intellectualism valued highly by both the Belseys and the Kippses.
A thought for the future is are the sides really that different? How do the families defy certain social expectations? How do things end up?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Even More On Beauty
We are called in this novel to investigate the left, and the liberal. We get the feeling that perhaps she may be anti-left insofar as she makes Howard appear to be an ugly person. When Howard is talking to the curator at the museum, for example, he talks down to him and acts superior. Yet Smith shows him in a light that makes it unattractive. His attitudes prevent him from making anything that is truly beautiful, including himself.
The epigraph at the beginning of the section chapter called "Anatomy Lesson" is a quote by Elaine Scarry, which says, "To misstate, or merely understate, the relation of the universities to beauty is one kind of error that can be made. A university is among the precious things that can be destroyed." In this chapter, Zora originally threatens the Dean French to expose her father's affair with Claire in order to get into a class. In this instance, the university is not something that defends or creates beauty at all. The accrediting of grades is something that prevents the protection of true beauty.
When Zora and Carl speak before Zora starts her second year at Wellington, one can see that the true beauty and intellectualism is much truer and real outside of the university setting. In their conversation, Carl comes out seeming as the best type of student, self-motivated not by grades or transcripts or future expectations but only by desire to learn more. This is a true kind of beauty. Every student has the desire and potential to be like Carl however sometimes maybe the social structures prevent it. In this way, at times we are dead in our education.
Howard is also one who feels dead, the living dead, with his own intellect, personal life, and beauty. He tells his students that "beauty is a mask that power wears," a Western myth and preaches the anti-beauty. This shows how Howard is dead in both his personal and work life, saying the same lines "for six years straight" so repetitively that he probably doesn't believe it anymore.
As we read the rest of this novel, it will be crucial and difficult to tell which side of the culture war is winning.
The epigraph at the beginning of the section chapter called "Anatomy Lesson" is a quote by Elaine Scarry, which says, "To misstate, or merely understate, the relation of the universities to beauty is one kind of error that can be made. A university is among the precious things that can be destroyed." In this chapter, Zora originally threatens the Dean French to expose her father's affair with Claire in order to get into a class. In this instance, the university is not something that defends or creates beauty at all. The accrediting of grades is something that prevents the protection of true beauty.
When Zora and Carl speak before Zora starts her second year at Wellington, one can see that the true beauty and intellectualism is much truer and real outside of the university setting. In their conversation, Carl comes out seeming as the best type of student, self-motivated not by grades or transcripts or future expectations but only by desire to learn more. This is a true kind of beauty. Every student has the desire and potential to be like Carl however sometimes maybe the social structures prevent it. In this way, at times we are dead in our education.
Howard is also one who feels dead, the living dead, with his own intellect, personal life, and beauty. He tells his students that "beauty is a mask that power wears," a Western myth and preaches the anti-beauty. This shows how Howard is dead in both his personal and work life, saying the same lines "for six years straight" so repetitively that he probably doesn't believe it anymore.
As we read the rest of this novel, it will be crucial and difficult to tell which side of the culture war is winning.
Monday, April 13, 2009
More On Beauty
WHAT IS BEAUTY??
The model beautiful
The real beautiful
There are many different kinds of love and beauty in our world today. People who are in love may or may not turn their loved ones into objects -- of love, of passion, of physical beauty or of many other things. In our culture, beauty has been impoverished to include only things of physical, skinny, model type attraction. This beauty is only visual beauty, that which we see. However, real beauty is actually a juxtaposition of lines and contours.
There is a battle between objectified, conventional beauty and non-conventional beauty is present throughout On Beauty by Zadie Smith. For example, there are many differing impressions of Kiki's beauty in the novel. For example, Zora thinks that her mother has let herself go, while Mrs. Kipps calls her beautiful, and does not mean to offend her when she says she is a large woman but carries it well. Thus, we can see that Carlene Kipps focuses more on the non-conventional beauty while the majority of the Belseys focus on conventional beauty.
There are many other people who are objectified in the novel such as Carl, the man with whom Zora accidentally trades Discmans with at the Mozart concert, and with Claire, Warren's wife who Jerome and Kiki meet at the fair. Claire is also the woman with whom, we later learn, Howard had his affair on Kiki. Initially he lies to her and tells her it was with another random woman from Michigan but this is not true.
At the Mozart concert, we learn a little more about each of the characters. Howard sleeps through most of it, and the only comments he makes are facetious toward his wife's lower class, and of Mozart. Meanwhile, Kiki and especially Jerome are very moved by the music and point to its clear genius. This leads to another argument, as we discussed earlier about what is genius and how we can define it. Howard does not think it was moving and wants to know how to define genius. He is a parody machine, making fun of genius and high art. Meanwhile Carl is listening in to the conversation and thinks of how Mozart dies before it is completed and was finished by someone else. It is this section of the music that was not written by Mozart that Kiki finds so beautiful, and yet this actually redefines genius as collaborative. However, why does this matter to us so much? Perhaps it has to do with defining and understanding the structure but perhaps it is also that we wish to define the "great man." However, the "great man" theory is that which is plaguing our culture about what is art, greatness, genius, and beauty.
Later, we also find out about Howard's relationship with Claire. Claire is described as being much more "beautiful" and intellectual than Kiki. This is threatening to Kiki because these are things she has always worried about in her marriage, especially being of a lower social class than her husband. Kiki frequently feels that she is left out and made fun of for being less of an intellectual and this is one of the main reasons she is so upset when she finds out Claire is the person he had an affair with. She is also upset by the fact that it was more than a one night stand, it was three weeks.
The model beautiful
The real beautiful
There are many different kinds of love and beauty in our world today. People who are in love may or may not turn their loved ones into objects -- of love, of passion, of physical beauty or of many other things. In our culture, beauty has been impoverished to include only things of physical, skinny, model type attraction. This beauty is only visual beauty, that which we see. However, real beauty is actually a juxtaposition of lines and contours.
There is a battle between objectified, conventional beauty and non-conventional beauty is present throughout On Beauty by Zadie Smith. For example, there are many differing impressions of Kiki's beauty in the novel. For example, Zora thinks that her mother has let herself go, while Mrs. Kipps calls her beautiful, and does not mean to offend her when she says she is a large woman but carries it well. Thus, we can see that Carlene Kipps focuses more on the non-conventional beauty while the majority of the Belseys focus on conventional beauty.
There are many other people who are objectified in the novel such as Carl, the man with whom Zora accidentally trades Discmans with at the Mozart concert, and with Claire, Warren's wife who Jerome and Kiki meet at the fair. Claire is also the woman with whom, we later learn, Howard had his affair on Kiki. Initially he lies to her and tells her it was with another random woman from Michigan but this is not true.
At the Mozart concert, we learn a little more about each of the characters. Howard sleeps through most of it, and the only comments he makes are facetious toward his wife's lower class, and of Mozart. Meanwhile, Kiki and especially Jerome are very moved by the music and point to its clear genius. This leads to another argument, as we discussed earlier about what is genius and how we can define it. Howard does not think it was moving and wants to know how to define genius. He is a parody machine, making fun of genius and high art. Meanwhile Carl is listening in to the conversation and thinks of how Mozart dies before it is completed and was finished by someone else. It is this section of the music that was not written by Mozart that Kiki finds so beautiful, and yet this actually redefines genius as collaborative. However, why does this matter to us so much? Perhaps it has to do with defining and understanding the structure but perhaps it is also that we wish to define the "great man." However, the "great man" theory is that which is plaguing our culture about what is art, greatness, genius, and beauty.
Later, we also find out about Howard's relationship with Claire. Claire is described as being much more "beautiful" and intellectual than Kiki. This is threatening to Kiki because these are things she has always worried about in her marriage, especially being of a lower social class than her husband. Kiki frequently feels that she is left out and made fun of for being less of an intellectual and this is one of the main reasons she is so upset when she finds out Claire is the person he had an affair with. She is also upset by the fact that it was more than a one night stand, it was three weeks.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
On Beauty
In her interview Zadie Smith states that novels are both political and moral, but that we cannot hit people over the head with our morals. However, she believes that we can use art as an analogy for morals, and that being a good person helps us to make good art. Good art is moral in that it reflects the author's morals; it is someone being truthful in how they see the world. She believes that this is difficult due to self-deception, as the blind spots we have in life are the same that can blind us in art. Zadie Smith is a very relevant example of the "Culture Wars," where there is so-called reverse discrimination, authors and great artists are elevated simply because of their ethnicity and gender.
Zadie Smith vs. 'Zadie Smith'
There is a difference between the real author and the name brand author asked to stand as a symbol for their ethnicity. On the left, they say her first novel was the best book ever written about London. While the real Zadie Smith denies this, the right side claims that it is only the best novel because of her ethnicity and gender. This calls us to question what is great art and artistic genius. If a book is truly moral, it will show us what is moral, even if the author his or herself does not stand within this perception. If it is not moral, we may find that the very thing they criticize is the mirror image of ourselves. There is no totally good or totally bad people, there are only real deep characters. These deep characters, with whom we can identify, has both good and bad qualities. In order to get the full morality of the character, we need to see both the good and bad of a character, which is exactly what we need to do in real life.
In the novel, we encounter this same sort of multicultural dilemma. Jerome is the mediator between the left, his family, where they believe there is no great art, in that everyone can be an artists, and the Kipps family on the right, who believes that only a select few are great artists such as Shakespeare, and Bronte.
In the first part of the novel, we meet the two families the Belsey's who live in the States, with their children Jerome, Zora and Levi, who are very lenient, non-Christian, liberal, and very lax with their children. The eldest son, Jerome, leaves to go back to London to work for Mr. Kipps, a professor who lives very closely with his two children Michael and Victoria and his wife. They are very religious, family oriented, and conservative. Mr. Belsey is white, Kiki is black and their children are mixed but lighter skinned. The Kipps are all dark, from Trinidad.
There is also a big rivalry between Monty and Howard. Both are art professors of the Renaissance of Rembrandt, and while Monty has finished his book, which will be on the best seller's list, Howard's book will be a scholarly book that libraries buy and no one reads. In an interview, Howard criticized Monty's analysis of a painting publicly, but in response, Monty points out that Rembrandt had the wrong painting.
Jerome left to go work for his father's arch-rival, perhaps, according to Kiki, to get his father's attention. Furthermore, perhaps he does not respect his father as much because he had an affair and Kiki stayed with him. Perhaps also he is just different from the rest of his family, or he thinks that the Kipps' family is better than his. In his family, his father cheated, his mother is constantly upset, and he does not truly want his family at this moment. He wants to be a part of this other, "better" family, at least at this moment.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Wrongs of Women: Mary Wollstonecraft
Mary Wollstonecraft and the Wrongs of Woman
This is another work that calls us to analyze what we value, whether that is with art, careers, family, or our own life goals in general. I liked this piece a lot better than her first part of the novel, "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman," because for me, Maria was much easier and more interesting to read. Wollstonecraft brings a fresh take to her theories as she gives a real life example of the "wrongs of women." In this second volume, the life of the main character Maria is filled with sadness, despair, and poverty due to her gender. She, as well as all the women around her is treated poorly and brutally by husbands, fathers, masters, and all other males in her life. This is also true of her good friend in the story Jemima.
This novella, in my opinion, was also probably much more interesting to write. As an English major, and thus obsessive reader and writer, I am constantly analyzing the words and works from the perspective of narrator and writer. For me, as for Wollstonecraft, it was much more interesting to prove her points beneath the surface, through the thoughts and actions of her characters than through the explicit criticisms of the treatise of Volume I. This is why I enjoyed Maria so much better than the Rights of Women. Wollstonecraft seemed to address the "wrongs of women" with satirical irony, in proving how these wrongs are the circumstantial fault of the wrongs of the men in their lives. And I love irony.
This is another work that calls us to analyze what we value, whether that is with art, careers, family, or our own life goals in general. I liked this piece a lot better than her first part of the novel, "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman," because for me, Maria was much easier and more interesting to read. Wollstonecraft brings a fresh take to her theories as she gives a real life example of the "wrongs of women." In this second volume, the life of the main character Maria is filled with sadness, despair, and poverty due to her gender. She, as well as all the women around her is treated poorly and brutally by husbands, fathers, masters, and all other males in her life. This is also true of her good friend in the story Jemima.
This novella, in my opinion, was also probably much more interesting to write. As an English major, and thus obsessive reader and writer, I am constantly analyzing the words and works from the perspective of narrator and writer. For me, as for Wollstonecraft, it was much more interesting to prove her points beneath the surface, through the thoughts and actions of her characters than through the explicit criticisms of the treatise of Volume I. This is why I enjoyed Maria so much better than the Rights of Women. Wollstonecraft seemed to address the "wrongs of women" with satirical irony, in proving how these wrongs are the circumstantial fault of the wrongs of the men in their lives. And I love irony.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Art and Lies
AS A SIDENOTE: I really wish we had spent more time on this, I liked what we read of this novel! I think I would have preferred to do Mary Wollstonecraft in one sitting, and continued here with Art and Lies.
Homework for Friday: Do a close reading of a particular passage from Handel or Picasso. What question does it stimulate you to ask? What does it answer?
This is a passage from Handel's first section, towards the end, as he addresses British society's acknowledgment or lack thereof of the individual. Handel states,
"It's awkward, in a society where the cult of the individual has never been preached with greater force, and where many of our collective ills are a result of that force, to say that is is to the Self to which one must attend. But the Self is not a random collection of stray desires striving to be satisfied, nor is it only by suppressing such desires, as women are encouraged to do, that any social cohesion is possible. Our broken society is not born out of the triumph of the individual, but out of his effacement. He vanishes, she vanishes, ask they who they are and they will offer you a wallet or a child. 'What do you do?' is the party line, where doing is a substitute for being, and where the shame of not doiing wipes away the thin chalk outline that sketches Husband Wife Banker Actor even Thief. It's comforting, my busy life, left alone with my thoughts I might find I have none. And left to my own emotions? Is there much beyond a childing rage a sentimentality that passes for love?" (24).
For me, this passage stimulates a lot of questions. It seems as though the narrator, Handel, is not only questioning himself and his society, but his reader as well. This passage asks each of us to identify who we are in terms of something more than our actions and dreams. "Doing" as he less than tenderly explains, is not a substitute for being, it is an action associated with it, but they are not synonymous. We cannot be defined with the money we make, our by our friends or children or families, or jobs, or wants. In my opinion, and perhaps also in Handel's we are defined by our thoughts and emotions. In what we think and feel. It is THESE things that influence how we act and what we do. It is not the action that counts, but rather the thoughts, motivation, and intellect behind each action and each decision that define who we are and what we value.
Handel, as with the other two narrators in Art and Lies, has a name with an allusion. Our narrator Handel refers to the great George Frideric Handel, a famous English and German composer of the early 18th century. He, like our Handel, was a man who put things together in an uncommon way to make peace and harmony. Our Handel does the same thing in his ability to question us while soothing our minds. We as readers can easily read this passage and hear Handel's criticism of himself and of his society. We can sense his resentment at their shallow existence, none knowing who they are or what they truly mean. We can easily listen to the top most surface harmony of the song, hear only the chorus, and completely ignore the question to the reader. The passage does not give answers, not for himself or for his readers, regarding the path to Self-discovery. He later mocks this "path" in saying he gave a philosophical book to a friend only to have such friend say, "I'll try and fit it in." How shall I live? Is the question he repeats throughout this passage and chapter. As someone defined by their "wallet or child" or as something more.
Homework for Friday: Do a close reading of a particular passage from Handel or Picasso. What question does it stimulate you to ask? What does it answer?
This is a passage from Handel's first section, towards the end, as he addresses British society's acknowledgment or lack thereof of the individual. Handel states,
"It's awkward, in a society where the cult of the individual has never been preached with greater force, and where many of our collective ills are a result of that force, to say that is is to the Self to which one must attend. But the Self is not a random collection of stray desires striving to be satisfied, nor is it only by suppressing such desires, as women are encouraged to do, that any social cohesion is possible. Our broken society is not born out of the triumph of the individual, but out of his effacement. He vanishes, she vanishes, ask they who they are and they will offer you a wallet or a child. 'What do you do?' is the party line, where doing is a substitute for being, and where the shame of not doiing wipes away the thin chalk outline that sketches Husband Wife Banker Actor even Thief. It's comforting, my busy life, left alone with my thoughts I might find I have none. And left to my own emotions? Is there much beyond a childing rage a sentimentality that passes for love?" (24).
For me, this passage stimulates a lot of questions. It seems as though the narrator, Handel, is not only questioning himself and his society, but his reader as well. This passage asks each of us to identify who we are in terms of something more than our actions and dreams. "Doing" as he less than tenderly explains, is not a substitute for being, it is an action associated with it, but they are not synonymous. We cannot be defined with the money we make, our by our friends or children or families, or jobs, or wants. In my opinion, and perhaps also in Handel's we are defined by our thoughts and emotions. In what we think and feel. It is THESE things that influence how we act and what we do. It is not the action that counts, but rather the thoughts, motivation, and intellect behind each action and each decision that define who we are and what we value.
Handel, as with the other two narrators in Art and Lies, has a name with an allusion. Our narrator Handel refers to the great George Frideric Handel, a famous English and German composer of the early 18th century. He, like our Handel, was a man who put things together in an uncommon way to make peace and harmony. Our Handel does the same thing in his ability to question us while soothing our minds. We as readers can easily read this passage and hear Handel's criticism of himself and of his society. We can sense his resentment at their shallow existence, none knowing who they are or what they truly mean. We can easily listen to the top most surface harmony of the song, hear only the chorus, and completely ignore the question to the reader. The passage does not give answers, not for himself or for his readers, regarding the path to Self-discovery. He later mocks this "path" in saying he gave a philosophical book to a friend only to have such friend say, "I'll try and fit it in." How shall I live? Is the question he repeats throughout this passage and chapter. As someone defined by their "wallet or child" or as something more.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Theories on Great Art
Now that's great art: The ordinary and extraordinary
Laura C. Mandell's Theory of literary art. The novel emerged in the 18th century, and the short story came about in 1800. However, the problem with literature and digital media is that now people are saying there is no more great art. The study of "great art" has been replaced by cultural studies, yet we still "worship the great art" of the alienated majesty that is in great art. For example, we project ourselves onto great art, giving credit to these artists and not to ourselves. The problem here is that we leave the great art to the past, without motivation or desire to continue art into the present. We are all artists, but we neglect our inner artists in refusing to consume it.
For example, right now, The Twilight Saga Series, which just came out (2005-2008), is one of the greatest works of pop culture and one of the greatest works of art in my opinion. This series was written by a middle-aged mother of three, an English Literature major who had a dream and wrote down her story. She is now one of the most popular best selling authors of the decade, comparable by many to J.K. Rowling. She's an amateur writer, and her works are by no account classics, but it's an easy read, easily to relate to by many generations, and is terrifically enthralling.
Like this example, as well as the Stand By Me worldwide song we listened to on YouTube, all ordinary people are artists. Instead of wanting to know what the great works of art are, we should dedicate the time, thinking and efforts, we can determine the great works of art for ourselves. Attention is a limited commodity so we want only the classics, only the greats and only the compact versions. However, now there's not enough left open. Now, we need to consider the possibility of considering everything great art, and deciding on our own.
"This painting has nothing to say to me became I have nothing to say to this painting, and i desperately wanted to speak." By saying that a piece of art is bad, without reason, without understanding, it is the same as criticizing the French for not speaking English. We need to be more open to understanding art, and all languages, especially of art.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Digitizing Texts: More on Different Analysis
A Child and Flowers by Mrs. Hemans
Page Image version
"For a day is coming to quell the tone
That rings in thy laughter, thou joyous one!
And to dim thy brow with a touch of care,
Under the gloss of its clustering hair;
And to tame the flash of thy cloudless eyes
Into the stillness of autumn skies;
And to teach thee that grief hath her needful part,
Midst the hidden things of each human heart!"
HTML version
| Nature hath mines of such wealth--and thou |
| Never wilt prize its delights as now! |
| *For a day is coming to quell the tone |
| That rings in thy laughter, thou joyous one! |
| And to dim thy brow with a touch of care.35 |
| Under the gloss of its clustering hair; |
| And to tame the flash of thy cloudless eyes |
| Into the stillness of autumn skies; |
| And to teach thee that grief hath her needful part, |
| Midst the hidden things of each human heart!* |
TEI version
−
And to teach thee that grief hath her needful part,
In our lines, 33-40, the speaker is talking about the inevitable day when the child will lose his or her innocence. The speaker is fearful for the child to see this, and to learn about grief and reality. It is a kind of superficial way of looking at children and innocence. Overall, this poem suggests that we should enjoy what we can while we can and not dwell in the past. The challenge is that the speaker is addressing a child, who could not read or understand its true meaning. This calls into question who the audience is. To me, the audience seems to be a child, but is meant to remind us of our own childhood, and to not forget our innocence and the little things that used to make us happy. In essence, the speaker is writing to and instructs us to analyze our own inner child. This poem calls us to appreciate the aesthetics in life instead of just going through life and letting the little joys pass us by.
The format of the poem does affect the meaning, but for me it does not necessarily help with processing what is going on and what is significant in the poem. It seems to me that the TEI version of the text does very little to help us understand the poem but it gives us as readers an interesting way of looking at it. Also the use of the different stanzas in the Page Image and HTML versions do help in changing the meaning because they give us different places to pause and focus. However, looking at these different versions is helpful because of both the visual tricks and the compilation of text and image. It allows us as readers to have a new, entirely different experience with the text even if, as frequently happens, we do not fully comprehend it.
Monday, March 23, 2009
And a Different Look at Frankenstein: Tagcloud
1. Create a tag cloud for each Frankenstein passage is small groups using www.tagcrowd.com.
My version was the 1818 Thomas Edition. My tag words were as follows:
There were several differences between our three versions of the text. My group found that the two different 1818 versions were much more similar than the 1831 version. Both 1818 editions had "friend" and "deep friend" as well as descriptions of the monster and of friendship. However the 1831 text was much darker, foreign, and brought up themes of conversation as opposed to the other two. Overall, the 1818 versions focus more on the emotions while the 1831 version focuses more on the action and motion.
My key bold words were "deep" and "friend." My key words were although, appears, believed, confidence, creature, desire, eloquence, excites, friendship, interests, misery, noble, powers, speaks, therefore, veil.
This helps to understand and visualize the text by providing different sources of emphasis. To me this is like reading a poem in different tones of voices with differing points of focus. Using this program helps to do so with less work :) .
2. Compare textual versions using JUXTA.
JUXTA allows you to compare two different versions side by side, in a much more detailed manner than tag cloud.
Did Mary Shelley write three different novels?
No I don't believe Shelley wrote three different versions of Frankenstein. I believe that in each revision of the novel, she realized something different about her own characters and adjusted the text and emphasis to support it. In this way, Shelley was able to insure she was portraying the characters to the readers in the way that we would best understanding. I think this is the point to revision: to make sure you explain, in the best way possible, which features and actions of the character are most important for the reader to understand.
In these passages, the stranger agrees to different things. Why do these changes matter?
In both 1818 versions, the stranger suggests that friendship is both desirable and possible to attain. However in the 1831 edition, the stranger explains the benefits of having friendship, and explains why it is desireable and necessary to have. These changes matter because, as stated above, they give us as readers differing insights into the thoughts and points of the author and the characters.
How does digitizing these texts help us think about the different versions?
Digitizing helps us visualize the important points in very different ways. In seeing these different versions we can see the different points that the author chose to emphasize each time she revised her novel. In this way we can get a better understanding of both the author's intentions and characterization of those she tries to portray.
My version was the 1818 Thomas Edition. My tag words were as follows:
admiration although appears believed confidence creature deep desire destroyed eloquence excites flow friend friendship gaze history hope interest life lost manner misery mortal neither night noble notices offended overcome pedantry plan pleased possible powers related respecting several silently speaks stranger succeeded suggested therefore throwing true trust utterly veil wise wish
There were several differences between our three versions of the text. My group found that the two different 1818 versions were much more similar than the 1831 version. Both 1818 editions had "friend" and "deep friend" as well as descriptions of the monster and of friendship. However the 1831 text was much darker, foreign, and brought up themes of conversation as opposed to the other two. Overall, the 1818 versions focus more on the emotions while the 1831 version focuses more on the action and motion.
My key bold words were "deep" and "friend." My key words were although, appears, believed, confidence, creature, desire, eloquence, excites, friendship, interests, misery, noble, powers, speaks, therefore, veil.
This helps to understand and visualize the text by providing different sources of emphasis. To me this is like reading a poem in different tones of voices with differing points of focus. Using this program helps to do so with less work :) .
2. Compare textual versions using JUXTA.
JUXTA allows you to compare two different versions side by side, in a much more detailed manner than tag cloud.
Did Mary Shelley write three different novels?
No I don't believe Shelley wrote three different versions of Frankenstein. I believe that in each revision of the novel, she realized something different about her own characters and adjusted the text and emphasis to support it. In this way, Shelley was able to insure she was portraying the characters to the readers in the way that we would best understanding. I think this is the point to revision: to make sure you explain, in the best way possible, which features and actions of the character are most important for the reader to understand.
In these passages, the stranger agrees to different things. Why do these changes matter?
In both 1818 versions, the stranger suggests that friendship is both desirable and possible to attain. However in the 1831 edition, the stranger explains the benefits of having friendship, and explains why it is desireable and necessary to have. These changes matter because, as stated above, they give us as readers differing insights into the thoughts and points of the author and the characters.
How does digitizing these texts help us think about the different versions?
Digitizing helps us visualize the important points in very different ways. In seeing these different versions we can see the different points that the author chose to emphasize each time she revised her novel. In this way we can get a better understanding of both the author's intentions and characterization of those she tries to portray.
A Different Look at Aurora Leigh
On BB go to Poetess Archive Folder under Course Documents
Look at 3 versions of the Bijou poem (1) Page Image, (2) HTML version, (3)TEI (XML language text) encoded version
Task: Do a close reading of the poem in the HTML version. Answer one or all or a combination of the prompts below
1. Is the poem the same in these 3 versions?
For me, these poems are definitely not the same. It is very difficult for me to process computer language let alone the TEI text. I'm also very unsure about how texts "talk" to each other online by using the same interface, because I actually don't know what an interface is. I do think it is very interesting to see the poem in this different language because, since I am a double English and Spanish major, I find myself crossing between languages in my head. I feel that this type of poetry is a kind of Spanglish for computer oriented people. I would probably have a much stronger opinion of the language used in these alternative texts if I were not so technologically challenged beyond all hope :(
2. What difference will digitizing make to our understanding of poems?
Digitizing these poems definitely gave me a new perspective on the "British Women Writers Digitized" title of our class. I am the complete opposite of a computer guru (and have tragically failed at every attempted technological activity thus far presented) but I am a good reader. This type of computer poetry presents readers with a new way to read. For me, it's kind of like reading latin, but there is certainly always something to gain from looking at things, especially art and literature, through a different lens.
3. BONUS: Apply the poem's theme about art to the poem itself: does digitizing contribute to Hemans' aim?
Look at 3 versions of the Bijou poem (1) Page Image, (2) HTML version, (3)TEI (XML language text) encoded version
Task: Do a close reading of the poem in the HTML version. Answer one or all or a combination of the prompts below
1. Is the poem the same in these 3 versions?
For me, these poems are definitely not the same. It is very difficult for me to process computer language let alone the TEI text. I'm also very unsure about how texts "talk" to each other online by using the same interface, because I actually don't know what an interface is. I do think it is very interesting to see the poem in this different language because, since I am a double English and Spanish major, I find myself crossing between languages in my head. I feel that this type of poetry is a kind of Spanglish for computer oriented people. I would probably have a much stronger opinion of the language used in these alternative texts if I were not so technologically challenged beyond all hope :(
2. What difference will digitizing make to our understanding of poems?
Digitizing these poems definitely gave me a new perspective on the "British Women Writers Digitized" title of our class. I am the complete opposite of a computer guru (and have tragically failed at every attempted technological activity thus far presented) but I am a good reader. This type of computer poetry presents readers with a new way to read. For me, it's kind of like reading latin, but there is certainly always something to gain from looking at things, especially art and literature, through a different lens.
3. BONUS: Apply the poem's theme about art to the poem itself: does digitizing contribute to Hemans' aim?
More Notes on Aurora Leigh
Can there be heroes in modern life? According to the poem? and to you?
According to Aurora Leigh, heroes most definitely exist within modern life. She writes "All actual heroes are essential men/And all men possible heroes" (151-152). Clearly, Aurora believes in the heroic potential of every individual. In order to find such heroes, AL encourages not to look to the past, but to be mindful of the present. If we depend upon the past for our heroes, we will find only conflated versions of mythic, larger-than-life idols. The true heroes are among us, and we must see them for who they are--"essential men", ordinary people.I agree with Aurora Leigh. There are heroes within our lives, whether we know them personally or view them from afar. These people are so much more real than the epic heroes we read of in history books or see in movies. These real people are not always famous enough to be recorded in the volumes of history, but such idolatry is not necessary is the making of a hero.
*Thanks Liz
According to Aurora Leigh, heroes most definitely exist within modern life. She writes "All actual heroes are essential men/And all men possible heroes" (151-152). Clearly, Aurora believes in the heroic potential of every individual. In order to find such heroes, AL encourages not to look to the past, but to be mindful of the present. If we depend upon the past for our heroes, we will find only conflated versions of mythic, larger-than-life idols. The true heroes are among us, and we must see them for who they are--"essential men", ordinary people.I agree with Aurora Leigh. There are heroes within our lives, whether we know them personally or view them from afar. These people are so much more real than the epic heroes we read of in history books or see in movies. These real people are not always famous enough to be recorded in the volumes of history, but such idolatry is not necessary is the making of a hero.
*Thanks Liz
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Aurora Leigh: Guest Speaker
Elizabeth Barret Browning was one of twelve children, whose father forbade them to marry. She was put on very high amounts of morphine for nervous disorders. She had courtship with Robert Browning, whom she eventually eloped with, through letters.
Group Passage Analysis: Group 3
Book II: ll. 671 -84:
1. This passage is in response to Aurora's aunt threatening to write too Romney to accept his proposal on Aurora's behalf. How does Aurora defend her choice? Aurora says that it would be perjury to accept Romney's proposal, as she explains "I tie up 'no' upon His altar-horns, / Quite out of reach of perjury" (679-80). It is not what she wants, she desires to be a poet, not an assistant to Romney's work. She is saying she would rather die as an unfulfilled poet that for marrying Romney for security purposes.
2. What effect does Aurora's use of God have in this passage? In defending herself to her aunt, Aurora states, "O my God, my God! / God meant me good, too, when he hindered me / From saying 'yes' this morning" (675-7). In saying this, she supports the idea that God's will coincides with her own will to refuse Romney. By saying God allowed her to say no, she justifies it more in providing evidence of His support for her decision.
3. What can we make of Aurora's division between the "soul's life" and monetary life? What does this suggest of her character? Aurora says, "My soul is not a pauper; I can live / At least my soul's life, without alms from men" (681-2). She distinguishes that the life of the soul does not depend on gifts and things provided by men. It speaks to her character in that she values morals, and personal values over what is expected.
4. How does the aunt's response to Aurora's refusal (ll. 655-69) further re-inscribe the different notions of femininity held by the two women? The aunt desperately desires for Aurora to be the proper English housewife, as it is the only thing she has ever known. She is convinced that Aurora will starve and die without the support of a man, however Aurora prefers to be without a man. Aurora on the other hand, describes this ideal as femininity as an inconvenience, an objectification, and a pain, as in book I (ll. 455-64).
Group 1: In saying that her aunt was a caged bird, she has never really fulfilled her life. However, she can't really be to blame for something she has never been asked to challenge or question.
Group 2: In her answer, Aurora tells Romney that she is unworthy of being the things that he desires her to be. She says he is not unworthy of love, but that he does not love her, only what he wants her to be. However, by saying she is unworthy, she is actually implying that she is worth more than that. By twisting it around she makes it seem as if she is doing him a favor. (Book II, 400-6)
Group 4: After Aurora's aunt dies, leaving her with very little inheritance, she starts writing prose for a living and works on her poetry secretly. This is almost autobiographical of Elizabeth Barret Browning, the author. It is ironic that a women must be supported by a man and marriage in order to be a successful writer. (Book III, 302-12)
Group Passage Analysis: Group 3
Book II: ll. 671 -84:
1. This passage is in response to Aurora's aunt threatening to write too Romney to accept his proposal on Aurora's behalf. How does Aurora defend her choice? Aurora says that it would be perjury to accept Romney's proposal, as she explains "I tie up 'no' upon His altar-horns, / Quite out of reach of perjury" (679-80). It is not what she wants, she desires to be a poet, not an assistant to Romney's work. She is saying she would rather die as an unfulfilled poet that for marrying Romney for security purposes.
2. What effect does Aurora's use of God have in this passage? In defending herself to her aunt, Aurora states, "O my God, my God! / God meant me good, too, when he hindered me / From saying 'yes' this morning" (675-7). In saying this, she supports the idea that God's will coincides with her own will to refuse Romney. By saying God allowed her to say no, she justifies it more in providing evidence of His support for her decision.
3. What can we make of Aurora's division between the "soul's life" and monetary life? What does this suggest of her character? Aurora says, "My soul is not a pauper; I can live / At least my soul's life, without alms from men" (681-2). She distinguishes that the life of the soul does not depend on gifts and things provided by men. It speaks to her character in that she values morals, and personal values over what is expected.
4. How does the aunt's response to Aurora's refusal (ll. 655-69) further re-inscribe the different notions of femininity held by the two women? The aunt desperately desires for Aurora to be the proper English housewife, as it is the only thing she has ever known. She is convinced that Aurora will starve and die without the support of a man, however Aurora prefers to be without a man. Aurora on the other hand, describes this ideal as femininity as an inconvenience, an objectification, and a pain, as in book I (ll. 455-64).
Group 1: In saying that her aunt was a caged bird, she has never really fulfilled her life. However, she can't really be to blame for something she has never been asked to challenge or question.
Group 2: In her answer, Aurora tells Romney that she is unworthy of being the things that he desires her to be. She says he is not unworthy of love, but that he does not love her, only what he wants her to be. However, by saying she is unworthy, she is actually implying that she is worth more than that. By twisting it around she makes it seem as if she is doing him a favor. (Book II, 400-6)
Group 4: After Aurora's aunt dies, leaving her with very little inheritance, she starts writing prose for a living and works on her poetry secretly. This is almost autobiographical of Elizabeth Barret Browning, the author. It is ironic that a women must be supported by a man and marriage in order to be a successful writer. (Book III, 302-12)
Monday, March 16, 2009
Aurora Leigh: Book 1
Aurora Leigh is one of the greatest epic poems of all time, written in prose. The language of Aurora Leigh is accentual and has great rhythm, although it for me is easy to sometimes get lost in her sub-thoughts without realizing they are not a central part of story.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning published her first book of poetry at age 22. She was a very famous poet, and wrote excellent love poetry for her husband, Robert Browning, another poet in 1845. She was claimed to be cloistered by her father, became an invalid and addicted to morphine. They met through letters, kept correspondence, eloped, moved to Italy, had a child and died some 15 years later. Her life however, was very different from that of the main character in her work Aurora Leigh.
Aurora Leigh's mother died when she was four years old, and then her father died when she was 13. After this she moved to live with her aunt who was very cold toward her. She claims her true life existed in the attic where her father's book was, where she first discovered poets. Aurora distinguishes between two types of "live," physical and spiritual. She says that her phsyical life existed in her aunt's home but her feeling of being alive was when she was among her father's books.
Her father was a man of property and money. No one expected his father to marry, and goes to Italy, travelling as a nobleman, and sees a parade and this is where he meets Aurora's mother. He falls instantly in love with this Florentine woman, who loves him, has his child and dies. He became uncommon when he marries and forgets his estate and life in England. His sister, Aurora's aunt in England, is very jealous of her mother because she took the title of Lady from her (as at this time if a man did not marry, female relatives were the Ladies of the house, whereas if he did marry, his wife was the Lady with the title).
Book 1
Aurora Leigh decides that she is now going to write for herself alone. She remembers her mother, telling her to be quiet but she really comes and plays wit her. Aurora thinks that her mother died of joy of having a child. She, just like Latimir in The Lifted Veil and Victor in Frankenstein, was a genius adored by her mother. She says her mother "could not bear the joy of giving life / The mother's rapture slew her" (34-5). Similarly, like her mother, Aurora claims to feel a "mother want" from the world; she wants the kind of love that mothers show and are comfortable and capable of showing that fathers are less able to provide. Mothers have a way of stringing pretty words together, despite the fact that they are not focusing on the meanings, such as in "Rock-a-bye Baby."
Elizabeth Barrett Browning published her first book of poetry at age 22. She was a very famous poet, and wrote excellent love poetry for her husband, Robert Browning, another poet in 1845. She was claimed to be cloistered by her father, became an invalid and addicted to morphine. They met through letters, kept correspondence, eloped, moved to Italy, had a child and died some 15 years later. Her life however, was very different from that of the main character in her work Aurora Leigh.
Aurora Leigh's mother died when she was four years old, and then her father died when she was 13. After this she moved to live with her aunt who was very cold toward her. She claims her true life existed in the attic where her father's book was, where she first discovered poets. Aurora distinguishes between two types of "live," physical and spiritual. She says that her phsyical life existed in her aunt's home but her feeling of being alive was when she was among her father's books.
Her father was a man of property and money. No one expected his father to marry, and goes to Italy, travelling as a nobleman, and sees a parade and this is where he meets Aurora's mother. He falls instantly in love with this Florentine woman, who loves him, has his child and dies. He became uncommon when he marries and forgets his estate and life in England. His sister, Aurora's aunt in England, is very jealous of her mother because she took the title of Lady from her (as at this time if a man did not marry, female relatives were the Ladies of the house, whereas if he did marry, his wife was the Lady with the title).
Book 1
Aurora Leigh decides that she is now going to write for herself alone. She remembers her mother, telling her to be quiet but she really comes and plays wit her. Aurora thinks that her mother died of joy of having a child. She, just like Latimir in The Lifted Veil and Victor in Frankenstein, was a genius adored by her mother. She says her mother "could not bear the joy of giving life / The mother's rapture slew her" (34-5). Similarly, like her mother, Aurora claims to feel a "mother want" from the world; she wants the kind of love that mothers show and are comfortable and capable of showing that fathers are less able to provide. Mothers have a way of stringing pretty words together, despite the fact that they are not focusing on the meanings, such as in "Rock-a-bye Baby."
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Is Latimer like Victor?
I think that Victor and Latimir are similar because they are both obsessive of their own powers and strengths and also burdened by them later in life. Latimir is at first amazed at his ability to read people's minds around him and see into the future, yet he later admits that he is annoyed by the constant presence of other souls in his life. Futhermore, he is limited in his powers because the one thing that could save him from his terrible fate would be to read Bertha's mind but he cannot. Similarly, Victor in Frankenstein was completely obsessed with his ability to create life once he discovered it, but did not realize the negative consequences until later. He too was extremely burdened by his own creation and power that, like Latimir, eventually led to his demise. Thus, while these two protagonists are similar in their mental capacities and weaknesses, their power and suffering come from differing sources.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The Lifted Veil:
"Low spirits! That is the sort of phrase with which coarse, narrow natures like ours think to describe experience of which you can know no more than your horse know" (Latimer contemplating his brother Alfred, p.28). Latimer is assuming that he alone suffers, and that Alfred can never understand him because he believes that Alfred has absolutely no doubts, no fears. This perhaps is evidence that Latimer cannot read Alfred's mind--if he could read his mind, he would inevitably find at least some feelings of doubt. Latimer doesn't really even seem to know his brother at all, and Latimer wants nothing to do with him. There has to be something more to Alfred than Latimer thinks he knows; Latimer can't even predict his brother's death, predicting instead that he would only be prevented from Bertha if he found a better woman.Bertha's marriage philosophy is very cynical. She says that loving the person you marry is problematic because you will always be jealous and it is much more elegant to marry someone you don't care about. When Bertha says this, Latimer tells her "Bertha, that is not your real feeling. Why do you delight in trying to deceive me by inventing such cynical speeches?" (6). Latimer is easily deceived because he already spends so much tome inviting his own ideas and placing them onto others.Here's a theory: Latimer is not clairvoyant, he can't tell what people think. Instead, he is just really good at projecting his own thoughts and feelings upon others. It may be impossible not to project on someone you really love. Perhaps you need that assurance that that person is who you think. But then do you love the person or what you have made of the person? In Latimer's case, it seems that Latimer does not love Bertha for who she is (a cynical girl who does not care about him) but instead he loves the Bertha he has made through his projections--he absolutely adores his creation. Later, when he no longer loves Bertha, he projects different feelings onto her--demonizing feelings of hatred and disgust.
Interior Thoughts...and The Lifted Veil
picture of women on couch (and her stream of consciousness):I wonder how this dress makes me look. I hope it doesn't show any of the gross side bulge I've been going to the gym to get rid of because those workouts are hard, excruciating actually, yes but they are worth it, I'm not fat, I have no bulges, I am beautiful I am beautiful Am I beautiful? Tell me I'm beautiful.Can Latimer read people's minds, or is he doing what we all do (in assuming what people say)??Latimer is perhaps just extremely imaginative and able to come up with people's "thoughts" by their body language and facial cues. Latimer, of course, unquestioningly believes in the accuracy and authenticity of his visions. Evidence for such power comes from his vision of Prague and his subsequent visit to the city (where he confirmed his belief). He also guessed his brother's speech before he made it, and saw the vision of Bertha before he met her. And yet, Latimer could just have easily seen a painting of Prague, for example.But why can't Latimer read Bertha's mind?Knowing what Bertha was thinking would take the fun out of the romance (at least for Latimer). He can instead project his own desires and thoughts onto Bertha; she becomes what he wants her to be. He sees her as pretending to love Alfred while she secretly loves Latimer. Latimer craves her love; he worships her. The hold that Bertha has over him comes from the tyrannical power she has over him.He sees her as having a deeply cynical soul, and that something is going to move her--and it is going to be him. Obtaining Bertha's love would be like winning a colossal struggle.Perhaps this strong desire for Bertha comes from the distance that has been established between Latimer and his late mother.How does Latimer feel about himself?He thinks he is an amazing person: "I am cursed with an exceptional mental character" (7). Clearly, Latimer feel himself to be governed by a fate that has been set before him, a fate this governed by his own intellect. He regards himself as an emotional poet in that he does not write, but has the same sensibilities as a poet. He doesn't trust anyone else; he feels alone and confined to his own wretched misery.
Interior Thoughts...and The Lifted Veil
picture of women on couch (and her stream of consciousness):I wonder how this dress makes me look. I hope it doesn't show any of the gross side bulge I've been going to the gym to get rid of because those workouts are hard, excruciating actually, yes but they are worth it, I'm not fat, I have no bulges, I am beautiful I am beautiful Am I beautiful? Tell me I'm beautiful.Can Latimer read people's minds, or is he doing what we all do (in assuming what people say)??Latimer is perhaps just extremely imaginative and able to come up with people's "thoughts" by their body language and facial cues. Latimer, of course, unquestioningly believes in the accuracy and authenticity of his visions. Evidence for such power comes from his vision of Prague and his subsequent visit to the city (where he confirmed his belief). He also guessed his brother's speech before he made it, and saw the vision of Bertha before he met her. And yet, Latimer could just have easily seen a painting of Prague, for example.But why can't Latimer read Bertha's mind?Knowing what Bertha was thinking would take the fun out of the romance (at least for Latimer). He can instead project his own desires and thoughts onto Bertha; she becomes what he wants her to be. He sees her as pretending to love Alfred while she secretly loves Latimer. Latimer craves her love; he worships her. The hold that Bertha has over him comes from the tyrannical power she has over him.He sees her as having a deeply cynical soul, and that something is going to move her--and it is going to be him. Obtaining Bertha's love would be like winning a colossal struggle.Perhaps this strong desire for Bertha comes from the distance that has been established between Latimer and his late mother.How does Latimer feel about himself?He thinks he is an amazing person: "I am cursed with an exceptional mental character" (7). Clearly, Latimer feel himself to be governed by a fate that has been set before him, a fate this governed by his own intellect. He regards himself as an emotional poet in that he does not write, but has the same sensibilities as a poet. He doesn't trust anyone else; he feels alone and confined to his own wretched misery.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Frankenstein: Hero Machine
This is my interpretation of the monster-as hero- as is from Frankenstein. He is huge and scary and intimidating, but his face is kind and welcoming. He is very strong and capable of breaking, robbing and murdering however, he only wants affection and it is only seen in his facial expressions. The only way he can be understood is if we as readers and viewers can get past his scary persona and concentrate on his person beneath.
Giving mental images, as in this one, provides a new way to interpret the work.
At the end of the novel, it seems that Walton has learned Victor's lesson as he decides to turn his ship around. Because he does not choose the "ultimate hero" route, he saves himself, those he loves and the rest of his crew by doing so. Frankenstein on the other hand, does not really learn his lesson, as he tells Walton to heed his word but at the same time condemns the crew for wanting to return and begs him to continue in his search and destruction of the monster. It is heroic but is it justified or admirable? I don't think that sacrificing family is heroic. I think that the true hero is not the great man but the stable man, the person who knows what he or she stands for and what is truly important. In the end, Walton is the everyday hero while Victor is he big-time hero who in the end, loses the very most. However maybe Victor's speech at the end is true heroism and maybe there are motivations for heroism that is less than ideal.
There is also a different kind of heroism that is expected of women. Perhaps for women heroism takes a silent form for women, as with Elizabeth, who is the most or one of the most stable characters in the novel.
Are Frankenstein and Victor the same person? While they live together and die together and have all the same experiences and sufferings, they in my opinions are complements. As the monster is the character who is in need of affection and can't have it, while Victor is a character who has all the love and affection in the world but does not exactly want it.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Frankenstein: To Volume, Chapter VI
In this section, Victor agrees to build the other female monster before he marries Elizabeth. He and Clerval decide to go on a trip through Europe before he marries Elizabeth so that he has time to make the female monster. While he is doing this, he realizes that it would be terrible if the monsters procreate so he decides to tear up the female. The monster becomes infuriated and threatens to be with Victor on his wedding night, which Victor automatically assumes that is the night the monster will kill him. However this actually shows how egotistical he is, not thinking about Elizabeth at all. The monster could have killed him at any number of their meetings but decides it will cause Victor more pain if he kills those he loves. Once Victor returns to the island he is accused of murdering Clerval, who the monster killed.
Futhermore, the monster might not want to kill Victor because he is his creator or also because he knows it is more difficult to watch others die than to die yourself. He might also want to teach Victor a lesson so that he will change, or is just doing everything he can to get Victor's attention, which he was denied at his creation. Also, maybe Victor and the monster are the same thing.
Are Victor and the monster one and the same person?
Perhaps. of course Victor wouldn't want to kill all his loved ones however he is self-destructive, as shown in his creation of the monster (p. 53), and is perhaps trying to get rid of the people who he loves before they hurt him by leaving him and dying, as his mother did when he was a child.
If so, why dos Victor want to kill his loved ones?
Victor calls the monster the wretch. Wretch is mentioned on pages 12-Victor, 43 - monster, 44 monster twice, Victor's sleep, 45 - monster, 47 - Victor's sickness, 60 - Victor, 61 - monster, 62 - monster, 63 - Victor, 65 - Victor, 70 - Victor's sleep, 71 - Victor, 73 - Victor, 77 - monster and Victor, 83 - monster, 85 - Victor, 87 - Victor, 90 - describes Victor, 92 - Victor, 94 - Victor, 98 - Victor, 104 - monster of himself, 112 - monster of himself, 113 - monster of himself, 124 - monster, 136 - Victor, 147 - monster, 148 - monster, 165 - Victor of himself, 182 - monster of Victor, etc.
Clearly, there is lots of interaction between the use of the word wretch to describe both themselves as well as each other. This also expresses the relationship between parent and child, as the monster begins to use the same language, called mirroring. For example, they exchange the words in close proximity of the words. After the monster kills Elizabeth the monster says, "I am satisfied, miserable wretch! You have determined to live, and I am satisfied." which shows the interchangeability of the word as description as well as perhaps, the character as well. This also reveals the deliberateness of the words as well as the possibility that Victor is creating his own wretchedness in his search for greatness at something.
Typically we want to blame Victor for not thinking about Elizabeth, but really the depths of his love do not overcome his need to be the "one" "greatest" something. Perhaps is it part of his belief that they could hurt him too much if he is invested in it.
Futhermore, the monster might not want to kill Victor because he is his creator or also because he knows it is more difficult to watch others die than to die yourself. He might also want to teach Victor a lesson so that he will change, or is just doing everything he can to get Victor's attention, which he was denied at his creation. Also, maybe Victor and the monster are the same thing.
Are Victor and the monster one and the same person?
Perhaps. of course Victor wouldn't want to kill all his loved ones however he is self-destructive, as shown in his creation of the monster (p. 53), and is perhaps trying to get rid of the people who he loves before they hurt him by leaving him and dying, as his mother did when he was a child.
If so, why dos Victor want to kill his loved ones?
Victor calls the monster the wretch. Wretch is mentioned on pages 12-Victor, 43 - monster, 44 monster twice, Victor's sleep, 45 - monster, 47 - Victor's sickness, 60 - Victor, 61 - monster, 62 - monster, 63 - Victor, 65 - Victor, 70 - Victor's sleep, 71 - Victor, 73 - Victor, 77 - monster and Victor, 83 - monster, 85 - Victor, 87 - Victor, 90 - describes Victor, 92 - Victor, 94 - Victor, 98 - Victor, 104 - monster of himself, 112 - monster of himself, 113 - monster of himself, 124 - monster, 136 - Victor, 147 - monster, 148 - monster, 165 - Victor of himself, 182 - monster of Victor, etc.
Clearly, there is lots of interaction between the use of the word wretch to describe both themselves as well as each other. This also expresses the relationship between parent and child, as the monster begins to use the same language, called mirroring. For example, they exchange the words in close proximity of the words. After the monster kills Elizabeth the monster says, "I am satisfied, miserable wretch! You have determined to live, and I am satisfied." which shows the interchangeability of the word as description as well as perhaps, the character as well. This also reveals the deliberateness of the words as well as the possibility that Victor is creating his own wretchedness in his search for greatness at something.
Typically we want to blame Victor for not thinking about Elizabeth, but really the depths of his love do not overcome his need to be the "one" "greatest" something. Perhaps is it part of his belief that they could hurt him too much if he is invested in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
