So the semester is almost over so I'd like to use this blog post to post some of my final thoughts about the books that we read. To my surprise, I actually liked all of the books that we read, although to different levels of like.
1. The Mezzanine
The Mezzanine was definitely not what I was expecting to read in the class first. It was right after summer break and school was just beginning. The Mezzanine was also rather boring to read at first and it became more of a chore, especially after I saw the extremely long footnotes. It was the discussions in class that saved me. With all the interesting points that people were making about the novel, it was difficult not to get into the story. Beneath the seemingly everyday life that is portrayed in the novel lies tons of interesting details and tidbits that all tie back to his thoughts.
2. Mrs. Dalloway
I found that Mrs. Dalloway was a good book to transition to right after the Mezzanine. One of the recurring features of all the novels that we have read is that they seem simple or straightforward in the beginning but often become much more complex beneath. I really liked the dynamic between Clarissa and Septimus, how they are completely different people and yet share many of the same struggles that Clarissa has. It's very ironic that Septimus is unable to control his emotions from coming out while Clarissa is unable to express herself. The fact that the whole novel took place in a single day is astonishing. What is even more exciting is how Woolf manages to seamlessly weave all of the characters into one narrative without having the story seem awkward or disconnected.
3. The Sun Also Rises
I think that this book was the one that exceeded all expectations. This was the first book by Hemingway that I have read and I wasn't disappointed. Hemingway is so masterful in his use of the subtext and manages to convey a novel that is filled with details and richness with a minimal amount of pages. It was especially great for conversation because of the open statements that Hemingway leaves for the readers to interpret leading to occasional heated debates between opposing sides.
4. The Stranger
The novels just keep getting better and better. The Stranger was probably the novel that I had the most fun reading. This was also the time that we had our first open discussion. It was difficult for me at first to pick up on whether or not Meursault was as he is portrayed, apathetic at best. To read this book right after The Sun Also Rises led to me trying to pick through the minimal amount of details to attempt to portray Meursault in a better light.
5. Wide Sargasso Sea
Wide Sargasso Sea ties with The Stranger and The Sun Also Rises as the top novels of the semester. I've never read Jane Eyre but reading Wide Sargasso Sea will definitely change my opinion of Bertha if I do read it. Reading the back story is always interesting and portraying to story from both Antoinette and Rochester leaves the readers at a standoff of whether to support Rochester or Antoinette.
6. Song of Solomon
Reading this book is....weird. I'm really not sure how else to describe it. Perhaps it is the names or the scenes that Toni Morrison describes but it is a big change from Wide Sargasso Sea, which I found to be more tame and emotional. Nevertheless, Toni Morrison does a wonderful job telling the stories of all the characters in a compelling and interesting way that just draws the readers in.
\Overall, this was a very interesting semester. I'm kind of sad that it is ending because all of the books and discussion have been really beneficial and interesting to me. I think the best part about reading these books is that you can continue to read them over and over and just pick up on new details that weren't there before. Anyways, this was a fun semester and good luck on finals!
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Milkman and the Similarities to Daedalus
One of the topics that was brought up in class on Tuesday was the fact that Milkman doesn't seem to be a very interesting main character because there doesn't seem to be a clear development as the novel progresses. There isn't really a sense of time going on the story. Although this is partially because Toni
Morrison likes to jump around to different moments in the characters' lives, I was really shocked at the gap in Milkman's life when we suddenly found out that he was in his thirties. His behavior when he was a teenager compared to when he is thirty seems very similar. Also, Toni Morrison seems to focus more on other characters, giving long and very detailed stories about them while Milkman listens. To me, this was confusing at first because Milkman should be the main character but Toni Morrison doesn't go into his perspective at all. Milkman just seems to reject the explanations and the stories behind his life and his family. For a while, it was difficult for me to be sympathetic towards Milkman. He prided himself on not being like his father and yet he shares similar characteristic; he loves money and his attitude towards the women around him is similar to his father's. For these reasons, I find it very difficult to understand why Milkman is the main protagonist in the novel.
However, as part 1 ends, I find myself believing that Milkman will change by the end of the book. Part of the reason is because it wouldn't make sense to make Milkman the main protagonist otherwise since he doesn't carry any of the qualities of a protagonist that we have seen in previous books in the semester. My main motivation for why he will change goes back to the very first chapter of the book. If you remember, the novel opens up with the death of Robert Smith, the insurance agent who believed he could fly. In the first chapter we also get a section where it is described that Milkman "lost all interest in himself. To have to live without that single gift saddened him and left his imagination so bereft that he appeared dull even to the women who did not hate his mother" (9). This was because he found out that only birds and planes could fly. The notion of flying appeared many more times in the book, from the winged woman that Milkman sees while he is in the car to the plane ticket that Milkman would buy if he was in a dangerous situation. These didn't really seem to connect to the story at first, especially the first seen when the insurance agent died. As the novel progresses however, slowly everything begins to fall in place. Milkman despises the situation that he is in. He mentions several times throughout the novel that he is surrounded by abnormal people and how he wishes that his family was normal. His main reason to steal the gold from Pilate is to escape from his family and live on his own. He wants to "fly" out of his situation. To make a connection to Robert Smith and Milkman, the first instance of the flying contraption that Robert Smith used was the myth of Daedalus. For those who aren't familiar with it, the story of Daedalus is a Greek myth where he fashioned pairs of wings for him and his son Icarus so that they could escape from the tower/prison that King Minos kept him in. This bears many similarities to Milkman's situation where King Minos is Macon Dead and Daedalus is Milkman, who is trying to escape from his prison. It seems by the end of Part 1 that he does leave as he shuts the door after the lecture by Lena. What will be interesting to read about is what happens after. In the myth of Daedalus, his son Icarus died because he became too cocky. Perhaps Milkman is more easily related to Icarus.
However, as part 1 ends, I find myself believing that Milkman will change by the end of the book. Part of the reason is because it wouldn't make sense to make Milkman the main protagonist otherwise since he doesn't carry any of the qualities of a protagonist that we have seen in previous books in the semester. My main motivation for why he will change goes back to the very first chapter of the book. If you remember, the novel opens up with the death of Robert Smith, the insurance agent who believed he could fly. In the first chapter we also get a section where it is described that Milkman "lost all interest in himself. To have to live without that single gift saddened him and left his imagination so bereft that he appeared dull even to the women who did not hate his mother" (9). This was because he found out that only birds and planes could fly. The notion of flying appeared many more times in the book, from the winged woman that Milkman sees while he is in the car to the plane ticket that Milkman would buy if he was in a dangerous situation. These didn't really seem to connect to the story at first, especially the first seen when the insurance agent died. As the novel progresses however, slowly everything begins to fall in place. Milkman despises the situation that he is in. He mentions several times throughout the novel that he is surrounded by abnormal people and how he wishes that his family was normal. His main reason to steal the gold from Pilate is to escape from his family and live on his own. He wants to "fly" out of his situation. To make a connection to Robert Smith and Milkman, the first instance of the flying contraption that Robert Smith used was the myth of Daedalus. For those who aren't familiar with it, the story of Daedalus is a Greek myth where he fashioned pairs of wings for him and his son Icarus so that they could escape from the tower/prison that King Minos kept him in. This bears many similarities to Milkman's situation where King Minos is Macon Dead and Daedalus is Milkman, who is trying to escape from his prison. It seems by the end of Part 1 that he does leave as he shuts the door after the lecture by Lena. What will be interesting to read about is what happens after. In the myth of Daedalus, his son Icarus died because he became too cocky. Perhaps Milkman is more easily related to Icarus.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Zombi culture in "The Wide Sargasso Sea"
I'm not sure about other people, but for me, I was really confused about what was the "zombi" that we see show up multiple times in the novel. For one, the spelling threw me off as usually, "zombi" is spelled as "zombie". However, there also seems to be some cultural differences between the zombi that the novel refers to and the zombie that we think about today. To the islanders, a zombi is much more than a walking corpse that eats people as depicted with the image on the side. In a book The Glittering Coronet of Isles that Rochester was reading, it describes the zombi as a "spirit of a place, usually malignant but sometimes to be propitiated with sacrifices or offerings of flowers and fruit" (107). In this sense, a zombi seems more like deity and it makes sense why the islanders would be afraid of Christophine since she was rumored to be able to control these beings.
Reading about zombi gave me a sense of deja-vu. Some time ago, I read the book called The Serpent and the Rainbow, which some of you might have heard of. The author Wade Davis goes to Haiti to discover the secrets behind the zombies that the Haitians were talking about. At first, the book was rather shocking. Zombies were always just part of my imagination before, about as real as vampires and werewolves. Apparently however, the Haitians were able to create a death-like state by applying various medicinal powders onto the wound. The person would re-awaken into a psychotic state that would resemble a zombie. The person could also be more easily controlled because they "knew" they were dead. This all sounds kind of absurd to me, but it's interesting to find out that the zombi that the novel refers to has such an unique back story.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Trial of Meursault
Haven't done a blog post in a while, but hopefully this one will be interesting to make up for it. I was going through The Stranger again, looking for information for my response paper, and I was quite intrigued by the trial that basically took up half of the novel. I found the whole trial very ironic. Meursault, who we know throughout the book as indifferent and rather silent, is now denied the chance to speak in court when he actually wants to speak. When he does get to speak, he fumbles his words and says that it was because of the sun, causing the audience to laugh at him. It is moments like these that really make me sympathize with Meursault. I love what Camus has done in The Stranger. He manages to present Meursault, who was clearly guilty killing the Arab, in such a way that the readers are able to connect and empathize with Meursault.
Going back to the trial, I found the whole event rather preposterous. We mentioned this in class too, but none of the lawyers seem to tell the right story of Meursault. From an outsider's perspective, the prosecutor does portray him with quite a lot of accuracy. It isn't too hard to understand where the prosecutor is getting his information and yet Meursault's lawyer also provides evidence that is kind of correct and yet doesn't present and accurate picture of Meursault. During this whole time, Meursault has been meaning to speak but can't because his lawyer doesn't want him to. This frustrates me even more because not only does Meursault want to speak but can't, but his explanation for what happened sound pretty ridiculous anyways.
Camus's portrayal of the court of law doesn't really reassure me of the system that humans have created. The idea that truth will come to light and prevail in court doesn't appear in The Stranger and our system is criticized instead. The movie that we watched, The Man Who Wasn't There, also had a similar portrayal of our court of law.
SPOILER ALERT
Freddy Riedenschnieter (best I could do) chose which story would stick the best in order to try to prove that Doris was innocent. In the end, he ended up giving this rather confusing and ridiculous explanation that didn't have anything to do with Doris. This movie complemented the image that Camus was depicting, that the court system is flawed since the court authorities try to make up their own story that goes along best with the evidence, even if the story is false.
On a side note, I recently started to Suits which, along with most TV shows, separate the characters from good and bad pretty quickly. I've always wondered about the back stories behind villains and The Stranger is definitely helping increase my curiosity.
Going back to the trial, I found the whole event rather preposterous. We mentioned this in class too, but none of the lawyers seem to tell the right story of Meursault. From an outsider's perspective, the prosecutor does portray him with quite a lot of accuracy. It isn't too hard to understand where the prosecutor is getting his information and yet Meursault's lawyer also provides evidence that is kind of correct and yet doesn't present and accurate picture of Meursault. During this whole time, Meursault has been meaning to speak but can't because his lawyer doesn't want him to. This frustrates me even more because not only does Meursault want to speak but can't, but his explanation for what happened sound pretty ridiculous anyways.
Camus's portrayal of the court of law doesn't really reassure me of the system that humans have created. The idea that truth will come to light and prevail in court doesn't appear in The Stranger and our system is criticized instead. The movie that we watched, The Man Who Wasn't There, also had a similar portrayal of our court of law.
SPOILER ALERT
Freddy Riedenschnieter (best I could do) chose which story would stick the best in order to try to prove that Doris was innocent. In the end, he ended up giving this rather confusing and ridiculous explanation that didn't have anything to do with Doris. This movie complemented the image that Camus was depicting, that the court system is flawed since the court authorities try to make up their own story that goes along best with the evidence, even if the story is false.
On a side note, I recently started to Suits which, along with most TV shows, separate the characters from good and bad pretty quickly. I've always wondered about the back stories behind villains and The Stranger is definitely helping increase my curiosity.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
If Gregor was a dog
One of the things that we mentioned in class today was why Kafka chose a bug instead of some other animal and what would happen if Gregor was an animal like a dog.
The thought of a Gregor as a dog was a really entertaining idea. It made me think of Clifford, the big red dog, one of my favorite TV shows when I was younger. I can just imagine Greta sitting on Gregor, trying to play with him or Gregor trying to push himself out of his room. If Gregor was turned into a dog instead of a cockroach/beetle/bug, I feel like the reaction from his family would be a lot different. Dogs have a lot of benefits for the humans that live with them because apparently, studies have shown that dogs can decrease stress and depression. Dogs also tend to be louder and more noticeable (a giant cockroach is still pretty noticeable) and harder to neglect. This would also be one of the reasons that Gregor as a dog might cause more trouble for the family because a dog is harder to take care of.
I think one of the reasons that Kafka transformed Gregor into a cockroach was because of the association that we have with bugs. Generally, bugs, especially cockroaches, are associated with unclean conditions. Another reason would be because of the behavior of bugs. Bugs tend to scurry around and hide and dark places, trying to stay out of notice. Gregor's personality before he became an insect would reflect more of a bug than a dog. I think that a dog is able to convey it's feelings better than an insect and so they plot of the story would change a lot more if Gregor was a dog.
The thought of a Gregor as a dog was a really entertaining idea. It made me think of Clifford, the big red dog, one of my favorite TV shows when I was younger. I can just imagine Greta sitting on Gregor, trying to play with him or Gregor trying to push himself out of his room. If Gregor was turned into a dog instead of a cockroach/beetle/bug, I feel like the reaction from his family would be a lot different. Dogs have a lot of benefits for the humans that live with them because apparently, studies have shown that dogs can decrease stress and depression. Dogs also tend to be louder and more noticeable (a giant cockroach is still pretty noticeable) and harder to neglect. This would also be one of the reasons that Gregor as a dog might cause more trouble for the family because a dog is harder to take care of.
I think one of the reasons that Kafka transformed Gregor into a cockroach was because of the association that we have with bugs. Generally, bugs, especially cockroaches, are associated with unclean conditions. Another reason would be because of the behavior of bugs. Bugs tend to scurry around and hide and dark places, trying to stay out of notice. Gregor's personality before he became an insect would reflect more of a bug than a dog. I think that a dog is able to convey it's feelings better than an insect and so they plot of the story would change a lot more if Gregor was a dog.
Love in the Sun Also Rises
One of the details that I wanted to focus on in The Sun Also Rises is how Hemingway depicts love in the novel. The main reason that Brett could not be with Jake was because of his physical faults despite the fact that they both love each other very much. Hemingway seems to view love as a physical relationship. Hemingway's depiction of love mirrors Sigmund Freud's interpretation of love, radically different from Plato's view.
Plato separates love into two different forms. The first kind of love is the "Vulgar Eros" or earthly love. The other kind is the "Divine Eros" or divine love. Divine love is also known as platonic love. Vulgar Eros is physical attraction towards an attractive body for pleasure while Divine Eros may start out as a physical attraction but gradually transcends it to become a supreme love that is non-sexual, a meeting of minds.
Freud's interpretation of Eros is that it is strictly the sexual component. This seems to fit with The Sun Also Rises the best because Brett engages in many different relationships throughout the book. One of the most interesting points that I noticed Freud mention was something called the Oedipus complex after Oedipus Rex who was in love with his mother. Surprisingly, this actually relates to The Sun Also Rises. One of the things I noticed from writing the Hemingway essay along with reading some interpretations online is that Brett occasionally acts as a motherly figure (ignore the partying and drinking). For instance, when they were in Spain and Mike was drunk and causing trouble, Brett acted as the intermediary. We also know that she was a nurse in the war and a nurse is a very motherly like figure. So if Brett is the mother like figure, that would partially explain the reason that so many men are in love with Brett or at least where Hemingway got the idea for this love story from.
In my opinion, I find this theory kind of far-fetched. Though Brett does exhibit some motherly-like characteristics, we also know that there is a side to her that isn't really parent-like, her habits of partying and hooking up with other men. I'm not really sure where Freud got this idea of all men are in love with their mothers but I can definitely see where some of Hemingway's influences might have come from.
Plato separates love into two different forms. The first kind of love is the "Vulgar Eros" or earthly love. The other kind is the "Divine Eros" or divine love. Divine love is also known as platonic love. Vulgar Eros is physical attraction towards an attractive body for pleasure while Divine Eros may start out as a physical attraction but gradually transcends it to become a supreme love that is non-sexual, a meeting of minds.
Freud's interpretation of Eros is that it is strictly the sexual component. This seems to fit with The Sun Also Rises the best because Brett engages in many different relationships throughout the book. One of the most interesting points that I noticed Freud mention was something called the Oedipus complex after Oedipus Rex who was in love with his mother. Surprisingly, this actually relates to The Sun Also Rises. One of the things I noticed from writing the Hemingway essay along with reading some interpretations online is that Brett occasionally acts as a motherly figure (ignore the partying and drinking). For instance, when they were in Spain and Mike was drunk and causing trouble, Brett acted as the intermediary. We also know that she was a nurse in the war and a nurse is a very motherly like figure. So if Brett is the mother like figure, that would partially explain the reason that so many men are in love with Brett or at least where Hemingway got the idea for this love story from.
In my opinion, I find this theory kind of far-fetched. Though Brett does exhibit some motherly-like characteristics, we also know that there is a side to her that isn't really parent-like, her habits of partying and hooking up with other men. I'm not really sure where Freud got this idea of all men are in love with their mothers but I can definitely see where some of Hemingway's influences might have come from.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Pamplona and Spain
I haven't written a post for a while, but I thought it would be great for it to be about the scenery and culture references in The Sun Also Rises.
One of the first most memorable passages that I remember would be the one that had the wineskin. The thought of Bill trying to drink the wine and dripping it over himself is pretty funny. It's kind of how I imagined the guy to the right felt, although minus the heart shaped glasses. The wineskin is also called a bota bag and it is made out of goat bladder (I imagine that would hold liquid really well) and then the insides are coated with tree sap to prevent liquid from leaking.
Then there's the bull fighting. One important distinction to make when talking about bullfighting is that Pamplona also has an event called bull running, also very famous. It's where they release a herd of bull into streets and people try to dodge and jump over the bulls to prove how brave they are. It's sounds dangerous but apparently only a few die and 200-300 people get injured. I would not want to be one of those guys underneath a bull. This is all part of a large 7 day festival called the Fiesta de San Fermin, like what we read in The Sun Also Rises.
The actual bullfighting takes place inside in a stadium. The seats are priced differently; the expensive seats are the ones that are in the shade and generally contains better behaved people. Bullfighting is divided into three different stages or "movements." The first stage is to allow the audience to appreciate the strength of the bulls. This would probably be the most famous scene where the bullfighters dodge using red capes to distract them. The second stage they try to stick darts into the bulls back. In the third stage they tire the bull by attempting to subdue it with a wooden sword and then they actually kill the bull with a steel sword. The audience can then reward the bullfighter with an ear or a tail if they are satisfied. Ignoring the more violent areas, I felt I could appreciate bullfighting more. Before, I saw bullfighting as crude and violent (some areas I still think are too violent). Perhaps after Hemingway's description of the bullfighters dodging the bulls with finesse I can understand it better. Calling the different stages "movements" also sounds more elegant, like a dance instead of a fight.
I got a lot of my information here: San Fermin Bullfighting
They even show you how to get tickets if you're interested in watching a live show.
One of the first most memorable passages that I remember would be the one that had the wineskin. The thought of Bill trying to drink the wine and dripping it over himself is pretty funny. It's kind of how I imagined the guy to the right felt, although minus the heart shaped glasses. The wineskin is also called a bota bag and it is made out of goat bladder (I imagine that would hold liquid really well) and then the insides are coated with tree sap to prevent liquid from leaking.
Then there's the bull fighting. One important distinction to make when talking about bullfighting is that Pamplona also has an event called bull running, also very famous. It's where they release a herd of bull into streets and people try to dodge and jump over the bulls to prove how brave they are. It's sounds dangerous but apparently only a few die and 200-300 people get injured. I would not want to be one of those guys underneath a bull. This is all part of a large 7 day festival called the Fiesta de San Fermin, like what we read in The Sun Also Rises.The actual bullfighting takes place inside in a stadium. The seats are priced differently; the expensive seats are the ones that are in the shade and generally contains better behaved people. Bullfighting is divided into three different stages or "movements." The first stage is to allow the audience to appreciate the strength of the bulls. This would probably be the most famous scene where the bullfighters dodge using red capes to distract them. The second stage they try to stick darts into the bulls back. In the third stage they tire the bull by attempting to subdue it with a wooden sword and then they actually kill the bull with a steel sword. The audience can then reward the bullfighter with an ear or a tail if they are satisfied. Ignoring the more violent areas, I felt I could appreciate bullfighting more. Before, I saw bullfighting as crude and violent (some areas I still think are too violent). Perhaps after Hemingway's description of the bullfighters dodging the bulls with finesse I can understand it better. Calling the different stages "movements" also sounds more elegant, like a dance instead of a fight.
I got a lot of my information here: San Fermin Bullfighting
They even show you how to get tickets if you're interested in watching a live show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)