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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
¿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.