So far I am finding Mrs. Dalloway difficult to get into. I am not enjoying Woolf's writing style yet; however, I am optimistic it will change. The concept I still find interesting but I am not sure if the chosen narrative style, not being entirely sure who it is that is speaking, is the most effective for her purpose.
As of now I am throughly intrigued by the extreme esteem and regard of this novel, as of yet it seems unwarranted. I really need to give it more time!
Additionally if the idea is a single day can tell you the whole life story of any single woman then so far it seems that women are fairly simple with stereotypical hopes, thoughts, and desires... and that seems sad. And, at least, from personal experience, untrue.
Until next time!
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Sleep Eternal or Power Naps
Suicide seems to be a hot topic in the drama world. Most of the famous playwrights deal heavily with suicide at one point or another in their body of work--makes one wonder if it is a hazard of the field. Maybe the playwrights themselves suffer greatly from depression; much art seems to come from the darkest places in the human mind.
In act III scene I, Hamlet is contemplating suicide. Trying to determine whether life is worth suffering through. He takes an argument antithetical to most peoples views on suicide. While most people believe it is a coward who cuts his life short, Hamlet believes it is a coward who fails to end his life because no man wishes to deal with the suffering accompanied by the flesh. Our fear of the dreams in our eternal sleep is what stops all men from committing suicide. However, the whole contemplation is fairly abstract with no commitments to life or death. Since Hamlet does not kill himself here, it is safe to say he resolves to continue living.
I find the concept of consciousness making cowards of all of us a terrifyingly narrow and harmful view of the world, but seemingly appropriate for such tragic figure.
In act III scene I, Hamlet is contemplating suicide. Trying to determine whether life is worth suffering through. He takes an argument antithetical to most peoples views on suicide. While most people believe it is a coward who cuts his life short, Hamlet believes it is a coward who fails to end his life because no man wishes to deal with the suffering accompanied by the flesh. Our fear of the dreams in our eternal sleep is what stops all men from committing suicide. However, the whole contemplation is fairly abstract with no commitments to life or death. Since Hamlet does not kill himself here, it is safe to say he resolves to continue living.
I find the concept of consciousness making cowards of all of us a terrifyingly narrow and harmful view of the world, but seemingly appropriate for such tragic figure.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
It's Sad, So Sad. Such a Sad Sad Situation.
The last question the book poses to ponder over is simple: does this play end in total gloom? And after thinking long and hard about it I am not totally confident in my conclusion. I probably would not have faced such a dilemma if it had not been for the last line in the blog Mr. Coon posted An Introduction to Tragedy, “I believe the writers who get the most lasting response from readers are the writers who offer a happy ending through moral development. By a happy ending, I do not mean mere fortunate events—a marriage or last-minute rescue from death—but some kind of spiritual reassessment or moral reconciliation, even with the self, even at death.”
That line confused me. If this novelist Fay Weldon is indeed speaking of tragedies, does that mean Oedipus had a happy ending? I mean I honestly am unable to find that happy ending if it exists in this play. What is the moral development in this show? It is hard to see a case for or against it!
There is a story arch, albeit from the top down--a story decline so to speak--but in searching for character arch I struggle. When you really look at it, the characters are flat. Iocaste has a moment of intense realization which leads directly to suicide, does that constitute as moral growth… furthermore does that constitute as the makings of a happy endings. I understand that in some cultures in some situations suicide is the right decision morally to avoid disgrace but ancient Greece was not one of those societies. Iocaste’s decision to end her life was not a moral reconciliation by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, while poetically and grotesquely beautiful and symbolic, what reassessment does Oedipus undergo when he gouges his own eyes out with his wife/mother’s dress pins. Sure, the symbolism is overwhelming. Some twisted form of poetic justice but what is he reconciling by blinding himself. One could argue that by physically blinding himself he is reconciling his prior blindness in life but what growth is in that? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth--all we end up with is a ton of blind people unable to chew their own food. So now he goes into exile to repent for a sin he had no apparent control over? I don’t feel better about myself and I all learned is don’t waste your money on a soothsayer.
If a tragedy is supposed to provide you with some sort of moral lesson, spiritual actualization, I don’t see it in “Oedipus Rex,” so is this play still a tragedy? As far as the last question in the book is concerned all I see is gloom, at least as far as the title character is concerned. Not even Creon gets what he wants in the end! Maybe gloom isn’t the right word. The gloom seems to be gone by the time the play ends; however the infinite misery is playing full speed ahead. So regardless of what it means to be a tragedy, I’d say its safe to say the play ends with a sad song playing at full volume. (528)
That line confused me. If this novelist Fay Weldon is indeed speaking of tragedies, does that mean Oedipus had a happy ending? I mean I honestly am unable to find that happy ending if it exists in this play. What is the moral development in this show? It is hard to see a case for or against it!
There is a story arch, albeit from the top down--a story decline so to speak--but in searching for character arch I struggle. When you really look at it, the characters are flat. Iocaste has a moment of intense realization which leads directly to suicide, does that constitute as moral growth… furthermore does that constitute as the makings of a happy endings. I understand that in some cultures in some situations suicide is the right decision morally to avoid disgrace but ancient Greece was not one of those societies. Iocaste’s decision to end her life was not a moral reconciliation by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, while poetically and grotesquely beautiful and symbolic, what reassessment does Oedipus undergo when he gouges his own eyes out with his wife/mother’s dress pins. Sure, the symbolism is overwhelming. Some twisted form of poetic justice but what is he reconciling by blinding himself. One could argue that by physically blinding himself he is reconciling his prior blindness in life but what growth is in that? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth--all we end up with is a ton of blind people unable to chew their own food. So now he goes into exile to repent for a sin he had no apparent control over? I don’t feel better about myself and I all learned is don’t waste your money on a soothsayer.
If a tragedy is supposed to provide you with some sort of moral lesson, spiritual actualization, I don’t see it in “Oedipus Rex,” so is this play still a tragedy? As far as the last question in the book is concerned all I see is gloom, at least as far as the title character is concerned. Not even Creon gets what he wants in the end! Maybe gloom isn’t the right word. The gloom seems to be gone by the time the play ends; however the infinite misery is playing full speed ahead. So regardless of what it means to be a tragedy, I’d say its safe to say the play ends with a sad song playing at full volume. (528)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Our time has come
Our time has come. There are only so many things I can say. It came a while ago. So please leave me alone. We can continue to dwell on the past but it will get us nowhere. I can no longer deal with the push and pull, the constant torment. We are done.
No I cannot kiss you again! Since there is no help, what kind of a lie is that? Even if there is no help, did you even try? The only way to know if there is no help is if you try. What is life if you don’t try?
See that was always the problem, you are so wishy washy, so easily discouraged. Trust me I don’t want any more of you. I have had too much, more than any one person can stand. Please keep those vulgar lips at a distance.
Those sound like the confident utterances of a joyful man. Don’t insult me though, to pretend like not even a part of your heart is aching is not only cruel, it is wholly impossible to believe.
Why are you lying to yourself, you are the one who dragged me out here anyway. So cleanly… you call this clean? Who do you think you are fooling?
Which vows? The quite nothings you whispered in my ear, those same words all couples say to one another. We never married; you never set any promises in stone, what are these vows you speak of? The generic vows of all couples were slowly shattered as our relationship progressed.
When? Try IF we ever meet again, do not expect me—after all of this—to continue showing up in your life! Even if we find ourselves standing next to one another, I will be invisible to you, and you to me.
(by now haven't we both had enough?)
Ha, you were concerned that we would struggle to hold back our past feelings? Don’t fret it shall be no problem! I never want anyone to be able to detect even the slightest hints of the most basic friendship between us. Our brows will be as creaseless as they come.
He had to stop breathing sooner or later, join the rest of us who are all slowly dying. We both shall soon follow.
Death of a relationship is enough to make anyone speechless, anyone but you that is.
I have had enough now! If only you would let it go.
Seriously? Have you not put me through enough pain already, please? I understand, but I must now open my eyes. The dark is only tolerable for so long.
Must you really ask more of me, now, after all is said and done? I was doing fine until you forced to me relive this. Can you please leave me be, let me recover?
Me? After all this exquisite pain, you want me to do you a favor?
Are you trying to torture me, how will I ever move forward now?
(495)
No I cannot kiss you again! Since there is no help, what kind of a lie is that? Even if there is no help, did you even try? The only way to know if there is no help is if you try. What is life if you don’t try?
See that was always the problem, you are so wishy washy, so easily discouraged. Trust me I don’t want any more of you. I have had too much, more than any one person can stand. Please keep those vulgar lips at a distance.
Those sound like the confident utterances of a joyful man. Don’t insult me though, to pretend like not even a part of your heart is aching is not only cruel, it is wholly impossible to believe.
Why are you lying to yourself, you are the one who dragged me out here anyway. So cleanly… you call this clean? Who do you think you are fooling?
Which vows? The quite nothings you whispered in my ear, those same words all couples say to one another. We never married; you never set any promises in stone, what are these vows you speak of? The generic vows of all couples were slowly shattered as our relationship progressed.
When? Try IF we ever meet again, do not expect me—after all of this—to continue showing up in your life! Even if we find ourselves standing next to one another, I will be invisible to you, and you to me.
(by now haven't we both had enough?)
Ha, you were concerned that we would struggle to hold back our past feelings? Don’t fret it shall be no problem! I never want anyone to be able to detect even the slightest hints of the most basic friendship between us. Our brows will be as creaseless as they come.
He had to stop breathing sooner or later, join the rest of us who are all slowly dying. We both shall soon follow.
Death of a relationship is enough to make anyone speechless, anyone but you that is.
I have had enough now! If only you would let it go.
Seriously? Have you not put me through enough pain already, please? I understand, but I must now open my eyes. The dark is only tolerable for so long.
Must you really ask more of me, now, after all is said and done? I was doing fine until you forced to me relive this. Can you please leave me be, let me recover?
Me? After all this exquisite pain, you want me to do you a favor?
Are you trying to torture me, how will I ever move forward now?
(495)
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Literally "Going Wrong"
I personally feel that if one is to connect two characters, one from Heart of Darkness, the other from Waiting for the Barbarians, they are Mr. Kurtz and Colonel Joll. First and foremost, these two characters occupy the same role in each story; they are antagonistic and still have many parallels to the title character, Marlow and the Magistrate respectively.
Most people would probably draw the connection to Mr. Kurtz and the Magistrate (as well as the Colonel, a sort of reflection of the Magistrate) as Douglas Kerr does in “Three Ways of Going Wrong: Kipling, Conrad, Coetzee.” However just because these are the characters to “go native” does not mean they are both the characters to go wrong. Yet, it is not simply a story of going right versus wrong, cut black and white, across a clear line, in either case. Simply, I disagree with the manner Kerr presents his idea because it puts so much of an emphasis on going native that is wrong; however, presented in both texts, in one case going partially native is what is so wrong and in the other refusing to even pretend to go native was the mistake.
As far as Waiting for the Barbarians is concerned, while we see that the Magistrate is a confused and imperfect being, we do not view him so much as “going wrong” as much just having been wrong. On the other hand, it is easy to see the Colonel as “going wrong.” He refuses to accept the help presented and out of ignorance and misguided or just plain bad values and literally goes wrong with the choices he makes. We watch him torture and kill innocent (or at least helpless) outsiders and lead an army into a dangerous situation for reasons clearly other than those fabricated.
Similarly Kurtz literally “goes wrong” as well. Granted, here Kurtz does go native, it is the retention of his European values and desires (greed, fame) that lead him to his “going wrong” and eventual demise. He accepts native culture in a way mirror to the way the Colonel refuses it. The Colonel won’t accept and makes foolish decisions in the absence of it. Kurtz accepts it but make foolish decisions (different to the Magistrates) in its presence.
While the Magistrate was no saint and did not necessarily go right. He grew from his original wrongness while Kurtz and the Colonel continue to go wrong until both destroy themselves in one way or another. (414)
Most people would probably draw the connection to Mr. Kurtz and the Magistrate (as well as the Colonel, a sort of reflection of the Magistrate) as Douglas Kerr does in “Three Ways of Going Wrong: Kipling, Conrad, Coetzee.” However just because these are the characters to “go native” does not mean they are both the characters to go wrong. Yet, it is not simply a story of going right versus wrong, cut black and white, across a clear line, in either case. Simply, I disagree with the manner Kerr presents his idea because it puts so much of an emphasis on going native that is wrong; however, presented in both texts, in one case going partially native is what is so wrong and in the other refusing to even pretend to go native was the mistake.
As far as Waiting for the Barbarians is concerned, while we see that the Magistrate is a confused and imperfect being, we do not view him so much as “going wrong” as much just having been wrong. On the other hand, it is easy to see the Colonel as “going wrong.” He refuses to accept the help presented and out of ignorance and misguided or just plain bad values and literally goes wrong with the choices he makes. We watch him torture and kill innocent (or at least helpless) outsiders and lead an army into a dangerous situation for reasons clearly other than those fabricated.
Similarly Kurtz literally “goes wrong” as well. Granted, here Kurtz does go native, it is the retention of his European values and desires (greed, fame) that lead him to his “going wrong” and eventual demise. He accepts native culture in a way mirror to the way the Colonel refuses it. The Colonel won’t accept and makes foolish decisions in the absence of it. Kurtz accepts it but make foolish decisions (different to the Magistrates) in its presence.
While the Magistrate was no saint and did not necessarily go right. He grew from his original wrongness while Kurtz and the Colonel continue to go wrong until both destroy themselves in one way or another. (414)
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Opening Thoughts on Waiting for the Barbarians
As far as an initial reaction is concerned, what an interesting opening sentence, right from the get go I was curious to keep reading. “I have never seen anything like it: two little discs of glass suspended in front of his eyes in loops of wire” sets up a comprehendible yet foreign background, and a clear narrative point of view. The narrator captures quite a bit in twenty-two words strung together so elegantly.
The magistrate heavily describes the appearance and attitude of an outsider from the inner parts of the empire with great detail for the first few pages. Which makes one wonder what the intention is and what the effects are of starting the book with someone (something as we will later grow to view him) who is not representative of the narrator or the setting for the novel. Yet as the story progresses seems to clearly show the past and current situations of the compound and the magistrate as succinctly as possible.
Stylistically, I think it was smart to begin the novel with so much conjecture. “The capital,” “home,” and then several more pages until either become associated with the place at large, “the empire.” On top of all of this, there is the gossip as well; first the gossip that Coronal Joll’s bureau is the most important. The conjecture sets up the lens the author wishes us to view the novel through. On of skepticism and questioning, so that we the audience will, like the main character the magistrate, use an inquisitive frame of mind when reading this novel and most likely see parallels he is trying to draw to any number of places and ideas.
The style in which the beginning is writing is one that essentially begs the reader to search for one’s own interpretation of the goings on in the novel, and my associative properties, in ones own world.
(315)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Don't You Hate Titles That Have Nothing To Do With The Content?
Quick summary of Ian Watt's "Impressionism and Symbolism in Heart of Darkness."
Watt spends almost no time discussing his thesis/title; he also fails to answer the questions and propositions he introduces. He spends most of the article talking about other people and other stories which will not help you understand impressionism or symbolism in Heart of Darkness; so I am going to sum up the sparse details that pertain to these ideas here.
Marlow has a very special kind of story telling invoking two distinctive qualities, roughly categorized as symbolist and impressionist.
Impressionism
Mist or haze is a good example of impressionism.
Conrad was called an "impressionistic realist" long before impressionism was widely discussed.
Conrad was known to speak against specifically being an impressionist despite now being categorized as one.
Heart of Darkness essentially impressionist in one "special and yet general way," it accepts and asserts the enigmatic nature of individual understanding. Marlow explores how ones own knowledge of another can change the way he sees the world as a whole mysteriously.
In narration, Conrad captures how humans perceive something immediately but then takes time to figure out what it means. Watts calls this delayed decoding and believes it assists the impressionist nature of Heart of Darkness.
Symbolism
Fundamental intellectual mode of symbolism is religion and imagination.
Conrad, though writing about his disconnect with the French Symbolist he also exposed major commonality in between his and their basic attitudes. They can be split into two major categories: ontological (relating to the essence and nature of being) and expressive (vision beyond the work's overt statements).
Conrad asserted that he wrote straight from the heart in an attempt to give a true impression. He wanted to "connect the small world of a ship with the larger world carrying perplexities, affections, rebellions." (360 cited from David R. Smith)
"Conrad is in general accord with the symbolist ontology; as regards to expressive technique the parallels are somewhat closer." 361
"If Conrad belongs to the symbolist tradition, it is only in a limited, eclectic and highly idiosyncratic way." 363
Heart of Darkness however typifies in many respects French Symbolist tendencies. Its plot represents a symbolic quest towards darkness in many different ways. Wants to represent "the infinite in the finite"
(375)
Watt spends almost no time discussing his thesis/title; he also fails to answer the questions and propositions he introduces. He spends most of the article talking about other people and other stories which will not help you understand impressionism or symbolism in Heart of Darkness; so I am going to sum up the sparse details that pertain to these ideas here.
Marlow has a very special kind of story telling invoking two distinctive qualities, roughly categorized as symbolist and impressionist.
Impressionism
Mist or haze is a good example of impressionism.
Conrad was called an "impressionistic realist" long before impressionism was widely discussed.
Conrad was known to speak against specifically being an impressionist despite now being categorized as one.
Heart of Darkness essentially impressionist in one "special and yet general way," it accepts and asserts the enigmatic nature of individual understanding. Marlow explores how ones own knowledge of another can change the way he sees the world as a whole mysteriously.
In narration, Conrad captures how humans perceive something immediately but then takes time to figure out what it means. Watts calls this delayed decoding and believes it assists the impressionist nature of Heart of Darkness.
Symbolism
Fundamental intellectual mode of symbolism is religion and imagination.
Conrad, though writing about his disconnect with the French Symbolist he also exposed major commonality in between his and their basic attitudes. They can be split into two major categories: ontological (relating to the essence and nature of being) and expressive (vision beyond the work's overt statements).
Conrad asserted that he wrote straight from the heart in an attempt to give a true impression. He wanted to "connect the small world of a ship with the larger world carrying perplexities, affections, rebellions." (360 cited from David R. Smith)
"Conrad is in general accord with the symbolist ontology; as regards to expressive technique the parallels are somewhat closer." 361
"If Conrad belongs to the symbolist tradition, it is only in a limited, eclectic and highly idiosyncratic way." 363
Heart of Darkness however typifies in many respects French Symbolist tendencies. Its plot represents a symbolic quest towards darkness in many different ways. Wants to represent "the infinite in the finite"
(375)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
