I remembered at about midnight last night that I forgot to write an entry. I could have done it at any point between now and then because I, for some reason, had a sleepless night. Being able to tesser back about 8 hours would have been nice. I'm glad we're watching a movie today!
A Wrinkle in Time. I wanted to like it. I really thought I would, remembering that I had read and thoroughly enjoyed Madeleine L'Engle's The Arm of the Starfish as a child. I think I should go to the library one afternoon and read the series to see if it changes my mind. Like many others, I found the writing too simplistic. The explanation of time travel that the novel's title comes from made perfect sense, and in that regard I didn't mind things being "dumbed down" for my "I dropped Physics" mind. The writing was adolescent, and I don't think it's good enough to say "well, it is a children's book, after all." I suppose that for its time, it was somewhat progressive, but still unrealistic in terms of the relationships. Charles Wallace sounds like he'd be a seriously annoying child to spend time with. Meg attracts the attention of a popular boy? Mrs. Murry doesn't for a moment think, "Yeah, where IS my husband?" Right.
I couldn't help but compare this to the Chronicles of Narnia series, as well as the more recent His Dark Materials series. I read the Chronicles of Narnia when I was in Grade 4 and loved them. I didn't pick up on the strong Christian undertones at the time (I wasn't raised in a religious environment), enjoying them purely for the imaginative storyline and escapism. They are well-written, and I still consider them to be some of the best books I've read. To be fair, I haven't revisited them for some time. It would be interesting to see if I feel the same way about them today.
The mention of Being Erica in class made me aware of (part of the reason) I love that show. It's like a "choose your own adventure" for adults. It's also painfully realistic for thirty-something women who don't have a husband and kids...or at least one divorce to show they gave it a go. It's getting less the case that women like Erica would be considered "freaks" but there is still the perception by some that there's something wrong with you if you haven't settled down (or very often, settled) by the time you're thirty.
I think my lack of sleep is quite apparent, here! Time to get ready, and get some caffeine in my system.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
more thoughts
I've tried for the last hour to post a comment on my own blog. I can't figure it out! Here's what I was going to say in response to my last post:
Thanks for the link, Danica. I liked Margaret Atwood's point that there's never any mention of the students eating or smelling anything. Presumably they eat (as they wait in a queue at lunch), but there's no description of it. I had also noticed that there's very little detail given about what Kathy, Tommy and Ruth look like. My idea of them is different from how they'll appear in the upcoming movie. Keira Knightley as Ruth? Not even close to what I had pictured.
Ms. Dorais: Ah, the weather as natural/unnatural...that makes sense. In terms of the weather being an environmental body, it's perhaps a cautionary tale of what can go wrong when humans mess about with the "natural" order of things. I like the idea of weather as a trope for the students!
I had to miss class last Thursday, so I've been attempting to glean what I can from the posts of others. It sounds as though there was a science vs. emotion debate. It made me think of something I read in one of my textbooks last spring. The author brought up the idea of replacing body parts with machines rather than living tissue. The idea was thought-provoking. Say it were possible to replace anything defective or missing with something inorganic. What if you were rather unfortunate and needed to replace every cell and system in your body? At what point, if ever, would you be considered a machine? Would you lose whatever it is that makes you human?
The novel spends a good deal of time discussing the soul, and how the students' artwork is important in proving that they have souls. The existence of the soul would indicate that they are human, but I wonder how this is fair. How would Miss Emily or Madame (or anyone else for that matter) prove the existence of their own souls? What is a soul and where does it reside? Why is the soul a prerequisite for being human?
Thanks for the link, Danica. I liked Margaret Atwood's point that there's never any mention of the students eating or smelling anything. Presumably they eat (as they wait in a queue at lunch), but there's no description of it. I had also noticed that there's very little detail given about what Kathy, Tommy and Ruth look like. My idea of them is different from how they'll appear in the upcoming movie. Keira Knightley as Ruth? Not even close to what I had pictured.
Ms. Dorais: Ah, the weather as natural/unnatural...that makes sense. In terms of the weather being an environmental body, it's perhaps a cautionary tale of what can go wrong when humans mess about with the "natural" order of things. I like the idea of weather as a trope for the students!
I had to miss class last Thursday, so I've been attempting to glean what I can from the posts of others. It sounds as though there was a science vs. emotion debate. It made me think of something I read in one of my textbooks last spring. The author brought up the idea of replacing body parts with machines rather than living tissue. The idea was thought-provoking. Say it were possible to replace anything defective or missing with something inorganic. What if you were rather unfortunate and needed to replace every cell and system in your body? At what point, if ever, would you be considered a machine? Would you lose whatever it is that makes you human?
The novel spends a good deal of time discussing the soul, and how the students' artwork is important in proving that they have souls. The existence of the soul would indicate that they are human, but I wonder how this is fair. How would Miss Emily or Madame (or anyone else for that matter) prove the existence of their own souls? What is a soul and where does it reside? Why is the soul a prerequisite for being human?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Freaks and Clones
While reading the synopsis on Freaks, which we'll be watching tomorrow in class, I was trying to remember if I had seen it in the past. I'm quite sure that myself and a friend, having heard that Johnny Depp was a fan of the movie, rented it in the early 90s. The refrain "one of us" seemed so familiar, but then I recalled it's because of the Ramones' "Gabba gabba, we accept you, we accept you, one of us." Hmm...I'm really dating myself here. Moving on.
I'm going to reserve my posting on the movie until after we watch it. The rest of this post will be dedicated to Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go which I know for certain I have read! A friend gave it to me shortly after it was released, and I read it in a couple of days while at home sick. I did the same thing this weekend, strangely enough sick with a cold again, but read it more closely and made about 8 pages of notes. I'm writing on it for my paper topic, so I won't go into detail regarding cloning and its implications.
It was interesting to read the book with new "close-reading" eyes. I remember that I really enjoyed the book the first time, appreciating its simple form and compelling storyline. This time, I found the characters frustrating throughout, and the final meeting with Madame and Miss Emily was unsatisfying. After the building of suspense, that section of the book falls flat with Miss Emily's lengthy explanation of why they did what they did. This time it felt like too tidy a summary, dispelling all mystery surrounding Hailsham and its students. Of course, the reader knows for certain what the students are on page 73, so I don't understand why I'm bothered by the full disclosure this time around.
I'm curious about the constant references to weather. "There was bright sunshine, but it must have been raining earlier that day..." (Ishiguro, p. 7). "The downpour had started while we were changing..." (p. 71). "It had turned into a crisp, sunny day..." (p. 136). Even the name of the school, Hailsham, has a weather-related name. I'm guessing there is some meaning in the mention of weather, perhaps as foreshadowing of the tone of the storyline that follows?
I'll leave off here until we've had a chance to discuss the novel in class. I'm sure that will bring new ideas to mind, and maybe bring some of the ones I have into focus.
I'm going to reserve my posting on the movie until after we watch it. The rest of this post will be dedicated to Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go which I know for certain I have read! A friend gave it to me shortly after it was released, and I read it in a couple of days while at home sick. I did the same thing this weekend, strangely enough sick with a cold again, but read it more closely and made about 8 pages of notes. I'm writing on it for my paper topic, so I won't go into detail regarding cloning and its implications.
It was interesting to read the book with new "close-reading" eyes. I remember that I really enjoyed the book the first time, appreciating its simple form and compelling storyline. This time, I found the characters frustrating throughout, and the final meeting with Madame and Miss Emily was unsatisfying. After the building of suspense, that section of the book falls flat with Miss Emily's lengthy explanation of why they did what they did. This time it felt like too tidy a summary, dispelling all mystery surrounding Hailsham and its students. Of course, the reader knows for certain what the students are on page 73, so I don't understand why I'm bothered by the full disclosure this time around.
I'm curious about the constant references to weather. "There was bright sunshine, but it must have been raining earlier that day..." (Ishiguro, p. 7). "The downpour had started while we were changing..." (p. 71). "It had turned into a crisp, sunny day..." (p. 136). Even the name of the school, Hailsham, has a weather-related name. I'm guessing there is some meaning in the mention of weather, perhaps as foreshadowing of the tone of the storyline that follows?
I'll leave off here until we've had a chance to discuss the novel in class. I'm sure that will bring new ideas to mind, and maybe bring some of the ones I have into focus.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Notes on Nights
I started reading Nights at the Circus, and soon realized I needed to have a dictionary and access to the internet close at hand. The novel is so crammed with allusion, obscure references and complex language that it took some time getting into it. Once I got used to Carter's unique style of writing, it captivated and pulled me in. I really enjoyed the first section (London) and the second (Petersburg). After page 70, I gave up on making notes of every phrase that delighted me, as there were so many, and it was making the reading of the novel somewhat laborious to be jotting down notes every half a minute.
The third section (Siberia) was where I started to lose interest. I found the switching of narration to be grating. One moment Fevvers and Lizzie are brazen Cockney gals, and the next high-minded philosophers. Much of what Lizzie said in this last section seemed too much like preaching, and the story went off on too many tangents, leaving little room for the core characters to evolve.
The theme of self-presentation was interesting to me. The idea that we are all actresses and actors on the stage of life, choosing the face and the reality (or fantasy) we wish to project. Fevvers describes her work as a living statue in Ma Nelson's brothel “[I]s it not to the mercies of the eyes of others that we commit ourselves on our voyage through the world?” (Carter, p. 42). In Buffo's description of the life of a clown, he says "we possess one privilege, one rare privilege, that makes of our outcast and disregarded state something wonderful, something precious. We can invent our own faces! We make ourselves" (p. 141).
The many references to marriage make it clear that Carter is no fan of the institution. “What is marriage but prostitution to one man instead of many?” (p. 21). “Only a whore...could hope for so much from marriage” (p. 51). This is why I find it interesting that Carter hints at marriage for her heroine. Throughout the story, both Fevvers and Lizzie have unfavourable views on marriage, so is this meant to show that Fevvers goes from one "prison" to another with marriage being the ultimate cage for the angel of the 20th century?
The third section (Siberia) was where I started to lose interest. I found the switching of narration to be grating. One moment Fevvers and Lizzie are brazen Cockney gals, and the next high-minded philosophers. Much of what Lizzie said in this last section seemed too much like preaching, and the story went off on too many tangents, leaving little room for the core characters to evolve.
The theme of self-presentation was interesting to me. The idea that we are all actresses and actors on the stage of life, choosing the face and the reality (or fantasy) we wish to project. Fevvers describes her work as a living statue in Ma Nelson's brothel “[I]s it not to the mercies of the eyes of others that we commit ourselves on our voyage through the world?” (Carter, p. 42). In Buffo's description of the life of a clown, he says "we possess one privilege, one rare privilege, that makes of our outcast and disregarded state something wonderful, something precious. We can invent our own faces! We make ourselves" (p. 141).
The many references to marriage make it clear that Carter is no fan of the institution. “What is marriage but prostitution to one man instead of many?” (p. 21). “Only a whore...could hope for so much from marriage” (p. 51). This is why I find it interesting that Carter hints at marriage for her heroine. Throughout the story, both Fevvers and Lizzie have unfavourable views on marriage, so is this meant to show that Fevvers goes from one "prison" to another with marriage being the ultimate cage for the angel of the 20th century?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Reflections on Geek Love
Reading Geek Love was entertaining, disturbing and suspenseful. It's the only novel I can think of where I really dislike the characters while at the same time remain fascinated by what will become of them. For me, the physical deformities became less central to the story because of the unconcealed human frailty the characters possess. This examination of the darker side of human emotion and personality is part of the reason the novel is so unsettling. I can see myself in these "freaks,"–does that make me more freakish, or does it make them more "normal"? Arty's jealousy, Al's greed and Lil's subservience intermingle with Oly and Chick's desperate need for love, something that is elusive in the Binewski family. The twins' eventual fate seems representative of the struggle within us all, and our capacity for self-destruction.
I would argue that, as with most things in life, there is a continuum of freak/geek. Some of us will fall closer to the extremes than others, and the perception of what is freaky or geeky will differ from person to person and change according to the time in which we live. Social norms change as people who are considered "deviant" push the boundaries and widen our view of what is acceptable in terms of thought and behaviour (including outward appearance). The characters in Geek Love may look different, but it is in the mental and not the physical sphere where freaks are created.
I would argue that, as with most things in life, there is a continuum of freak/geek. Some of us will fall closer to the extremes than others, and the perception of what is freaky or geeky will differ from person to person and change according to the time in which we live. Social norms change as people who are considered "deviant" push the boundaries and widen our view of what is acceptable in terms of thought and behaviour (including outward appearance). The characters in Geek Love may look different, but it is in the mental and not the physical sphere where freaks are created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
