When trying to interpret a dense book by myself, I find that I often miss the most important points and connections. Listening to people mull over the text in class is tedious, but pays off in the end when new interpretations are shared.
Something that I completely missed while reading the book was the connection between Kurtz's Intended and his last words. The idea that 'the horror!' was a reference to the fiancee shows a very interesting level of the book; I'm glad that it was a topic of discussion today.
Reading Heart of Darkness is difficult, analyzing it is near traumatic. Having a group of other minds to approach it with (along with two teachers packing previous experience with the novel) is immensely helpful.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Connection: Heart of Darkness and Sigmund Freud
An aspect of Heart of Darkness that really sticks out is Kurtz's descent to savagery. An extended stay in the forests in mad pursuit of ivory seemed to do interesting things to the agent's mentality; the doctor met by Marlow would be intrigued. Severed heads acting as decoration? Rock on. Caring more about elephant tusks than your own health? Cheers.
Freud comes in naturally with the (arguably) mad agent: the repression of internal, base drives that are often considered ammoral or frowned upon. Kurtz's transformation demonstrates the tearing down of the wall that holds back these drives, called the 'id' by Freud. This raises new aspects of the novel: What is it about the Congo that causes these changes? What role does 'civilized' society play in the caging of the 'id'?
Marlow views Kurtz in a very mixed, ambiguous manner. Disgust, exaltation, respect, fear... They all seem to be expressed in his narrating. Is this how 'normal' people view those who have released inner animal urges? Perhaps an experience like that raises such a complex blend of emotions that he simply doesn't know how to react. Would you?
Freud comes in naturally with the (arguably) mad agent: the repression of internal, base drives that are often considered ammoral or frowned upon. Kurtz's transformation demonstrates the tearing down of the wall that holds back these drives, called the 'id' by Freud. This raises new aspects of the novel: What is it about the Congo that causes these changes? What role does 'civilized' society play in the caging of the 'id'?
Marlow views Kurtz in a very mixed, ambiguous manner. Disgust, exaltation, respect, fear... They all seem to be expressed in his narrating. Is this how 'normal' people view those who have released inner animal urges? Perhaps an experience like that raises such a complex blend of emotions that he simply doesn't know how to react. Would you?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Metacognition: 1st Semester
Academically, sophomore year has seemed to have gone more or less as I planned so far. The daily routine has settled in, the natural flow of things has started up. One word comes to mind when I think of English class this year: different. We've tackled stuff ranging from Shakespeare to philosophy, fictional memoirs to acting. Variety seems to be the driving force behind our studies. Throughout these months, I feel that I've learned some things about my writing that never really would've popped up otherwise: I need to maintain focus when working on essays, my paragraphs don't transition well, etc.
Currently I'm reading Eric Clapton's autobiography. My initial expectations: "The guy's not a writer, he's a blues guitar god. This book will be a good story written in a mediocre manner." I was wrong. While he is no Charles Dickens, he writes with an honesty and reflective attitude that bares his soul for all to see. What allows such linguistic skills to manifest themselves? To be a good writer, one needs creativity and the ability to harness it. I find that I'm severely lacking in both departments.
That being said, perhaps this school year will provide ample opportunities to improve. Gradewise, English this year has been harder. That's a good sign. Only through struggle do we become stronger. Let it be noted that by no means am I saying last year was too easy; that would be arrogant and false.
A discussion this year that stuck with me fairly well was held during our examination of Sophie's World. It concerned some pretty heavy material involving God, the creation of the universe, and Luc waking from his eternal slumber to contribute his knowledge on the topic. Certain subjects that come up during English discussions resonate well with me simply because I've pondered them on my own before. I really like this aspect of our class.
Soon we will enter the second half of the school year. Things to expect: essays, active reading, and... poetry? Things to work on: writing, speaking in addition to listening during discussions. See you on the other side.
Currently I'm reading Eric Clapton's autobiography. My initial expectations: "The guy's not a writer, he's a blues guitar god. This book will be a good story written in a mediocre manner." I was wrong. While he is no Charles Dickens, he writes with an honesty and reflective attitude that bares his soul for all to see. What allows such linguistic skills to manifest themselves? To be a good writer, one needs creativity and the ability to harness it. I find that I'm severely lacking in both departments.
That being said, perhaps this school year will provide ample opportunities to improve. Gradewise, English this year has been harder. That's a good sign. Only through struggle do we become stronger. Let it be noted that by no means am I saying last year was too easy; that would be arrogant and false.
A discussion this year that stuck with me fairly well was held during our examination of Sophie's World. It concerned some pretty heavy material involving God, the creation of the universe, and Luc waking from his eternal slumber to contribute his knowledge on the topic. Certain subjects that come up during English discussions resonate well with me simply because I've pondered them on my own before. I really like this aspect of our class.
Soon we will enter the second half of the school year. Things to expect: essays, active reading, and... poetry? Things to work on: writing, speaking in addition to listening during discussions. See you on the other side.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Blogging Around II - Merrick and Bill
In response to Bill's Post About King Lear and the Erosion of Mountains:
"Bill, I really like these analogies you've made between the characters of Lear and the natural forces that wear away at mountains. I know what you mean when you talk about using comparisons to better understand literature; I think that even if they don't realize it, everyone employs this method when they read."
In response to Merrick's Post About A One-Handed Basketball Player Winning A DI Scholarship:
"Merrick, this is a great post and I particularly liked the theme of work ethic and its significance. I agree that in many things, including but not exclusive to athletics, hard work is something that is universally necessary and will pave the way to achieving your goals. Something my coach has told us countless times is that "there's no shame in giving it all you've got and falling short." Some people are born with talent, some people aren't. You can't control that, but what you can control is what work you put in."
"Bill, I really like these analogies you've made between the characters of Lear and the natural forces that wear away at mountains. I know what you mean when you talk about using comparisons to better understand literature; I think that even if they don't realize it, everyone employs this method when they read."
In response to Merrick's Post About A One-Handed Basketball Player Winning A DI Scholarship:
"Merrick, this is a great post and I particularly liked the theme of work ethic and its significance. I agree that in many things, including but not exclusive to athletics, hard work is something that is universally necessary and will pave the way to achieving your goals. Something my coach has told us countless times is that "there's no shame in giving it all you've got and falling short." Some people are born with talent, some people aren't. You can't control that, but what you can control is what work you put in."
Monday, November 16, 2009
iMedia: Canon Rock
Christmas is getting closer and closer. Maybe not too close, but close enough. Anyway, this song reminds me of wintertime and Santa Claus, nevermind the fact that it's really not affiliated with Christmas at all, so I decided it would serve well for this post.
This particular version of Pachelbel's Canon is quite different from more traditional performances and recordings in that it's played on an electric guitar. Now if you just turned your nose up in disgust and/or sighed with a disappointed face, bear with me a little longer. The song isn't completely butchered; in fact I view it as an opportunity for two different time eras to meet each other through the greatest medium possible: art. Music, to be specific.
Can I be a truly unbiased listener when comparing this version to others? Probably not, the reason being that this recording was the first Canon that I ever heard. Nevertheless, I'll put my opinion out there that this performance is just as good as any made by some grand symphony orchestra or virtuoso pianist.
If you search "canon rock" on YouTube, lots of performances will pop up. This one is the shining star among them all. Not too heavy, not too mellow, not too long, not too short. You can listen intensely, you can listen easily. There's really no way of describing it, the piece is just beautiful. It also really lets you compare more classical, traditional styles of music with modern forms. It starts off with a soothing orchestral introduction, then slowly builds into the guitar driven body.
The combination of modern and traditional elements of music really in this piece really is what makes it interesting. I feel that it illustrates the connections that exist between all types of music; to me, musical genres simply represent differing methods of expression. I may not like all these methods, but I must be humble enough to admit that they are methods of expression.
Music has changed dramatically throughout the passage of its development. Change is not always universal; conflict is always created. What Canon Rock tries to accomplish is to tie together two differing styles of expression, two phases of music's long life. I respect that.
Canon Rock
For comparison - another, more traditional version, just as beautiful: Canon Non-Rock
This particular version of Pachelbel's Canon is quite different from more traditional performances and recordings in that it's played on an electric guitar. Now if you just turned your nose up in disgust and/or sighed with a disappointed face, bear with me a little longer. The song isn't completely butchered; in fact I view it as an opportunity for two different time eras to meet each other through the greatest medium possible: art. Music, to be specific.
Can I be a truly unbiased listener when comparing this version to others? Probably not, the reason being that this recording was the first Canon that I ever heard. Nevertheless, I'll put my opinion out there that this performance is just as good as any made by some grand symphony orchestra or virtuoso pianist.
If you search "canon rock" on YouTube, lots of performances will pop up. This one is the shining star among them all. Not too heavy, not too mellow, not too long, not too short. You can listen intensely, you can listen easily. There's really no way of describing it, the piece is just beautiful. It also really lets you compare more classical, traditional styles of music with modern forms. It starts off with a soothing orchestral introduction, then slowly builds into the guitar driven body.
The combination of modern and traditional elements of music really in this piece really is what makes it interesting. I feel that it illustrates the connections that exist between all types of music; to me, musical genres simply represent differing methods of expression. I may not like all these methods, but I must be humble enough to admit that they are methods of expression.
Music has changed dramatically throughout the passage of its development. Change is not always universal; conflict is always created. What Canon Rock tries to accomplish is to tie together two differing styles of expression, two phases of music's long life. I respect that.
Canon Rock
For comparison - another, more traditional version, just as beautiful: Canon Non-Rock
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Connection: Lear and An Immature Toddler
Characters in stories like that of King Lear tend to frustrate me when I read about them. Ignorance, arrogance, and an incredibly thick skull are the things that make Lear someone I would not enjoy knowing in real life. So far throughout the story, he's demonstrated his ability to completely miss the important points of his situation while flipping out about minor, unnecessary things. He may be very old, but sometimes he gives the opposite impression.
In the very first scene of the play, he decides to judge his daughters' worthiness of receiving his inheritance by listening to them describe how much they love him... In other words, he wants them to praise him just for the sake of it. It's just like he's a little kid; he loves to hear good stuff about himself, but when someone tells it to him like it is (Cordelia), he has a temper tantrum and retaliates. The difference is that in Lear's case, he's the one in power, not the disapproving parents. Imagine putting Dudley Dursley in the seat of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Lear's stubborn refusal to go anywhere without his full contingent of knights can be viewed in different ways. There are obviously ambitions for power between Regan and Goneril, so one could argue that their trying to impose a limit on Lear's retinue is symbolic of taking away his authority. If this is the case, then his actions can be somewhat justified. However, blindly running out into a storm when you're old and weak is just stupid. It solved no problems at all and it really didn't even make him feel better either.
The Fool states at one point in the play that Lear grew old before he grew wise. I couldn't agree more. There's still a lot left to happen in the play, but so far the impression I've gotten of the king has been very negative. Perhaps the real Tragedy of King Lear his old age has only made him ignorant and rash instead of wise.
In the very first scene of the play, he decides to judge his daughters' worthiness of receiving his inheritance by listening to them describe how much they love him... In other words, he wants them to praise him just for the sake of it. It's just like he's a little kid; he loves to hear good stuff about himself, but when someone tells it to him like it is (Cordelia), he has a temper tantrum and retaliates. The difference is that in Lear's case, he's the one in power, not the disapproving parents. Imagine putting Dudley Dursley in the seat of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Lear's stubborn refusal to go anywhere without his full contingent of knights can be viewed in different ways. There are obviously ambitions for power between Regan and Goneril, so one could argue that their trying to impose a limit on Lear's retinue is symbolic of taking away his authority. If this is the case, then his actions can be somewhat justified. However, blindly running out into a storm when you're old and weak is just stupid. It solved no problems at all and it really didn't even make him feel better either.
The Fool states at one point in the play that Lear grew old before he grew wise. I couldn't agree more. There's still a lot left to happen in the play, but so far the impression I've gotten of the king has been very negative. Perhaps the real Tragedy of King Lear his old age has only made him ignorant and rash instead of wise.
Monday, November 2, 2009
360: Religion
I have walked into a house of worship once in my life. It was for a friend's bar mitzvah service and I paid more attention to the fly buzzing around my seat than the endless Hebrew litany laboriously being recited. My extremely limited experience with this phenomenon called religion makes me want to write about it.
An alien comes up to you and asks: "What is this thing you call religion?" What do you say? My first answer would most likely be "No." A complete historical look at humanity's religious habits and happenings would take far too long, so after my completely unhelpful one word answer, the alien would have to settle for a couple general statements from me.
"Religion is humanity's way of explaining, understanding, justifying, and regulating our lives and the experiences, actions, and thoughts they encompass. This is often achieved through references and beliefs in higher powers or truths. It often serves as a wellspring of morality (another concept that can be explored in profound depth) and sanctuary for those in need of it. It also has been the cause, directly or indirectly, of an immense number of human deaths because of conflicts in belief and/or doctrine."
The third and fourth statements made above were obviously put forth from very different perspectives. Both seem to isolate a certain aspect of religion, positive or negative. An examination of and attempt to compromise them would be a pretty swell thing to take the alien, and upon further thought, myself, through.
True: religion is generally a great advertiser of high moral standards, altruism, and peace. Think of famous figures related to peace, and who comes to mind? Mother Teresa, Mohandas Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. Religion's also been a beastly cultural facilitator: there's an endless amount of wonderful art and music that's sprung up as a result of faith. Holidays are a significant part of practically all human cultures. Guess where most holidays came from?
Flip it. The Aztec religion decided that sacrificing human beings was the way to pay off our debt to the gods and keep the world in one piece. As of 2008, at least 1,121 suicide bombers have detonated themselves and their victims in not the world, but just Iraq. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, terrorist attacks justified by religious ideals. What do they all have in common? Religion, Death, and all his friends.
We took a great idea and then did what we always manage to do: disagree about it. If I only had time to tell Mr. Alien one thing about humanity before he moved on to Alpha Centauri or wherever aliens take vacations, it would be that we are a bunch of greedy, violent bastards.
Optimism or pessimism: which one should we use to view God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Nirvana, etc.? The cliche answer is "a little bit of both"... I'm going to be cliche. We can't label faith as a horrible concept that causes nothing but death and destruction; rational people will realize that it's far from being something so malignant. We also can't view it as a perfect concept in theory or in practice; the same rational people, Bless them, would realize that it's simply not how things are.
So. What happened? Why did a humble movement started by a certain miracle-working carpenter lead to numerous bloody military campaigns that swept across and out of Europe? Conflict. You can't tell the majority of the human race to try to explain why we exist and where we came from and what's right and what's wrong, then expect the same answer from everyone; it's not possible. Islam is often stereotyped with violence: planes flying into buildings, men in turbans whipping out their AK-47s, young martyrs blowing themselves up. Are all Muslims like that? I shouldn't need to answer, but for anyone who's feeling a little slow right now, the answer's "No." The people that you hear about on TV calling non-Muslims infidels, people to be killed, bound for hell, etc., they're just the ones who've taken an offensive attitude on faith. They lack something important. That something is called tolerance. T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E. If our mutual acquaintance of an alien decided that he could spare another minute on smelly, nasty Earth, that's what I would say: What humanity needs is tolerance.
An alien comes up to you and asks: "What is this thing you call religion?" What do you say? My first answer would most likely be "No." A complete historical look at humanity's religious habits and happenings would take far too long, so after my completely unhelpful one word answer, the alien would have to settle for a couple general statements from me.
"Religion is humanity's way of explaining, understanding, justifying, and regulating our lives and the experiences, actions, and thoughts they encompass. This is often achieved through references and beliefs in higher powers or truths. It often serves as a wellspring of morality (another concept that can be explored in profound depth) and sanctuary for those in need of it. It also has been the cause, directly or indirectly, of an immense number of human deaths because of conflicts in belief and/or doctrine."
The third and fourth statements made above were obviously put forth from very different perspectives. Both seem to isolate a certain aspect of religion, positive or negative. An examination of and attempt to compromise them would be a pretty swell thing to take the alien, and upon further thought, myself, through.
True: religion is generally a great advertiser of high moral standards, altruism, and peace. Think of famous figures related to peace, and who comes to mind? Mother Teresa, Mohandas Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. Religion's also been a beastly cultural facilitator: there's an endless amount of wonderful art and music that's sprung up as a result of faith. Holidays are a significant part of practically all human cultures. Guess where most holidays came from?
Flip it. The Aztec religion decided that sacrificing human beings was the way to pay off our debt to the gods and keep the world in one piece. As of 2008, at least 1,121 suicide bombers have detonated themselves and their victims in not the world, but just Iraq. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, terrorist attacks justified by religious ideals. What do they all have in common? Religion, Death, and all his friends.
We took a great idea and then did what we always manage to do: disagree about it. If I only had time to tell Mr. Alien one thing about humanity before he moved on to Alpha Centauri or wherever aliens take vacations, it would be that we are a bunch of greedy, violent bastards.
Optimism or pessimism: which one should we use to view God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Nirvana, etc.? The cliche answer is "a little bit of both"... I'm going to be cliche. We can't label faith as a horrible concept that causes nothing but death and destruction; rational people will realize that it's far from being something so malignant. We also can't view it as a perfect concept in theory or in practice; the same rational people, Bless them, would realize that it's simply not how things are.
So. What happened? Why did a humble movement started by a certain miracle-working carpenter lead to numerous bloody military campaigns that swept across and out of Europe? Conflict. You can't tell the majority of the human race to try to explain why we exist and where we came from and what's right and what's wrong, then expect the same answer from everyone; it's not possible. Islam is often stereotyped with violence: planes flying into buildings, men in turbans whipping out their AK-47s, young martyrs blowing themselves up. Are all Muslims like that? I shouldn't need to answer, but for anyone who's feeling a little slow right now, the answer's "No." The people that you hear about on TV calling non-Muslims infidels, people to be killed, bound for hell, etc., they're just the ones who've taken an offensive attitude on faith. They lack something important. That something is called tolerance. T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E. If our mutual acquaintance of an alien decided that he could spare another minute on smelly, nasty Earth, that's what I would say: What humanity needs is tolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)