So it's New Year's Eve Day, and this is not the time of year to be talking about solitude, but here is a little reflection about my essay.
In short: I think I have some good ideas but that the essay lacks some organization and coherence.
First, I apologize for its length; I didn't intend to write so much. But Marquez's signature is his Magical Realism, and there is more than enough material when you're talking about distortion of literary elements.
Second, I'd like to say one thing that I couldn't find a place for in my essay. This is kind of taken from the "Dialectic of Solitude" article. It's interesting how Marquez distorts the concept of solitude so that it doesn't actually deal with a sole person, but rather with an entire culture of solitude. I believe Marquez also discussed this in his Nobel Prize speech.
Third, I'd like to talk about my essay. It turned out (kinda) exploratory; I hope that's OK. I looked through my blog of 100YOS observations, and I started out with the idea about Marquez distorting the idea of death. Actually, I had my Melquíades paragraph first, but after reading the Lois Simpson article, decided to move it to being last; I thought that Colonel Buendía would provide a stronger introduction to the problem. So I used the distortion of death as a framework for the essay, every "section" begins with a different distortion of death. I worked under the premise that every point I would discuss, and every distortion is enhanced by his distortion of death. Maybe I should have emphasized that more in my intro; it is a little sparse I think -- more of a hook than anything else.
So, the first main section uses the distortion of death to introduce the notion of solitude. This is pretty straightforward. The inspiration for this was the Lois Simpson article about Death in 100YOS. I adapted some of her thoughts and expanded upon them, occasionally agreeing and occasionally disagreeing (though I don't say this outright). This made it easier for me to get into my essay.
The second idea seems to be more complex and more developed. I begin with Ursula being able to choose when she dies, and then branch off of this to encompass a greater distortion of archetypes in general. I begin to reach my main point at the end of this section.
The third idea is Melquíades'. Here I use the distortion of death to introduce one of the most important distortions: the distortion of time.
Finally, I conclude based on the final essay prompt, not the one I started with. Honestly, this paragraph fit better when I first conceived it, but I still think it's possibly clever and good. The point here was to talk about the distortions left in the reader's mind rather than the distortions that Marquez consciously injected into his novel. This was supposed to draw back the scope of the paper to make a larger comment on human nature and the human experience.
Oh yeah. I left this line out of the essay because I thought this draft was actually pretty legit, but this was my real point ... In this book, Marquez suggests a vision of the world in which the Buendías experienced One Hundred Years of Solitude.
Enjoy, and Happy New Years.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Some Lit X Quotes and Thoughts
I decided that instead of writing these down in a document somewhere I'd write them down in my blog, so...here's some random Quotes and thoughts.
Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon
-Excellent book, highly recommended
-Most of the valuable (lit x-wise) thoughts in this book were kinda implicit, but there were some pieces that I thought could be really helpful:
"Julián told me that a story is a letter the author writes himself, to tell himself things that he would be unable to discover otherwise."
"For some time now, Julián had been wondering whether he'd gone out of his mind. Does the madman know he is mad? Or are the madmen those who insist on convincing hiim of his unreason in order to safeguard their own idea of reality?" (444)
Having read Godel Escher Bach as my last Lit X book, I viewed this book examining it in a similar light. A central element to this book is a parallel between Julian and Daniel, separated by a generation, and joined by Julian's books (though the story is far more complex). Basically, Julian sees himself in Daniel, and Daniel sees himself in Julian's books. Also, Julian becomes a different person after a series of crazy events, but his old self is still contained in his old ficition novels, which someone (read to find out who) sets out to destroy. All this drew up another question for me: What kind of "strange loop" is at work in an autobiography?
The first quote above also has to do with a system looking to itself from outside of itself. Godel Escher Bach presents 3 modes: the Mechanical, Intelligent, and Un-Mode where a system "turns itself off" in order to view itself. That's kinda like this. THis is the heart of godel's incompleteness theorem, which implies that no system, using its own rules and capabilities, can adequately describe itself. Not too difficultly, this notion of viewing yourself from outside of yourself leads into the second quote about madness and reality. This quote, in turn, leads into the mind-body problem, connecting a real physical state, madness, to its perception. Again, there is the dichotomy of reality vs. unreality. We have what is actually happening, perhaps sanity, and then what is perceived, perhaps madnesss. The paradox presented by this quote is very difficult to explain in words, but I trust that the reader can understand it by interpreting the quote for himself. It's late and my words aren't quite coming to me, but regardless you should be able to see the paradox of the two statements, and how they entail "strange loops" which lead to better, or at least more complete, understandings of a system.
Next: "Bea says that the art of reading is slowly dying, that it's an intimate ritual, that a book is a mirror that offers us only what we carry inside us, that when we read, we do it with all our ehart and mind, and great readers are becoming mroe scarce by the day." (484)
The important part: "A book is a mirror that offers us only what we carry inside us." Again, interesting to see how when different systems interact, they are limited to each other. This reminds me of something, perhaps unrelated. I saw a TedTalk yesterday about consciousness by Dennett, co-author of The Mind's I. An interesting 15-min introduction making the use of optical illusions to illustrate an interesting point on consciousness. TED.com, by the way, is a fantastic site. Kinda like an always relevant, intellectually stimulating youTube. But there's also some good comedy and music, etc. there. I recommend it, too. Here's the Dennett talk for those interested: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/102 But really do explore TED.com, for those who haven't yet discovered it.
I feel ready to go to bed; this seems adequate for tonight. Really do read The Shadow of the Wind, too. It's a really great book. I knocked it off in 3 days. I've made progress with Unbearable Lightness of Being (Kundera) and I've begun Invisible Cities (Calvino). The Kundera book is just chalk-full of philosophical quotes, and plenty of them that pertain to my lit-x paper. I'll need to decide on a more focused guiding question before picking and beginning to analyze them. Merry Christmas.
Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon
-Excellent book, highly recommended
-Most of the valuable (lit x-wise) thoughts in this book were kinda implicit, but there were some pieces that I thought could be really helpful:
"Julián told me that a story is a letter the author writes himself, to tell himself things that he would be unable to discover otherwise."
"For some time now, Julián had been wondering whether he'd gone out of his mind. Does the madman know he is mad? Or are the madmen those who insist on convincing hiim of his unreason in order to safeguard their own idea of reality?" (444)
Having read Godel Escher Bach as my last Lit X book, I viewed this book examining it in a similar light. A central element to this book is a parallel between Julian and Daniel, separated by a generation, and joined by Julian's books (though the story is far more complex). Basically, Julian sees himself in Daniel, and Daniel sees himself in Julian's books. Also, Julian becomes a different person after a series of crazy events, but his old self is still contained in his old ficition novels, which someone (read to find out who) sets out to destroy. All this drew up another question for me: What kind of "strange loop" is at work in an autobiography?
The first quote above also has to do with a system looking to itself from outside of itself. Godel Escher Bach presents 3 modes: the Mechanical, Intelligent, and Un-Mode where a system "turns itself off" in order to view itself. That's kinda like this. THis is the heart of godel's incompleteness theorem, which implies that no system, using its own rules and capabilities, can adequately describe itself. Not too difficultly, this notion of viewing yourself from outside of yourself leads into the second quote about madness and reality. This quote, in turn, leads into the mind-body problem, connecting a real physical state, madness, to its perception. Again, there is the dichotomy of reality vs. unreality. We have what is actually happening, perhaps sanity, and then what is perceived, perhaps madnesss. The paradox presented by this quote is very difficult to explain in words, but I trust that the reader can understand it by interpreting the quote for himself. It's late and my words aren't quite coming to me, but regardless you should be able to see the paradox of the two statements, and how they entail "strange loops" which lead to better, or at least more complete, understandings of a system.
Next: "Bea says that the art of reading is slowly dying, that it's an intimate ritual, that a book is a mirror that offers us only what we carry inside us, that when we read, we do it with all our ehart and mind, and great readers are becoming mroe scarce by the day." (484)
The important part: "A book is a mirror that offers us only what we carry inside us." Again, interesting to see how when different systems interact, they are limited to each other. This reminds me of something, perhaps unrelated. I saw a TedTalk yesterday about consciousness by Dennett, co-author of The Mind's I. An interesting 15-min introduction making the use of optical illusions to illustrate an interesting point on consciousness. TED.com, by the way, is a fantastic site. Kinda like an always relevant, intellectually stimulating youTube. But there's also some good comedy and music, etc. there. I recommend it, too. Here's the Dennett talk for those interested: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/102 But really do explore TED.com, for those who haven't yet discovered it.
I feel ready to go to bed; this seems adequate for tonight. Really do read The Shadow of the Wind, too. It's a really great book. I knocked it off in 3 days. I've made progress with Unbearable Lightness of Being (Kundera) and I've begun Invisible Cities (Calvino). The Kundera book is just chalk-full of philosophical quotes, and plenty of them that pertain to my lit-x paper. I'll need to decide on a more focused guiding question before picking and beginning to analyze them. Merry Christmas.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
On Solitude
First, I'd like to say that I did read the book and just didn't come to school at all today.
Second, I'd like to briefly present several ideas and themes that hit me as I read the book, since I couldn't participate in today's discussion. This could probably help a lot coming up with essay ideas. I loved the book, btw.
I'll just go down my list -- no particular order, just observations.
-It may just be the translation, but it seems that marquez's syntax is very interesting and unique. The most important part (content-wise) of all of his sentences is not the most important part grammatically. All the important stuff is added as a dependent clause.
-There is an insane amount of foreshadowing that drives me nuts. It probably can't even be called foreshadowing - it's more like he just states the future. I guess it happens from the first line with the firing squad.
-A very intriguing part of the book is the relationship between life and death, changing times and different generations. Marquez goes to great lengths to make the repetitive/cyclical nature of the book very obvious as well as the relationship between generations and the progression and regression to and from modernization. I was more fascinated, however, with certain character's interactions with the dead, and moreso even the nature of death. For instance, even after Melquíades is dead, he has not reached "ultimate death" until Aureliano figures out the translation. Further, Melquíades' death is viewed differently by different people (some people see him, some don't, some see his room all neat, some don't). And even further, Melquíades sees stuff from the dead and was able to make predictions about when he was dead back when he was alive. That probably doesn't make too much sense; I was talking about his predictions about the family story that he made all the way through the end of the family line.
-There also appears to be a common juxtaposition of traditionalism and progressiveism (i.e. Fernanda and Meme, older generation and younger generation, the incoming of the railroad, etc.). This compliments the conflict between liberalism and conservatism.
-The book is obviously about solitude (and 100 years of it), but it is actually just as much about love. More correctly, it is about the relationship between love and solitude. In my humble opinion, Marquez presents the theme that love leads to solitude. Kinda depressing, really.
-We have been looking at this book as an example of mythology, but it is also an example of meta-mythology (?), I believe. We see the creation of new myths within the book - especially, Pilar Ternera's stories, Colonel Buendia becomes a myth, the killing of the people from the factory becomes a myth. Beyond that, there are many direct and indirect references to the Judeo-Christian myths within 100YOS, a myth itself. For example, there's the Noah's Ark flood, the baby in a basket, Jonah and the Whale, perhaps the story of Lot and Macondo being turned to dust or sand or something like that. Then there's Ursula perhaps as a Christ figure rather than an Eve figure or a mother-figure. I really hadn't considered this at all until she died on Good Friday. The mention of Good Friday and Marquez's experiments with time are actually mildly reminiscent of Sound and Fury. But I like this book better.
-There seems to be a question as to whether solitude is good or bad. Actually, the question is probably more as to *when* solitude is good and when it's bad. Often it leads to insanity, but just as often it leads to inner peace.
-It's kind of ironic that for a while, it seemed like Marquez was most sympathetic to the concubine.
-I wish Marquez had made the pig's tale at the end more of a surprise, but I guess the fact that you knew it was gonna happen made it a little more exciting?
-If there's one thing I learned from this myth, it's DON'T COMMIT INCEST! (or, as the big mentioned, do stuff with animals, either)
-Actually, I forgot to mention the significance of the animals and their reproduction. There. Now I mentioned it.
See you tomorrow. Or actually Friday since tomorrow is the Senior Health thing.
Second, I'd like to briefly present several ideas and themes that hit me as I read the book, since I couldn't participate in today's discussion. This could probably help a lot coming up with essay ideas. I loved the book, btw.
I'll just go down my list -- no particular order, just observations.
-It may just be the translation, but it seems that marquez's syntax is very interesting and unique. The most important part (content-wise) of all of his sentences is not the most important part grammatically. All the important stuff is added as a dependent clause.
-There is an insane amount of foreshadowing that drives me nuts. It probably can't even be called foreshadowing - it's more like he just states the future. I guess it happens from the first line with the firing squad.
-A very intriguing part of the book is the relationship between life and death, changing times and different generations. Marquez goes to great lengths to make the repetitive/cyclical nature of the book very obvious as well as the relationship between generations and the progression and regression to and from modernization. I was more fascinated, however, with certain character's interactions with the dead, and moreso even the nature of death. For instance, even after Melquíades is dead, he has not reached "ultimate death" until Aureliano figures out the translation. Further, Melquíades' death is viewed differently by different people (some people see him, some don't, some see his room all neat, some don't). And even further, Melquíades sees stuff from the dead and was able to make predictions about when he was dead back when he was alive. That probably doesn't make too much sense; I was talking about his predictions about the family story that he made all the way through the end of the family line.
-There also appears to be a common juxtaposition of traditionalism and progressiveism (i.e. Fernanda and Meme, older generation and younger generation, the incoming of the railroad, etc.). This compliments the conflict between liberalism and conservatism.
-The book is obviously about solitude (and 100 years of it), but it is actually just as much about love. More correctly, it is about the relationship between love and solitude. In my humble opinion, Marquez presents the theme that love leads to solitude. Kinda depressing, really.
-We have been looking at this book as an example of mythology, but it is also an example of meta-mythology (?), I believe. We see the creation of new myths within the book - especially, Pilar Ternera's stories, Colonel Buendia becomes a myth, the killing of the people from the factory becomes a myth. Beyond that, there are many direct and indirect references to the Judeo-Christian myths within 100YOS, a myth itself. For example, there's the Noah's Ark flood, the baby in a basket, Jonah and the Whale, perhaps the story of Lot and Macondo being turned to dust or sand or something like that. Then there's Ursula perhaps as a Christ figure rather than an Eve figure or a mother-figure. I really hadn't considered this at all until she died on Good Friday. The mention of Good Friday and Marquez's experiments with time are actually mildly reminiscent of Sound and Fury. But I like this book better.
-There seems to be a question as to whether solitude is good or bad. Actually, the question is probably more as to *when* solitude is good and when it's bad. Often it leads to insanity, but just as often it leads to inner peace.
-It's kind of ironic that for a while, it seemed like Marquez was most sympathetic to the concubine.
-I wish Marquez had made the pig's tale at the end more of a surprise, but I guess the fact that you knew it was gonna happen made it a little more exciting?
-If there's one thing I learned from this myth, it's DON'T COMMIT INCEST! (or, as the big mentioned, do stuff with animals, either)
-Actually, I forgot to mention the significance of the animals and their reproduction. There. Now I mentioned it.
See you tomorrow. Or actually Friday since tomorrow is the Senior Health thing.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
1 (more or less) line blog...more to come tomorrow
So: 1. apparently there isn't really any incest in the Bible
2. I actually may be reading the first chapter of Genesis from the Torah in a few weeks.
3. I love this book but will be reading a TON of it in the next few days.
4. Uh...more tomorrow. G'night.
2. I actually may be reading the first chapter of Genesis from the Torah in a few weeks.
3. I love this book but will be reading a TON of it in the next few days.
4. Uh...more tomorrow. G'night.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
SAF Rewrite
I decided I should post this writing about writing, too. This is kinda old (about 5 days, I think), so if you're looking for newer stuff, scroll down to my next post.
I didn't think it would be difficult to write about time in The Sound and the Fury, but...it was.
This essay is a *complete* rewrite of the old one. I modeled this draft pretty much off of one comment: "You need to move or extend your discussion of time here to our personal relationship with time and how we use time to create our own meaning." So, the first thing I did was, using my favorite source, Wikipedia, to research time. Obviously, though, what I cover in my essay is far from the entire scope of ideas about time. I learned about the various different perspectives on time from the ideas famous mathematicians (i.e. Newton) and famous physicists (i.e. Einstein) and famous philosophers (i.e. Kant), and then examined the perspective of a particular famous author. This famous author, I noticed wrote The Sound and the Fury from four perspectives with very different views on time. I won't go into that here, however, you'll have to read the essay.
The different perspectives on time are way more complex than I ever could have imagined, and presenting them clearly was the main challenge of my work. I feel that I sacrificed my usual clear, to-the-point voice, but I also think that the voice that replaced it, if occasionally more difficult to follow, is also more sophisticated. I also find myself repeating myself more than usual, but I believe that this was very necessary to establish the progression of my thoughts.
At the end of my first introduction section, I provide the guiding statement of my exploration, how time affects the relationship between events and their interpretations. After that, my essay is divided into a section for each of the four narrators and a concluding section. As Faulkner extends his discussion on time from chapter to chapter, I build my analysis from section to section. This partly calls for a 1-sentence-long summary of the previous section and may account for some of the repetition. But maybe since the reader reads faster than I write, this summary is unnecessary. At this point, I don't think it hinders the effectiveness of the essay.
I believe I add more and more depth to my ideas as the essay develops; my main worry is that I strayed a little too far from where I started. This is only apparent, however, when I read the first paragraph and then the last, not when I read first then second then third, etc. I also think that my essay might begin to come together and make more sense as it progresses.
You were right in saying that I didn't have the time to really develop my ideas fully in the last essay, and I took a ton of time on this essay, maybe more than I have on any other "regular" (non research-paperish) assignment. Reading it over again, sometimes I wish I had more time, but this draft will suffice.
Oh, and I looked up MLA format and decided to use it. I'm not sure if the way I broke up my sections is OK, but I'm pretty sure I did manage to get my name in the right place.
I honestly have no idea where this essay itself is compared to the old one, but I know that my thoughts are at least significantly improved.. Attached are both the new essay and the old one. Enjoy your Thanksgiving.
I didn't think it would be difficult to write about time in The Sound and the Fury, but...it was.
This essay is a *complete* rewrite of the old one. I modeled this draft pretty much off of one comment: "You need to move or extend your discussion of time here to our personal relationship with time and how we use time to create our own meaning." So, the first thing I did was, using my favorite source, Wikipedia, to research time. Obviously, though, what I cover in my essay is far from the entire scope of ideas about time. I learned about the various different perspectives on time from the ideas famous mathematicians (i.e. Newton) and famous physicists (i.e. Einstein) and famous philosophers (i.e. Kant), and then examined the perspective of a particular famous author. This famous author, I noticed wrote The Sound and the Fury from four perspectives with very different views on time. I won't go into that here, however, you'll have to read the essay.
The different perspectives on time are way more complex than I ever could have imagined, and presenting them clearly was the main challenge of my work. I feel that I sacrificed my usual clear, to-the-point voice, but I also think that the voice that replaced it, if occasionally more difficult to follow, is also more sophisticated. I also find myself repeating myself more than usual, but I believe that this was very necessary to establish the progression of my thoughts.
At the end of my first introduction section, I provide the guiding statement of my exploration, how time affects the relationship between events and their interpretations. After that, my essay is divided into a section for each of the four narrators and a concluding section. As Faulkner extends his discussion on time from chapter to chapter, I build my analysis from section to section. This partly calls for a 1-sentence-long summary of the previous section and may account for some of the repetition. But maybe since the reader reads faster than I write, this summary is unnecessary. At this point, I don't think it hinders the effectiveness of the essay.
I believe I add more and more depth to my ideas as the essay develops; my main worry is that I strayed a little too far from where I started. This is only apparent, however, when I read the first paragraph and then the last, not when I read first then second then third, etc. I also think that my essay might begin to come together and make more sense as it progresses.
You were right in saying that I didn't have the time to really develop my ideas fully in the last essay, and I took a ton of time on this essay, maybe more than I have on any other "regular" (non research-paperish) assignment. Reading it over again, sometimes I wish I had more time, but this draft will suffice.
Oh, and I looked up MLA format and decided to use it. I'm not sure if the way I broke up my sections is OK, but I'm pretty sure I did manage to get my name in the right place.
I honestly have no idea where this essay itself is compared to the old one, but I know that my thoughts are at least significantly improved.. Attached are both the new essay and the old one. Enjoy your Thanksgiving.
¿Qué significa 'soledad'?
Basicamente, soledad refiere a la isolación.
It may be appropriate to call it the isolation of a 'family,' since family is the ambiguous term we've been using to describe pretty much everything/everyone.
An AP Environmental aside, (maybe?) tied back into 1YOS: isolation is the primary cause of speciation. New species evolve when isolation occurs, geographic or otherwise. So. The evolution of new species is in this case the parallel of creating a new society. When Buendía and Co. are isolated from the rest of society, they set up a completely new culture in Macondo -- new values, new gov't (no gov't), new everything.
This may be taking the analogy too far and too literally, but this is just a blog post, so why not. Two species are considered different species when they no longer can interbreed. Maybe this has something to do with all the incest in this book.
Oh, and btw, returning to my 1st (2nd) paragraph about families. By families and by species are both ways to classify different animals.
But enough of the science references. To me, the Spanish 'soledad' means loneliness. Loneliness sucks. But at last at the beginning, it seems like a good thing -- a very good thing. Life goes downhill as soon as outside influence comes in. The dispute with the Moscotes is quickly settled, but the war, the real outside influence, is not easily settled at all. War usually isn't.
"100 Years of Solitude" as opposed to just "Solitude" sounds like a statement of exile, almost like a sentence. Maybe the title actually refers to something other than the isolation of Macondo that I haven't gotten to yet. And 100 Years is a very long time. If loneliness sucks, 100 years of loneliness really sucks.
This brings up another interesting point: the nature of relationships -- being single or married, or having sex with Pilar Ternera. Basically, the tension between singleness and togetherness. Individuality vs. Collectivism. Just in the first few chapters, we see a ton of relationship tension, people retreating within themselves in their labs or underneath a tree tied down. And I still can't get over the amount of incest in this book. Thinking about it, it's not *that* much...but the part where Arcadio tries to sleep with his mother Pilar...that just wasnt right. On that happy note, g'night, I'm going to sleep.
It may be appropriate to call it the isolation of a 'family,' since family is the ambiguous term we've been using to describe pretty much everything/everyone.
An AP Environmental aside, (maybe?) tied back into 1YOS: isolation is the primary cause of speciation. New species evolve when isolation occurs, geographic or otherwise. So. The evolution of new species is in this case the parallel of creating a new society. When Buendía and Co. are isolated from the rest of society, they set up a completely new culture in Macondo -- new values, new gov't (no gov't), new everything.
This may be taking the analogy too far and too literally, but this is just a blog post, so why not. Two species are considered different species when they no longer can interbreed. Maybe this has something to do with all the incest in this book.
Oh, and btw, returning to my 1st (2nd) paragraph about families. By families and by species are both ways to classify different animals.
But enough of the science references. To me, the Spanish 'soledad' means loneliness. Loneliness sucks. But at last at the beginning, it seems like a good thing -- a very good thing. Life goes downhill as soon as outside influence comes in. The dispute with the Moscotes is quickly settled, but the war, the real outside influence, is not easily settled at all. War usually isn't.
"100 Years of Solitude" as opposed to just "Solitude" sounds like a statement of exile, almost like a sentence. Maybe the title actually refers to something other than the isolation of Macondo that I haven't gotten to yet. And 100 Years is a very long time. If loneliness sucks, 100 years of loneliness really sucks.
This brings up another interesting point: the nature of relationships -- being single or married, or having sex with Pilar Ternera. Basically, the tension between singleness and togetherness. Individuality vs. Collectivism. Just in the first few chapters, we see a ton of relationship tension, people retreating within themselves in their labs or underneath a tree tied down. And I still can't get over the amount of incest in this book. Thinking about it, it's not *that* much...but the part where Arcadio tries to sleep with his mother Pilar...that just wasnt right. On that happy note, g'night, I'm going to sleep.
So God Created the Earth
I won't debate it. The story of Genesis seems like it set up a framework for millions of stories to come (well, obviously it did). But this is what I mean: It begins with a too-good-to-be-true Utopia. God made everything perfect and good and yay. But quickly man comes and screws everything up for himself. You know that as soon as you have a utopia and a rule, then the rule will be broken and the Utopia will quickly disintegrate.
Marquez says screw it. He completely abandons this framework in his creation myth. In fact, the book begins "Many years later, as he faced the firing squad...". That doesn't sound like Genesis to me.
Like Genesis, we quickly see the addition of "life" to Macondo (though in this case the life is more like science/knowledge). And Man(Jose Arcadio) wants more than what he has, and screws everything up with a few big magnets. The common theme is that ambition = bad. But throughout this first chapter (and a few more afterwards), Marquez engages in a little discussion about whether or not science is good or bad. WAIT. What I am trying to say in this paragraph is that both stories contain the Universal theme of the quest for knowledge and its ramifications.
Genesis comes abruptly to the first murder in Chapter 4. 100 years of solitude has impending death mentioned every few lines with the firing squad. We won't forget that no matter what happens, practically anything good is just remembered when facing death (the firing squad). Ironically, Aureliano's firing squad seems pretty unimportant (up to the part where I am now, anyway). When we finally find out he surivved the firing squad, it doesn't even get it's own sentence, clause, or even phrase. Arcadio's firing squad is kinda more serious, but that, I guess, is a different story.
The first death in Genesis is a murder. The first "death" in 100 years of solitude is when Rebeca brings her dead parents. Then the next death is Melquiades. But neither of them are actually true Macondans. I could be wrong, but I believe the first death in 100 YOS is also man killing man (or is it Remedios?).
The isolation of 100 YOS also parallels the book of Genesis. I believe that the insane amount of incest in this book may also kinda parallel the Bible. So this was an attempt at discussing the life cycles in 1YOS and Genesis. (Complete aside...I love how I've been gradually shortening the title of the book.)
Marquez says screw it. He completely abandons this framework in his creation myth. In fact, the book begins "Many years later, as he faced the firing squad...". That doesn't sound like Genesis to me.
Like Genesis, we quickly see the addition of "life" to Macondo (though in this case the life is more like science/knowledge). And Man(Jose Arcadio) wants more than what he has, and screws everything up with a few big magnets. The common theme is that ambition = bad. But throughout this first chapter (and a few more afterwards), Marquez engages in a little discussion about whether or not science is good or bad. WAIT. What I am trying to say in this paragraph is that both stories contain the Universal theme of the quest for knowledge and its ramifications.
Genesis comes abruptly to the first murder in Chapter 4. 100 years of solitude has impending death mentioned every few lines with the firing squad. We won't forget that no matter what happens, practically anything good is just remembered when facing death (the firing squad). Ironically, Aureliano's firing squad seems pretty unimportant (up to the part where I am now, anyway). When we finally find out he surivved the firing squad, it doesn't even get it's own sentence, clause, or even phrase. Arcadio's firing squad is kinda more serious, but that, I guess, is a different story.
The first death in Genesis is a murder. The first "death" in 100 years of solitude is when Rebeca brings her dead parents. Then the next death is Melquiades. But neither of them are actually true Macondans. I could be wrong, but I believe the first death in 100 YOS is also man killing man (or is it Remedios?).
The isolation of 100 YOS also parallels the book of Genesis. I believe that the insane amount of incest in this book may also kinda parallel the Bible. So this was an attempt at discussing the life cycles in 1YOS and Genesis. (Complete aside...I love how I've been gradually shortening the title of the book.)
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Briony the Author + Faulkner
So, I read back over my S+F paper right after I read over my Atonement paper, and got some interesting ideas. A similarity in the writing of Briony and Faulkner? Whether or not my ideas are at all valid, they're at least worth exploring in a harmless blog post.
Atonement's metafiction, and Briony's a made up character; she's not actually writing a book in real life (that is to say, she doesn't exist). But whether it's McEwan giving his thoughts on writing through Briony or just speculating on the creation of a novel in general through his fiction, some of Briony's ideas about writing are really legit.
The main idea that I'm referring to here is the idea that Briony is moving beyond plots and beyond characters in her writing, instead to "thought, perception, sensation." I quote my essay: "Briony became interested in 'the conscious mind as a river through time, and how to represent its onward roll' and strove to capture the essence of 'human nature itself.'"
The parallel to Faulkner that I saw is evidenced by a Wikipedia quote: The last line [of Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, "Signifying nothing"] is, perhaps, the most meaningful; Faulkner later says in his speech upon being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature that people must write about things that come from the heart, or "universal truths".
So, they're both moving beyond the traditional beginning-middle-end novel. They could possible believe that these novels "signify nothing," that drawing attention away from the plot allows for a more sohpisticated, developed, commentary on life. Faulkner surely obscures his plot in Sound and Fury as much as possible. Briony's Atonement is told in a much more traditional manner, but, like SOund and Fury, raises larger questions about the reliability of the narrators and about "thought, perception, and sensation."
To stretch this comparison as far as possible, we could recall the comparisons of Briony's works to those of Virginia Woolf. I'm not too familiar with Woolf's works, but...Wikipedia is: "In her works she experimented with stream-of-consciousness, the underlying psychological as well as emotional motives of characters, and the various possibilities of fractured narrative and chronology." To me, this sounds more and more like Faulkner. There is no better example than The Sound and the Fury of experimentation with stream-of-consciousness. And, we can't deny that Faulkner's writing places plot second to his explorations with the underlying psychological and emotional motives of characters. Variations of fractured narrative and chronology? I think so.
Just my thoughts.
Atonement's metafiction, and Briony's a made up character; she's not actually writing a book in real life (that is to say, she doesn't exist). But whether it's McEwan giving his thoughts on writing through Briony or just speculating on the creation of a novel in general through his fiction, some of Briony's ideas about writing are really legit.
The main idea that I'm referring to here is the idea that Briony is moving beyond plots and beyond characters in her writing, instead to "thought, perception, sensation." I quote my essay: "Briony became interested in 'the conscious mind as a river through time, and how to represent its onward roll' and strove to capture the essence of 'human nature itself.'"
The parallel to Faulkner that I saw is evidenced by a Wikipedia quote: The last line [of Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, "Signifying nothing"] is, perhaps, the most meaningful; Faulkner later says in his speech upon being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature that people must write about things that come from the heart, or "universal truths".
So, they're both moving beyond the traditional beginning-middle-end novel. They could possible believe that these novels "signify nothing," that drawing attention away from the plot allows for a more sohpisticated, developed, commentary on life. Faulkner surely obscures his plot in Sound and Fury as much as possible. Briony's Atonement is told in a much more traditional manner, but, like SOund and Fury, raises larger questions about the reliability of the narrators and about "thought, perception, and sensation."
To stretch this comparison as far as possible, we could recall the comparisons of Briony's works to those of Virginia Woolf. I'm not too familiar with Woolf's works, but...Wikipedia is: "In her works she experimented with stream-of-consciousness, the underlying psychological as well as emotional motives of characters, and the various possibilities of fractured narrative and chronology." To me, this sounds more and more like Faulkner. There is no better example than The Sound and the Fury of experimentation with stream-of-consciousness. And, we can't deny that Faulkner's writing places plot second to his explorations with the underlying psychological and emotional motives of characters. Variations of fractured narrative and chronology? I think so.
Just my thoughts.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Time for a nice long post
So apparently I saved this file to my desktop instead of to my y-drive, so it's time to start over. Extra practice. I feel like I'm back in U.S. again. I can't say I was ever a big fan of these metacognition self-reflection deals, but they're probably for the better. Towards the end of sophomore year I got good at these, but I think I might have to start over. Maybe I'll look back to my old metacognitions. They'll get good sooner or later.
So this draft was basically started over from scratch. I realized that my first draft turned out more like a brainstorming session of potential ideas. My mind was wandering from one idea from the next, and, uh, it wasn't very successful. I did happen to come upon two ideas in that first draft that I liked. First, the brothers rarely interact directly with each other, but rather indirectly via Caddy. Second, the idea of looking at the Compson family from the “inside-out.” Unfortunately, I couldn't get very far past the basic premises of these ideas. I simply didn't know what to go, and I couldn't find a spot in the text to set me going. In general, incorporating specifics and textual analysis I find kind of hard here; perhaps it's the nature of the exploratory essay.
Anyway, I started this draft with my first observation about the book – Faulkner is experimenting with time. To organize my essay, I went from one chapter to the next, noting the effects of time in each chapter and trying to establish correlations that could be helpful in creating a thesis. At the end, I tried to make conclusions based on the observations I gathered throughout the essay.
One of my main concerns with this draft is that I was both too specific and not specific enough at the same time. I was too specific in that I rarely stepped outside of the text and made inferences about the vision of the world that Faulkner suggests. I wasn't specific enough in that only in a few places did I reference specific details. I happen to like the times where I did this the best (like my observations of Quentin disassembling his watch, whether or not it did fit into my essay).
I did pick a global theme, relationships with time, to concentrate on, and strove to find a thesis within this theme. I'm not sure whether I strayed too far from my path at the beginning, while keeping on the same level of analysis. I feel like I should be changing the scope of my analysis, narrowing it down or expanding it, rather than just moving further away from my starting point. Still, I do see a connection between where I started and where I ended up. I also think that I have some good ideas in my essay, but fail to put these together into an effective conclusion.
Ever since freshman year, my best essays have always been exploratory essays. I find some way to make the reader think, connect the main subject to a larger cause, and I make the reader care. My good exploratory essays are not typical English essays. This essay feels a little too typical, maybe just a little less formal.
I don't think my essay is bad, I'm just wary of being optimistic (when I did this in US I was on the highway to hell). I think I could take some of my ideas and focus them more, like my ideas about Jason, and then use them to make a larger point about life in general. I think my conclusions, while mostly accurate, may be too obvious. This reflection is beginning to feel as repetitive, and as un-specific, as my essay.
I'm not gonna lie, I did write this essay last minute; my college app was due the day before. This usually, though, is not a problem. I do my best writing when I write an entire draft in one sitting. Aside from in-class essays, I usually don't plan my essay out before hand. This is especially true for exploratory essays. I think when I plan, I don't come across my thesis spontaneously, and thus end up writing a very analytical, thesis-driven essay. The organization for this essay was clear-cut, chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3, chapter 4. Within these scheme, I let my thoughts drift – maybe too far, maybe not far enough. I haven't made up my mind yet.
My goals for the next piece are to use more specific details to speak more generally about the implications of Faulkner's novel. I would call my work “quality work” when I think that an outside reader would be interested in and care about my essay. It should make its reader think and perhaps examine the world with a new perspective, whether or not the reader knows that its origins came from Faulkner's messed up novel. The end.
So this draft was basically started over from scratch. I realized that my first draft turned out more like a brainstorming session of potential ideas. My mind was wandering from one idea from the next, and, uh, it wasn't very successful. I did happen to come upon two ideas in that first draft that I liked. First, the brothers rarely interact directly with each other, but rather indirectly via Caddy. Second, the idea of looking at the Compson family from the “inside-out.” Unfortunately, I couldn't get very far past the basic premises of these ideas. I simply didn't know what to go, and I couldn't find a spot in the text to set me going. In general, incorporating specifics and textual analysis I find kind of hard here; perhaps it's the nature of the exploratory essay.
Anyway, I started this draft with my first observation about the book – Faulkner is experimenting with time. To organize my essay, I went from one chapter to the next, noting the effects of time in each chapter and trying to establish correlations that could be helpful in creating a thesis. At the end, I tried to make conclusions based on the observations I gathered throughout the essay.
One of my main concerns with this draft is that I was both too specific and not specific enough at the same time. I was too specific in that I rarely stepped outside of the text and made inferences about the vision of the world that Faulkner suggests. I wasn't specific enough in that only in a few places did I reference specific details. I happen to like the times where I did this the best (like my observations of Quentin disassembling his watch, whether or not it did fit into my essay).
I did pick a global theme, relationships with time, to concentrate on, and strove to find a thesis within this theme. I'm not sure whether I strayed too far from my path at the beginning, while keeping on the same level of analysis. I feel like I should be changing the scope of my analysis, narrowing it down or expanding it, rather than just moving further away from my starting point. Still, I do see a connection between where I started and where I ended up. I also think that I have some good ideas in my essay, but fail to put these together into an effective conclusion.
Ever since freshman year, my best essays have always been exploratory essays. I find some way to make the reader think, connect the main subject to a larger cause, and I make the reader care. My good exploratory essays are not typical English essays. This essay feels a little too typical, maybe just a little less formal.
I don't think my essay is bad, I'm just wary of being optimistic (when I did this in US I was on the highway to hell). I think I could take some of my ideas and focus them more, like my ideas about Jason, and then use them to make a larger point about life in general. I think my conclusions, while mostly accurate, may be too obvious. This reflection is beginning to feel as repetitive, and as un-specific, as my essay.
I'm not gonna lie, I did write this essay last minute; my college app was due the day before. This usually, though, is not a problem. I do my best writing when I write an entire draft in one sitting. Aside from in-class essays, I usually don't plan my essay out before hand. This is especially true for exploratory essays. I think when I plan, I don't come across my thesis spontaneously, and thus end up writing a very analytical, thesis-driven essay. The organization for this essay was clear-cut, chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3, chapter 4. Within these scheme, I let my thoughts drift – maybe too far, maybe not far enough. I haven't made up my mind yet.
My goals for the next piece are to use more specific details to speak more generally about the implications of Faulkner's novel. I would call my work “quality work” when I think that an outside reader would be interested in and care about my essay. It should make its reader think and perhaps examine the world with a new perspective, whether or not the reader knows that its origins came from Faulkner's messed up novel. The end.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
How do you pronounce Briony???
...not that I really care, but it would kinda be nice to know.
Sorry, of course I care.
The reason I ask is because it really affects how I view her as a narrator and as a person. There are certain pronunciations where I could never imagine her being a real, living, breathing human being. I actually think she is credible -- I think the purpose of her writing this book was actually to provide a final legit account of her story. All her other works are truly fictional. As for being real? I'll believe it when I meet her. I'm not quite sure how McEwan makes her seem so real. The easiest explanation would be the insane amount of detail that he provides.
I'd have to think that McEwan sympathizes with Briony, though at times he may think she's a little obtuse. I'm basing this on the fact that he made me like Briony. I don't feel like giving a significant explanation right now.
That answered a bunch of qusetions...the interesting one is does she get what she deserves? Thankfully for her, yes! Maybe that's her proper atonement. God's atonement for her. She has a nice little string of thoughts aboubt God forgiving her versus forgiving herself because she's God. I'm not sure how much of it I commpletely followed, but it was really interesting and thought provoking. McEwan brings up a question of how the author can forgive him/herself for the story. Actually, throughout the story he has a lot of questions about self-reference. I'm reading a book called Godel Escher Bach all about this type of "strange loop". It's interesting, and brought me sufficiently off topic. Please forgive the typos above...
Sorry, of course I care.
The reason I ask is because it really affects how I view her as a narrator and as a person. There are certain pronunciations where I could never imagine her being a real, living, breathing human being. I actually think she is credible -- I think the purpose of her writing this book was actually to provide a final legit account of her story. All her other works are truly fictional. As for being real? I'll believe it when I meet her. I'm not quite sure how McEwan makes her seem so real. The easiest explanation would be the insane amount of detail that he provides.
I'd have to think that McEwan sympathizes with Briony, though at times he may think she's a little obtuse. I'm basing this on the fact that he made me like Briony. I don't feel like giving a significant explanation right now.
That answered a bunch of qusetions...the interesting one is does she get what she deserves? Thankfully for her, yes! Maybe that's her proper atonement. God's atonement for her. She has a nice little string of thoughts aboubt God forgiving her versus forgiving herself because she's God. I'm not sure how much of it I commpletely followed, but it was really interesting and thought provoking. McEwan brings up a question of how the author can forgive him/herself for the story. Actually, throughout the story he has a lot of questions about self-reference. I'm reading a book called Godel Escher Bach all about this type of "strange loop". It's interesting, and brought me sufficiently off topic. Please forgive the typos above...
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Atonement Part I
Some quick notes on Atonement Part I: Beginning the Conversation
I think that Briony is defined by her imagination and the reality that her imaginings are grounded in. Actually, maybe Briony herself isn't defined by that, but her thoughts are.
vase scene...she imagines a strange new world tahtt she is invited to watch, and her imaginings take over her thoughts, since she has so few certain truths to base them upon. around that time, she is struggling with her comprehension of the world -- is everyone really an individual person like herself, or all they all robots? i forget what i thought this had to do with the vase scene...maybe you'll read my mind or i'll figure it out later.
prolepsis is really the basis for her crime. when she sees lola, she plans out her entire story complete with all her answers to questions and objections. since this is already planned out, she holds fast to her story, never changing it.
her reaction to robbie's note is in large part due to the timing. she is then a curious girl trying to get an eye into adult affairs, and she reads robbie's note. interestingly enough, she doesn't think that maybe the note is just a mature person's words, but she is driven to further inquiry by her curiosity.
intertextuality is different from a source in that multiple texts gain additional meaning through intertextuality; intertextuality gives context, as well. a source gives the foundation for an idea, or the raw material needed to develop that idea.
I think that Briony is defined by her imagination and the reality that her imaginings are grounded in. Actually, maybe Briony herself isn't defined by that, but her thoughts are.
vase scene...she imagines a strange new world tahtt she is invited to watch, and her imaginings take over her thoughts, since she has so few certain truths to base them upon. around that time, she is struggling with her comprehension of the world -- is everyone really an individual person like herself, or all they all robots? i forget what i thought this had to do with the vase scene...maybe you'll read my mind or i'll figure it out later.
prolepsis is really the basis for her crime. when she sees lola, she plans out her entire story complete with all her answers to questions and objections. since this is already planned out, she holds fast to her story, never changing it.
her reaction to robbie's note is in large part due to the timing. she is then a curious girl trying to get an eye into adult affairs, and she reads robbie's note. interestingly enough, she doesn't think that maybe the note is just a mature person's words, but she is driven to further inquiry by her curiosity.
intertextuality is different from a source in that multiple texts gain additional meaning through intertextuality; intertextuality gives context, as well. a source gives the foundation for an idea, or the raw material needed to develop that idea.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Yesterday's Day of Atonement
So for lack of anything better to do yesterday, I decided it would be appropriate to start Atonement on Yom Kippur. I was kinda hungry and didn't get past a chapter and a half, but it's a start. Later that night I was at the movies and saw a trailer for Atonement, the movie. I'm really excited for the class field trip we're obviously going to have.
Yesterday was the single most Jewish day of the year. In general I'm pretty Jewish -- president of the synagogue's youth group -- but Judaism is more of a cultural decision than a religious one for me. Actually, I outlined my philosophical/spiritual journey in one of my college essays. Basically I went from pure Judaism straight to Rand's Objectivism after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Then I came slightly back to Judaism again and now am somewhere in the middle of the two, but not really -- the last couple books I read were Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Nietzsche), Tao Te Ching (Lao Tzu), and Zen and the Art of Archery (some Zen person).
I would still say that the concepts of existentialism are still the most intriguing to me. I have Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov sitting on a table waiting to be read, but it might be waiting for a little while longer. If you wondered where all this was going, it was going to my Lit X paper. I'm not quite sure what my topic will be...it may end up being some sort of comparative philosophy thing, but the first (really the only) courses I found that caught my eye, are UC Berkeley's "Existentialism in Literature and Film" and "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature."
Uh...the end.
Yesterday was the single most Jewish day of the year. In general I'm pretty Jewish -- president of the synagogue's youth group -- but Judaism is more of a cultural decision than a religious one for me. Actually, I outlined my philosophical/spiritual journey in one of my college essays. Basically I went from pure Judaism straight to Rand's Objectivism after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Then I came slightly back to Judaism again and now am somewhere in the middle of the two, but not really -- the last couple books I read were Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Nietzsche), Tao Te Ching (Lao Tzu), and Zen and the Art of Archery (some Zen person).
I would still say that the concepts of existentialism are still the most intriguing to me. I have Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov sitting on a table waiting to be read, but it might be waiting for a little while longer. If you wondered where all this was going, it was going to my Lit X paper. I'm not quite sure what my topic will be...it may end up being some sort of comparative philosophy thing, but the first (really the only) courses I found that caught my eye, are UC Berkeley's "Existentialism in Literature and Film" and "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature."
Uh...the end.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
On nothing in particular...
I begin this post 6 minutes before the end of the weekend. Even though I've (obviously) been thinking about The Sound and the Fury all weekend, I'm not quite sure what to say, aside that I'm looking forward to the guidance counselor meeting tomorrow in class.
Now that I've encouragingly prefaced this blog post, taking up much more space than necessary, I'll begin. This will be my reflection on the class discussion from Friday that I wasn't there for.
" Time is omnipotent, but when on something as small as a watch is seems irrelevant and insignificant."
Maybe this person had a really good rationalization, but I disagree. I wouldn't say that time is omnipotent. I actually wouldn't say that time had any power at all. People get "caught up" in time because they become preoccupied with it. They think that they must follow a rigid schedule. They trap themselves in time. Eh, now that I think about it, time must have some power. Still, it can never manipulate anything. It can never control anything. Excuse this bazaar analogy...time is kinda like a spider web. The web has no power. Yet it is quite easy to get caught up in it. Time should have no power over Quentin, but he spends long enough obsessing over it that he gives it power. A more apt description could be that time is like a drug to which Quentin becomes addicted. Indeed, Quentin even tries to break out of time, and eventually...dies. I also think that time on a watch is certainly not insignificant, especially in Quentin's case. It acts as a constant supply of his drug. He tries to break it, but it still keeps ticking. It is an extremely powerful (for lack of a better word, I guess I haven't made up my mind about time's power) concept all condensed into a small carry-able thing. It has significance to Quentin.
I'll articulate my ideas (hopefully better ideas) more clearly in my next set of 5 posts. Now just past midnight...see you today.
Now that I've encouragingly prefaced this blog post, taking up much more space than necessary, I'll begin. This will be my reflection on the class discussion from Friday that I wasn't there for.
" Time is omnipotent, but when on something as small as a watch is seems irrelevant and insignificant."
Maybe this person had a really good rationalization, but I disagree. I wouldn't say that time is omnipotent. I actually wouldn't say that time had any power at all. People get "caught up" in time because they become preoccupied with it. They think that they must follow a rigid schedule. They trap themselves in time. Eh, now that I think about it, time must have some power. Still, it can never manipulate anything. It can never control anything. Excuse this bazaar analogy...time is kinda like a spider web. The web has no power. Yet it is quite easy to get caught up in it. Time should have no power over Quentin, but he spends long enough obsessing over it that he gives it power. A more apt description could be that time is like a drug to which Quentin becomes addicted. Indeed, Quentin even tries to break out of time, and eventually...dies. I also think that time on a watch is certainly not insignificant, especially in Quentin's case. It acts as a constant supply of his drug. He tries to break it, but it still keeps ticking. It is an extremely powerful (for lack of a better word, I guess I haven't made up my mind about time's power) concept all condensed into a small carry-able thing. It has significance to Quentin.
I'll articulate my ideas (hopefully better ideas) more clearly in my next set of 5 posts. Now just past midnight...see you today.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Quentin and Benjy
We said that Quentin has the best concept of time, even that he is obsessed with time. This may be true. I think, however, that Quentin does not want to have this notion of time. Quentin hates time; we said that he doesn't want it to pass.
I would even take it a step further to say that Quentin wishes he had Benjy's concept of time. At least, Quentin wishes his life had the constancy that it first appears Benjy's life had. . . .To say the Quentin hates time is really to say that Quentin hates change. In reality, Quentin has the utmost respect for time. He dissasembles his watch carefully. It seems that he even wants to figure out how it works -- he seems like a typical Harvard student performing a dissection. Not too much later, Quentin appears insane and obsessed. He's given up figuring everything out; he wants it to end.
We wonder how a watch can help somebody forget time rather than remember it. What it does is remind somebody of the present. Of what is happening now and what time it is now. In theory, this what help someone forget the past. This is what Quentin really wants.
It's interesting, and very true, that we think about time when we're bored, not when we're engaged in something. This, I think, is because time is always there, always ticking. It's the one thing that's constant (though not to Benjy), that we can always think about. Quentin's fed up with time and at the same time (pun not intended) obsessed with it...maybe he wishes he had Benjy's notion of time so that he wasn't always thinking about it. I hope you could follow my train of thought in this post...
I would even take it a step further to say that Quentin wishes he had Benjy's concept of time. At least, Quentin wishes his life had the constancy that it first appears Benjy's life had. . . .To say the Quentin hates time is really to say that Quentin hates change. In reality, Quentin has the utmost respect for time. He dissasembles his watch carefully. It seems that he even wants to figure out how it works -- he seems like a typical Harvard student performing a dissection. Not too much later, Quentin appears insane and obsessed. He's given up figuring everything out; he wants it to end.
We wonder how a watch can help somebody forget time rather than remember it. What it does is remind somebody of the present. Of what is happening now and what time it is now. In theory, this what help someone forget the past. This is what Quentin really wants.
It's interesting, and very true, that we think about time when we're bored, not when we're engaged in something. This, I think, is because time is always there, always ticking. It's the one thing that's constant (though not to Benjy), that we can always think about. Quentin's fed up with time and at the same time (pun not intended) obsessed with it...maybe he wishes he had Benjy's notion of time so that he wasn't always thinking about it. I hope you could follow my train of thought in this post...
On Quentin (Wed's discussion)
Quentin is arguably the most screwed up character in the Sound and the Fury, and that's saying something. They all have problems, but as someone said, only Benjy expresses his emotions (albeit not too articulately) by moaning. Jason tries to affect some change within the family. How does Quentin (not) solve his problems? He pretends to have committed incest, and then he kills himself. I know times today are different from back then, but I'm pretty sure that was never a normal way of dealing with problems.
Someone in class mentioned that the Compson family tries to hide all its problems, knowing it's not socially acceptable to be in such disarray. The Compson family would then be much, much more concerned with its image than with its happiness. Quentin's suicide should tell the outside world that there is something wrong with the workings of the family. Ironically, the family's failure to confront their problems in a meaningful way (Jason and Quentin's attempts are worthless) leads to what I must think is a degraded image (did that thought make any sense?).
Someone in class mentioned that the Compson family tries to hide all its problems, knowing it's not socially acceptable to be in such disarray. The Compson family would then be much, much more concerned with its image than with its happiness. Quentin's suicide should tell the outside world that there is something wrong with the workings of the family. Ironically, the family's failure to confront their problems in a meaningful way (Jason and Quentin's attempts are worthless) leads to what I must think is a degraded image (did that thought make any sense?).
Friday, September 14, 2007
L'Shana Tova
Rosh Hashanah yesterday and today...should've done my posts a while ago. I'll do the last three from this week this weekend...
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Fury and the Sound
It's not hard to figure out that in The Sound and the Fury, everything's mixed up.
We've focused on the way Benjy flips around his notion of time and events. Actually, I think his perception of events simply replaces his perception of time -- he has no conscious awareness of time in his life. Time to us, more than anything else, is a reference frame. We use time to organize our thoughts. It marks certain events. It is how we know what to do.
For Benjy, events mark other events. More specifically, his markers are certain sensations that he associates with certain events. Getting caught reminds him of getting caught.
Perhaps Benjy has no "tangible" concept of time because he himself has never "experienced" time. We have all experienced time. We know what it feels like to go from 2003 to 2004 to 2005. We know what if feels like to go from 3rd grade to 4th grade to 5th grade. Benjy knows what it's like to go from immature to immature to just as immature.
This makes it seem as if he is a constant, unchanging in response with time...an objective third person viewer who happens to be part of his story.
Now I see that maybe Benjy isn't as constant and unchanging as I had thought....as Zoe pointed out he only starts moaning at specific point in time. Yet he still has no concept of time -- his reactions may change slightly to the events that come to pass, but I still believe that his perception does not change with sufficient significance. He is just as immature at the end as he was at the beginning (chronologically). After all, he has no idea what the end is and what the beginning is. How could there be a trend when time never really passes for him? (does this make any sense?)
We've focused on the way Benjy flips around his notion of time and events. Actually, I think his perception of events simply replaces his perception of time -- he has no conscious awareness of time in his life. Time to us, more than anything else, is a reference frame. We use time to organize our thoughts. It marks certain events. It is how we know what to do.
For Benjy, events mark other events. More specifically, his markers are certain sensations that he associates with certain events. Getting caught reminds him of getting caught.
Perhaps Benjy has no "tangible" concept of time because he himself has never "experienced" time. We have all experienced time. We know what it feels like to go from 2003 to 2004 to 2005. We know what if feels like to go from 3rd grade to 4th grade to 5th grade. Benjy knows what it's like to go from immature to immature to just as immature.
This makes it seem as if he is a constant, unchanging in response with time...an objective third person viewer who happens to be part of his story.
Now I see that maybe Benjy isn't as constant and unchanging as I had thought....as Zoe pointed out he only starts moaning at specific point in time. Yet he still has no concept of time -- his reactions may change slightly to the events that come to pass, but I still believe that his perception does not change with sufficient significance. He is just as immature at the end as he was at the beginning (chronologically). After all, he has no idea what the end is and what the beginning is. How could there be a trend when time never really passes for him? (does this make any sense?)
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Welcome, Family
There are two ways to look at any entity, but these two different ways apply especially to families. We can look at them either from the inside of from the outside. Most of the quotes we responded to examine families from the outside. How does a "happy" or an "unhappy" family function in public; how do we perceive it? More specifically, we look at the "roles" that each person seems to have in the family. What is each person's function? We seem to look at everyone's "place." "What is a parent's place, or a dad's place?" we ask. I see this in the quotes about dad playing golf, and about children putting their parents in their places. In my opinion, it is more interesting to look at a family from the inside. The potato quote begins to get at this. It notices that the best parts of a family is hidden. When we look at everything from society's vantage point, we see everybody's "roles" and "places," yet we fail to see the interactions within a family. These interactions actually define the "outer" image that we see. The importance of understanding these hidden interactions is especially evident in The Sound and The Fury, where we see the completely screwed up Compson Family's situation from the eyes of three of its members. It's even more screwed up than we first thought. The final chapter of The Sound and the Fury takes a small step back, written in third person by Faulkner. We do not completely see the family from the outside, though, as we still follow around Dilsey, arguably the only "true" member of the Compson family (after all, she does everything and raises the kids, etc.).
So how does our point of view influence our overall perception of a family? I dunno, that's the question...
So how does our point of view influence our overall perception of a family? I dunno, that's the question...