Monday, May 4, 2009
Marxism in King Lear
Many scenes in Shakespeare can be viewed as a Marxist reading. One example of this is in Act 1 Scene 1 where two of Lear's daughters eagerly showed their love for their father in order to get the best amount of land, although we know this was prearranged. Still, the daughter with the best show of love recieved the best plot of land. In Act 2, Scene 1, we see Edmund begin to carry out his plan to put his illegitimate father Gloucester against Edgar his own son. For him to become heir to Gloucester’s riches he makes Edgar run away etc. Once again we see that in order for one person move up on the social ladder, another person has to fall; in this case Edgar. One final example of Marxism in King Lear is in Act 5 Scene 3 when everyone dies. Although this is trademark of a Shakespearean tragedy it is also Marxist because none of the original “rich” can ever be restored to power. They are all over thrown, rid of, and dead, allowing for a sort of revolution. The motivation for these actions in these scenes is money and power. Marxist readers would immediately recognize that this play is about money, power and change.
Feminism in "King Lear"
Act 4, Scene 2
In this scene, Goneril's husband, Albany, is starting to distance himself from Goneril and Regan's evil plans of usurping their father of power. He realizes that what they are doing is wrong and no longer wishes to take part in their ploy. This angers Goneril and she answers Albany's worries with mocking and anger. Not soon after she has this fight with Albany, Goneril thinks about getting together with Edmund.
From a feminist point of view, this scene does have a few interesting occurences. It can be noted that it is a man, Albany, who finally realizes that what they are doing is wrong and backs away from the plan to destroy King Lear. Even after Albany tries to talk some sense into Goneril, she still remains steadfast in her evel ways and mocks Albany for trying to do something righteous. In fact, throughout the whole novel, Goneril and Regan never seem to take even a moments time to reflect upon their actions and think that what they are doing may be wrong. Even though they are hurting their own father, they seem to care less about him than a total stranger, Albany. In this sense, the two sisters can be described to be truly evil for they do not even hesitate to harm their father for their selfish gains. To top it off, Goneril can be seen as a sort of temptress for she cannot even let a day pass after breaking up with Albany to pursue another man. This can be seen as weakness, for she cannot be without a man for long, or she just likes to seduce men, even in the midst of tearing her father's world apart. Either way, this scene portrays the cunning and evil ways of certain women and how their hearts are stone cold in comparison to repentant men like Albany.
In this scene, Goneril's husband, Albany, is starting to distance himself from Goneril and Regan's evil plans of usurping their father of power. He realizes that what they are doing is wrong and no longer wishes to take part in their ploy. This angers Goneril and she answers Albany's worries with mocking and anger. Not soon after she has this fight with Albany, Goneril thinks about getting together with Edmund.
From a feminist point of view, this scene does have a few interesting occurences. It can be noted that it is a man, Albany, who finally realizes that what they are doing is wrong and backs away from the plan to destroy King Lear. Even after Albany tries to talk some sense into Goneril, she still remains steadfast in her evel ways and mocks Albany for trying to do something righteous. In fact, throughout the whole novel, Goneril and Regan never seem to take even a moments time to reflect upon their actions and think that what they are doing may be wrong. Even though they are hurting their own father, they seem to care less about him than a total stranger, Albany. In this sense, the two sisters can be described to be truly evil for they do not even hesitate to harm their father for their selfish gains. To top it off, Goneril can be seen as a sort of temptress for she cannot even let a day pass after breaking up with Albany to pursue another man. This can be seen as weakness, for she cannot be without a man for long, or she just likes to seduce men, even in the midst of tearing her father's world apart. Either way, this scene portrays the cunning and evil ways of certain women and how their hearts are stone cold in comparison to repentant men like Albany.
Act 2 Scene 4 Psychoanalytic Criticism
"Down, Wanton, Down!" is a very famous poem by Robert Graves that alludes to Shakespeare's King Lear, Act 2, Scene 4, line 139-40. Wantons, in Shakespeare's version, are playful animals, and, also, a pun for "lewd persons," that is, with sexual and libidinal connotations. This is what Grave's poem is about, a poem that picks up on the sexual themes in Shakespeare.
The fool, who by some critics is read as Lear's conscience, not an altogether wrong interpretation, but a limited one, may also be considered as an archetype for the ego, in the Freudian-Lacanian sense of the term. The libido is the primordial, natural part of man, the 'id' in Freudian thought. Shakespeare speaks of the dynamic between the id and the ego, the animalistic, natural aspects of man, dominated by the ego through the fool: "Horses are tied by the heads, dogs and bears by the neck, monkeys by the loins, and men by the legs. When a man's overlusty at legs, then he wears wooden-nether stocks." (ln. 10-14). This is a demonstration of taking control over one's body, over one's impulses, which leads to Lacan's Ideal-I, a ficitious 'I', an ego that seeks to normalize the libido/id.
Notice that once the theme of the libido has been raised, Shakespeare's metaphors about money and the Marxist themes within the text are constructed with sexual imagery, "Fortune, that arrant whore, / Ne'er turns the key to th' poor." (58-60). This condensation of two different themes within King Lear, through Shakespeare's choice to personify 'fortune' as a whore rather than something other, is not indicative of Shakespeare's own psyche, but insightful in how the manifest elements of a text may be condensed to produce potent and latent effects, like Robert Grave's "Down, Wanton, Down!"
"We are not ourselves when nature, being oppressed, commands the mind to suffer with the body," says King Lear (ln. 121-3). This is also the dynamic of Freud's theory, summed up by Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh, "In repression, a psychical representative - an idea attached to an instinct - is denied entry into the conscious mind because its impact would be too disturbing, too painful, and the idea then becomes fixated as a measure of energy in the unconscious." (14 MLT). King Lear will lose this sense of "self" when his unconscious repressions of Cordelia will manifest themselves in his neurotic behaviour (like taking all his clothes off in the storm - something that may be read as a loss of ego, or the ideal-I) as well as his ultimate journey into madness.
Lear, represses his conscience, "O me, my heart, my rising heart, but down!" and in doing so helps create what will lead to his own mental demise. The fool intensifies this scene, Lear's repression, by telling a story about what a cockney did to the eels, as she put an end to sleep (the unconscious), "she knapped 'em on th' coxcombs with a stick and cried, "Down, wantons, down!"
Repression of nature, as seen in King Lear, and theorized by Freud and Lacan, leads to mental disturbance, and sometimes, psychic breakdowns.
The fool, who by some critics is read as Lear's conscience, not an altogether wrong interpretation, but a limited one, may also be considered as an archetype for the ego, in the Freudian-Lacanian sense of the term. The libido is the primordial, natural part of man, the 'id' in Freudian thought. Shakespeare speaks of the dynamic between the id and the ego, the animalistic, natural aspects of man, dominated by the ego through the fool: "Horses are tied by the heads, dogs and bears by the neck, monkeys by the loins, and men by the legs. When a man's overlusty at legs, then he wears wooden-nether stocks." (ln. 10-14). This is a demonstration of taking control over one's body, over one's impulses, which leads to Lacan's Ideal-I, a ficitious 'I', an ego that seeks to normalize the libido/id.
Notice that once the theme of the libido has been raised, Shakespeare's metaphors about money and the Marxist themes within the text are constructed with sexual imagery, "Fortune, that arrant whore, / Ne'er turns the key to th' poor." (58-60). This condensation of two different themes within King Lear, through Shakespeare's choice to personify 'fortune' as a whore rather than something other, is not indicative of Shakespeare's own psyche, but insightful in how the manifest elements of a text may be condensed to produce potent and latent effects, like Robert Grave's "Down, Wanton, Down!"
"We are not ourselves when nature, being oppressed, commands the mind to suffer with the body," says King Lear (ln. 121-3). This is also the dynamic of Freud's theory, summed up by Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh, "In repression, a psychical representative - an idea attached to an instinct - is denied entry into the conscious mind because its impact would be too disturbing, too painful, and the idea then becomes fixated as a measure of energy in the unconscious." (14 MLT). King Lear will lose this sense of "self" when his unconscious repressions of Cordelia will manifest themselves in his neurotic behaviour (like taking all his clothes off in the storm - something that may be read as a loss of ego, or the ideal-I) as well as his ultimate journey into madness.
Lear, represses his conscience, "O me, my heart, my rising heart, but down!" and in doing so helps create what will lead to his own mental demise. The fool intensifies this scene, Lear's repression, by telling a story about what a cockney did to the eels, as she put an end to sleep (the unconscious), "she knapped 'em on th' coxcombs with a stick and cried, "Down, wantons, down!"
Repression of nature, as seen in King Lear, and theorized by Freud and Lacan, leads to mental disturbance, and sometimes, psychic breakdowns.
King Lear
As soon as I began to read King Lear, I was able to interpret the text through a feminist and Marxist point of view. In terms of feminism, the text presents the reader with two important reoccurring themes we have touched on in the past. One of these is the representation of women as weak in one sense but also as strong in some ways. The other is the representation of the two extreme descriptions that women seem to have to fall into, one being extremely good and the other being extremely bad. In Act 1, Scene 1, the daughters of King Lear can be seen as weak. First, it it obvious that they (well two of them) are relying on their father's wealth and land. Second, the fact that they have to prove their love for their father makes it seem like in order to survive of get anything in life, you need to show your love for a man. On the other hand, Cordelia, Lear's youngest daughter can be seen as strong. She refuses to show her love for her father in order to receive his land. She would rather keep her own dignity than please a man's wishes. In Act 1, Scene 3, his other daughters can also be seen as strong. They soon grow tired of their father and refuse to see him as well as make him get rid of some of his knights. They are showing strength and authority over a man. Through out the entirety of the text, Lear's daughters portray two opposite characteristics of women. Cordelia shows the loving, caring, and honest woman. Regan and Goneril show the ungrateful, evil, cruel, and conniving women. These are two opposite and extreme categories that a feminist would say women are faced with fitting into.
Act 1, Scene 1 also lends itself to a Marxist reading. The reason why Lear's daughters were so eager to show their love for their father was not to truly express their feelings, but in order to get the best land. In Act 2, Scene 1, Edmund begins his plan to put his illegitimate father Gloucester against his illegitimate son, Edgar. He does this in order to be sole heir. The motivation for these actions is money, something a Marxist would immediately recognize about this play. In a way, the story also can be interpreted to show that you cannot move up in society. This is shown not in terms of social classes, but in how Lear treats his daughters. He makes it seem like the one who shows their love the best will get the best land, but he has already divided the land before his daughters speak. He has already picked who gets what land regardless of what they say, it wouldn't matter, nothing would change. It is a long stretch to connect with the mobility of social classes, but it was a thought in my mind.
Act 1, Scene 1 also lends itself to a Marxist reading. The reason why Lear's daughters were so eager to show their love for their father was not to truly express their feelings, but in order to get the best land. In Act 2, Scene 1, Edmund begins his plan to put his illegitimate father Gloucester against his illegitimate son, Edgar. He does this in order to be sole heir. The motivation for these actions is money, something a Marxist would immediately recognize about this play. In a way, the story also can be interpreted to show that you cannot move up in society. This is shown not in terms of social classes, but in how Lear treats his daughters. He makes it seem like the one who shows their love the best will get the best land, but he has already divided the land before his daughters speak. He has already picked who gets what land regardless of what they say, it wouldn't matter, nothing would change. It is a long stretch to connect with the mobility of social classes, but it was a thought in my mind.
Feminism in King Lear
Reading King Lear, I learned of the female roles that are used in the play. The role of the females play a central theme and the decision the female characters make in the play roles up the lives of the male characters in the play. To start off the play is about King Lear and his three daughters. He gives his three daughters the right to prove their love for him in return to get the his power and wealth in equals. The two oldest daughters Regan and Gonreail both say that they love their father more than anything else in the world. The youngest daughter Godelai doesn't feel it is right for her to confess of her love for her father in return for his wealth or power.
Throughout the play the writer makes both of King Lear's daughters as witches. They are cruel and obnoxious. They have no pity on their poor old father. Both daughters kick out their father and fight their husbands they cheat and get jealous of one another. This can be seen as a feminist reading because here any woman can argue the lives these two sisters lead. Both sisters are cruel and mean, to which many woman would argue because that isn't what a typical female would do. Woman are portrayed as being evil.
On the other had the play also speaks of the youngest daughter Gordieila, who didn't want to choose between her father's love and property. She is shown as the strong and powerful. She fights her two sisters at the end and forgives her father for disowning her. She is the powerful one at the end because she doesn't use her father's love or power to become the winner at the end of the book but instead she used her femininity of not fighting over power and hurting others to get what she wants. She played her role as any female would've with calmness and patience.
Throughout the play the writer makes both of King Lear's daughters as witches. They are cruel and obnoxious. They have no pity on their poor old father. Both daughters kick out their father and fight their husbands they cheat and get jealous of one another. This can be seen as a feminist reading because here any woman can argue the lives these two sisters lead. Both sisters are cruel and mean, to which many woman would argue because that isn't what a typical female would do. Woman are portrayed as being evil.
On the other had the play also speaks of the youngest daughter Gordieila, who didn't want to choose between her father's love and property. She is shown as the strong and powerful. She fights her two sisters at the end and forgives her father for disowning her. She is the powerful one at the end because she doesn't use her father's love or power to become the winner at the end of the book but instead she used her femininity of not fighting over power and hurting others to get what she wants. She played her role as any female would've with calmness and patience.
Although the main character in King Lear would undoubtedly be Lear himself, his daughters are very important characters as well. A feminist cannot complain that in this particular play the female characters are muted or undeveloped to the point of blending into the background and yet faults can still be found. The problem lies in the way the only three female characters are portrayed, which Simone de Beauvoir illustrated when she wrote “as group symbols and social types are generally defined by means of antonyms in pairs, ambivalence will seem to be an intrinsic quality of the Eternal Feminine.” Lear’s youngest daughter, Cordelia, is shown to be honest, virtuous, loyal, and forgiving. She does not fawn over her father, which is what he really wants, though she genuinely loves her father. She is not angry when her father disowns her, does not say a harsh word against her evil sisters, and even forgives her father after all he puts her through. She is loyal to her father and her husband. On the other hand, we have the two remaining sisters, Gonerill and Regan who are just defined as evil. They are incredibly selfish, telling their father what they want he wants to hear in hopes of getting the larger piece of land, without even meaning what they say. They take advantage of their father’s lack of authority and treat him as if he was a burden even though they declared their undying love and devotion to him. They are jealous and envious of other people and each other, especially when it comes to Edmund, a man that both sisters are cheating on their husbands with. Cordelia is being put on the pedestal while Regan and Gonerill are being condemned. The women are described in such opposite extremes, and in both cases, are being placed in static, rigid categories which do no justice for the cause of feminists.
Shakespeare
Since Shakespeare's works take place centuries ago in the past, women had their set roles in society which was perfectly acceptable. If read from a feminist point of view, the first act right from the beginning can be seen as feminist. King Lear has his land which needs to be divided up for his daughters, which there are three of, but each had to publicly express their love for him in order to get a piece of the land. The youngest of the three did not want to do so, and the king became upset and exiled her and she received nothing. This may not seem so wrong, a father just wants to know his daughters love him and want everyone else to know how much they love him, right? If I was the youngest daughter, I would not have been against doing that, but I could understand why she would have nothing to say. A feminist could read this act as women needing to serve and show how much man (their father) make them who they are, and how much they love and are devoted to him just so that they can have something of their own, which their husband needs to almost co-sign for them. Their fathers land, rightfully belongs to them regardless if they publicly show how much they love him, because they are the heirs of his rule-- whether or not they do what he asks to please him should not make a difference.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Feminism in Shakespeare
In Act one Scene one of King Lear, it can be read as a feminist text. This scene incorporates King Lear’s decision to retire. To divide his kingdom, he has his three daughters profess their love for him. The first two daughters, Goneril and Regan, said their lines first and profess of a great love for their father. These two were granted land. However, the third would not do the same as her sisters and therefore was given no land. In the last class, the professor discuss the significance of the fact that each daughter who receive a land was given it after giving their speeches. I think the first two sister is the stereotypical display of females in male writings. They seems to be dumb and were marry so in need of a man. While the last daughter Cordelia is the positives of female in male writing. She is smart, self-assure, and although she does have a husband by the end of the book. This style of writing is associated with the what Showalter describes as a part of women as a reader. A male agenda is cleverly display so a reader do not notices the uses of the word.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
flying through space-time
I consistently have a recurring dream where I am flying and I keep flying without having any problems. When I was younger my flying-dreams started out as just floating above the ground or hovering, but as I got older and more capable of controlling my dreams I have been able to fly much much faster and much much higher. So in this dream I am flying at amazing speeds way about the clouds where I can stop and hover thousands of feet in the air staring down at what appears to be a giant city. In this specific flying-dream, I am so high up that it makes me feel very nervous, the gigantic city that i am floating over looks like the tiny strands that make up the material of a carpet or a rug. I am so high up over this city that buildings are so tiny to me as the threads of a tight-knit rug that i would normally stand on top of in waking-life. Sometimes I then venture further upward and higher and higher until I am in outer space. Once there i fly past the moon and other unidentified planetoids until i reach this crack in space. This crack is like a bright beam of light and the closer i get to it, and the further away i get from the earth, the brighter this beam of cracked-pathway becomes. The flying then begins to feel bumpy and rough like a plane hitting turbulence and that is when I always wake up....I never get to see what is emanating that bright cracked-light pathway.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
My crazy dream
So my crazy dream started off with me entering my grandmothers house in Jackson heights and I am greeted by my mother, father, brother, grandmother, my girlfriend, my girlfriends mother and stepfather, and my girlfriend’s sister and her boyfriend. Everyone is talking with each other even though they have all only met once. I decide to go into the living room and I find my brother with a bunch of random friends of his. How they got there I have no idea. One of them was our friend Ivan who I guess was only in the dream because about 3 days before the dream he got into a big fight with about 50 people and someone knocked him out from behind and kicked his face in and broke his jaw in about 3 places and lost a tooth so I guess it was still on my mind. Anyway they left and then I saw a toddler in a winter jacket being carried by some random man to the bathroom. I asked my girlfriend “who’s baby is that?” and she replied by saying “it’s our”. I responded by asking a bunch of questions such as when did this happen? I didn’t know you were pregnant? Why didn’t you tell me? Blah blah blah blah. She responded by saying it happened at a house party during the summer in someone named Scotts house. We both don’t know a Scott, which is really strange and funny. Anyway then we all went into the kitchen and had dinner but there weren’t enough chairs so I had to get one from the closet. When I opened the closet door I hit my head with a box of tissues because my grandmother has like 50 boxes in the closet. I take the chair to the table and I sit down. My mother asked me if I wanted watermelon and other fruit because my grandmother always has big fruit platters at her house. I respond by saying “yes”, and she takes the plate away from my girlfriends’ stepfather and I start eating. This dream was really weird but it didn’t end there. There was a knock at the door and I checked to see who it was. It was some man asking to come in. I asked everyone if they knew who it was, and my girlfriend responded by saying that it was her father who lives in Colombia. I guess this was because a few days earlier her father kept calling her to see how she was. After that I woke up and I was surprised that I remembered everything. I don’t remember most of my dreams, and that is the only one that sticks out in my mind.
R.I.P Oscar fish
Last week I dreamt about one of my fish dying which later turned out to be true. I own several fishes; one of the fishes is the sun catfish, a pleco, and 2 Oscar fishes. The two Oscars are actually the ones that I was worried about. My boyfriend one day decided to buy these feeder fishes which caused the fishes to be really sick. One of the Oscar fish started to breathe heavily, while the other fish’s eyeball was growing grossly big and white.
I was so worried for the fishes and we tried everything to medicate the fish. However, we later found out that nothing worked. We later found out that one of the fishes caught a disease called Popeye which was a bacterial infection that is by many factors and the other fish, well we just couldn’t figure out.
Due to the suffering of the fish I couldn’t sleep for hours. Once I did sleep, I dreamt that I was waking up from a dream to check up on the fishes. I remember checking the my fish’s eye, to see if it has gotten worse, and other things as well but it is not clear to me. When I did check on the fish (in my dream) I realized that one of the Oscar fish was floating belly up. I was so upset and so angry that I started yelling at my boyfriend for being such an idiot.
When I truly woke from that nightmare I was happy to see that they were ok, but they were still sick. The one fish with the Popeye, his eye grew two times bigger, the other fish still breathe heavily. But eventually, the Oscar fish that was breathing heavily couldn’t make it and died.
I was so worried for the fishes and we tried everything to medicate the fish. However, we later found out that nothing worked. We later found out that one of the fishes caught a disease called Popeye which was a bacterial infection that is by many factors and the other fish, well we just couldn’t figure out.
Due to the suffering of the fish I couldn’t sleep for hours. Once I did sleep, I dreamt that I was waking up from a dream to check up on the fishes. I remember checking the my fish’s eye, to see if it has gotten worse, and other things as well but it is not clear to me. When I did check on the fish (in my dream) I realized that one of the Oscar fish was floating belly up. I was so upset and so angry that I started yelling at my boyfriend for being such an idiot.
When I truly woke from that nightmare I was happy to see that they were ok, but they were still sick. The one fish with the Popeye, his eye grew two times bigger, the other fish still breathe heavily. But eventually, the Oscar fish that was breathing heavily couldn’t make it and died.
CHUCKY WAS AFTER ME!!!
I’ve had this dream more than once.
I wake up in my dream. I hear noises and I realize that someone broke into my house. I leave my room and I am standing on the top of the staircase. I know if I run down the stairs the criminals will hear the stairs creak. Somehow I start to fly down the stairs. I peak through the window in the stairwell wall and I see Chucky walking around and exploring my house. I feel pretty good about my height compared to his as well as my newfound power to fly. Then suddenly he glares up at me and flashes a really creepy smile. My heart is racing. I fly really fast around the dining table and toward the front door. I plan to escape and fly further down hill for help, but Chucky is on my tail. He is pretty fast for a little guy. I can’t get away. I nearly make it to the front gate when I find out I can’t fly higher than the gate. This sucks, so I wake up not wanting to see the end.
I wake up in my dream. I hear noises and I realize that someone broke into my house. I leave my room and I am standing on the top of the staircase. I know if I run down the stairs the criminals will hear the stairs creak. Somehow I start to fly down the stairs. I peak through the window in the stairwell wall and I see Chucky walking around and exploring my house. I feel pretty good about my height compared to his as well as my newfound power to fly. Then suddenly he glares up at me and flashes a really creepy smile. My heart is racing. I fly really fast around the dining table and toward the front door. I plan to escape and fly further down hill for help, but Chucky is on my tail. He is pretty fast for a little guy. I can’t get away. I nearly make it to the front gate when I find out I can’t fly higher than the gate. This sucks, so I wake up not wanting to see the end.
Root
In all honesty, I hardly dream or maybe I do and I just don't remember. All the dreams I've ever had, I hardly remember any details about. Reading Dinah's dream reminded me of a weird dream I had a few years ago. In the dream I remember seeing something growing on my arm and ignoring it, then I felt as if something was growing on my arm and when i touched my arm I realized that it was this long piece of root sprouting out. I wouldn't call it a plant, it was a root! and it was disgusting. I was freaked out and scared because I didn't know what it was. I remember I would keep touching it and observing it to see what else it could be and the more I did this it would just keep growing. Then I got really scared and woke up.
Dream
For this blog I am going to write about the dream that I had last night. I will warn everyone right now that my dreams are always a little ridiculous. I could have picked numerous past dreams that I have had to write this blog, but I knew that I didn't have to because last nights dream would be just as crazy as the rest of them. I do not make them up, I swear! Everyone knows my dreams are crazy and my friends even ask me about what i dreamt about sometimes.
My dream opened up to me getting kicked out of college. No one would tell me why I was kicked out and I was so aggravated because I am convinced that Queens College hates me and gives me problems constantly just for fun and because a lot of the people who work there don't know what's going on. I went away camping to a place that I have been going to since I was little in order to clear my mind. A teacher I had in high school was there waiting for me. This teacher and I used to be very close I knew her outside of school and we used to go shopping or talk about life. She became more of a friend and motherly type rather than a teacher since I knew her outside of school as well. She and I don't talk anymore and I really do not like her. Thinking about her makes me angry so I was being extremely rude to her. She was there planning her wedding (she got married in real life a few months ago) and I told her to go away...with a few more explicit words. Then I drove all the way back home and realized that I had to go to work. I went into the back room at work and I was there with Sarah Michelle Gellar and my mother. My mother and I do not have the best relationship so I was wondering why she was there. I was trying to show her that I can make objects float (the object i was using was a scientific calculator). Sarah Michelle Gellar needed my help, but I cannot remember why. All I know is that we were riding on dolphins in the ocean in the middle of the night, which is weird because I'm terrified of sharks. We ended up at some island and we had to climb through this window. I climbed through it and found my friends Catalina and Leanne. Leanne and I were eating candy and we were all planning to go out clubbing that night. The next thing I know, I am at a random bar. The bar is outside and I am not with Catalina and Leanne, but with another friend of mine, Shawn. Suddenly my boss (who I get along with great and is also more like a friend) tells everyone who is not twenty one that they need to move. She doesn't say anything to me even though I am only twenty. I get up because it was my turn to play beer pong. Then my grandmother is screaming my name saying that it is eight thirty and I'm going to be late for class, my wake up call.
I am going to try and interpret Polly's dream. It's just a guess or an idea so I hope you don't get offended! Maybe Polly could feel like she doesn't fit in or is not happy with where she currently is in life or where she was at one point. Maybe sometimes she wants to see the other options that are out there. Although this "father" abruptly took her out of the life that she was used to, she couldn't be mad at him because she enjoyed experiencing something new. Maybe someone in her life has changed her or come in without her consent, but it wasn't an entirely bad experience. Then when she had the decision to make to go back to what she once had, she wasn't sure what she wanted. Maybe this can be about a relationship ( of any type, a significant other or friend) that has changed her life and when it was over, she didn't know what she wanted anymore. She couldn't go back to live with her "family" or go back to where she was before the change because she herself changed from her experiences.
My dream opened up to me getting kicked out of college. No one would tell me why I was kicked out and I was so aggravated because I am convinced that Queens College hates me and gives me problems constantly just for fun and because a lot of the people who work there don't know what's going on. I went away camping to a place that I have been going to since I was little in order to clear my mind. A teacher I had in high school was there waiting for me. This teacher and I used to be very close I knew her outside of school and we used to go shopping or talk about life. She became more of a friend and motherly type rather than a teacher since I knew her outside of school as well. She and I don't talk anymore and I really do not like her. Thinking about her makes me angry so I was being extremely rude to her. She was there planning her wedding (she got married in real life a few months ago) and I told her to go away...with a few more explicit words. Then I drove all the way back home and realized that I had to go to work. I went into the back room at work and I was there with Sarah Michelle Gellar and my mother. My mother and I do not have the best relationship so I was wondering why she was there. I was trying to show her that I can make objects float (the object i was using was a scientific calculator). Sarah Michelle Gellar needed my help, but I cannot remember why. All I know is that we were riding on dolphins in the ocean in the middle of the night, which is weird because I'm terrified of sharks. We ended up at some island and we had to climb through this window. I climbed through it and found my friends Catalina and Leanne. Leanne and I were eating candy and we were all planning to go out clubbing that night. The next thing I know, I am at a random bar. The bar is outside and I am not with Catalina and Leanne, but with another friend of mine, Shawn. Suddenly my boss (who I get along with great and is also more like a friend) tells everyone who is not twenty one that they need to move. She doesn't say anything to me even though I am only twenty. I get up because it was my turn to play beer pong. Then my grandmother is screaming my name saying that it is eight thirty and I'm going to be late for class, my wake up call.
I am going to try and interpret Polly's dream. It's just a guess or an idea so I hope you don't get offended! Maybe Polly could feel like she doesn't fit in or is not happy with where she currently is in life or where she was at one point. Maybe sometimes she wants to see the other options that are out there. Although this "father" abruptly took her out of the life that she was used to, she couldn't be mad at him because she enjoyed experiencing something new. Maybe someone in her life has changed her or come in without her consent, but it wasn't an entirely bad experience. Then when she had the decision to make to go back to what she once had, she wasn't sure what she wanted. Maybe this can be about a relationship ( of any type, a significant other or friend) that has changed her life and when it was over, she didn't know what she wanted anymore. She couldn't go back to live with her "family" or go back to where she was before the change because she herself changed from her experiences.
Flowering Hand
This is a dream I had around the time my youngest sister was born, about 13 years ago.
I notice I have a red bump on the back of my left hand and although it doesn't hurt, it still bothers me for some reason. The next time I look at that hand, there is a sprout that has grown where the red bump used to be. I try to show my parents my hand but they seem to be ignoring me. In fact, even though I am following my family around in the car or just in the same room with them, they all act as if I am not even there. As the plant grows bigger and eventually flowers, I become more panicked for not only is this thing growing, but no one in the world can see or hear me.
I notice I have a red bump on the back of my left hand and although it doesn't hurt, it still bothers me for some reason. The next time I look at that hand, there is a sprout that has grown where the red bump used to be. I try to show my parents my hand but they seem to be ignoring me. In fact, even though I am following my family around in the car or just in the same room with them, they all act as if I am not even there. As the plant grows bigger and eventually flowers, I become more panicked for not only is this thing growing, but no one in the world can see or hear me.
The Parrot
In a secert laboratory set up by a private corporation a parrot escaped with an ancient gorrila. The gorrila killed one of her carekeepers. A man in search for the parrot, and gorrilla, stopped by a parrot expert, in whose town the parrot was last seen. The expert gives the man an encyclopedic presentation of the parrot's characteristics, eating habits, sexual preferences, political views, on a big presentation screen. The man traveled to Alaska and back but never found the parrot.
One day, the man revisted the parrot expert's town. The parrot expert's wife told them that the expert had eaten the parrot. This was the last parrot of its kind. The expert was arrested and put into a pyschatric ward. Ten years later the expert became the director of the psychiatric ward.
*they - I was an investigator and had an assitent at this point. Oh, right, I was the man, I think . . . or I may have been hovering over him like a camera, but I might have been the man at certain points. Actually my point of view shifted from hovering over the investigator in certain scenes, and then becoming the investigator, so I was the man.
This dream is a few years old.
One day, the man revisted the parrot expert's town. The parrot expert's wife told them that the expert had eaten the parrot. This was the last parrot of its kind. The expert was arrested and put into a pyschatric ward. Ten years later the expert became the director of the psychiatric ward.
*they - I was an investigator and had an assitent at this point. Oh, right, I was the man, I think . . . or I may have been hovering over him like a camera, but I might have been the man at certain points. Actually my point of view shifted from hovering over the investigator in certain scenes, and then becoming the investigator, so I was the man.
This dream is a few years old.
Dreams
Throughout my high school years I had a tendency of falling asleep in class. I pretty much have always been a fan of sleeping, as I’m sure most people are too. All through most of my high school years I had the bad habit of oversleeping and arriving late to class. So as graduation got closer I remember having the same dream several times, which was me sitting in Nassau Coliseum by myself wearing my cap and gown, realizing I had arrived late to my own graduation, in this dream I remember feeling anxious and angry, thinking why hadn’t anyone woke me up. I also remember thinking my parents are going to kill me, having this dream a couple of times a week and being paranoid all the time helped me be on time for my graduation.
I agree with Polly about dreams being bout your daily life events and I think that most dreams are also based on what a person is thinking about or worrying about. Sometimes I have a certain worry on my mind all day and a couple of days later or even the same days I end up have a dream about it. Most of these dreams also seem so real most of the time that sometimes you’re not sure if it was an actual event or just a dream.
A Strange Dream Indeed
This dream was most likely influenced by a particular author, HP Lovecraft, I'd been reading a lot of at the time. Most of his stories are of the science-fiction/horror genre, and it's all pretty strange, nihilistic stuff. His most prominent theme is that humans are nothing more than a speck in the universe and there are ancient (sometimes giant) aliens out in the universe that views us as nothing more than play things.
My dream started out as me walking around late at night in the streets of Salem, MA. It wasn't really night or day, but there was a misty fog that really didn't let me see much. I don't know why I knew I was in Salem, but I just knew. Eventually, every step I took was a step into the air, like I was climbing stairs but there was nothing under me. I didn't seem to mind in the dream, so I kept "walking". Eventually I reached a single door in the air, but there was nothing behind it and it didn't seem to really lead anywhere. Turning the handle just made the door bigger. The more I turned, the bigger the door got until I really couldn't reach the handle anymore. Eventually the door opened by itself and there was an ocean on the other side, which I fell into and drowned.
How's that for weird?
My dream started out as me walking around late at night in the streets of Salem, MA. It wasn't really night or day, but there was a misty fog that really didn't let me see much. I don't know why I knew I was in Salem, but I just knew. Eventually, every step I took was a step into the air, like I was climbing stairs but there was nothing under me. I didn't seem to mind in the dream, so I kept "walking". Eventually I reached a single door in the air, but there was nothing behind it and it didn't seem to really lead anywhere. Turning the handle just made the door bigger. The more I turned, the bigger the door got until I really couldn't reach the handle anymore. Eventually the door opened by itself and there was an ocean on the other side, which I fell into and drowned.
How's that for weird?
Okay so don't make fun of me! I had this crazy, wacky dream... of the Jonas Brothers… and supposedly I was going out with the middle one, Joe! When I woke up I was like, WHAT THEEE?!? And because we were assigned to write about it, embarrassedly I thought to myself how did I dream of this but mostly why! I am the oldest one out of three with 11 year old twin sisters. On my mom’s side I am the oldest one as well. Out of my cousins, the oldest one after me is 13. Not only is there a pretty wide age gap, we are dominated by women. There are so many women that even our pets are females. Getting back to the subject, my cousins and sisters are addicted to the Disney Channel. All I hear is Hannah Montana, Suite Life of Zack & Cody, but 24/7 I hear about the Jonas Brothers. Then yesterday my cousin (the 13 year old) quizzes me with these gazillion "Which JoBro is for you" quizzes. The results for every single one of them were Joe Jonas. So I go to sleep (finally) and what do I dream about? Being Mrs. Joe Jonas. It's not that I don't like them because there are a few songs I like by them. It's kind of weird when my cousins and sisters all have a "major crush" on Joe Jonas and they're so jealous of me because apparently "we are meant to be." It’s ridiculous because now they don’t want to talk to me, but whatever. Sometimes I don't know what I dream about, and this one is definitely ones I wish I didn’t remember.
My Dream
When I was in my last year of high school i wasn't too interested in the credits i had. I had always assumed that since I had that 90 something average that I was good but when my advisory spoke to me the semester before graduating I start to panic. She said I couldn't graduate until I have gained all the required credits for math. Math was my weakest subject and I remember always trying to avoid it. So here at almost the end of the year and I am being told it doesn't matter that I have 50 credits to graduate, I don't have that math credit and therefore I cant graduate. So I remember taking my last math class in high school and I would go to the advisory everyday to make sure I will gradate with this class. She kept telling me it depends on me and the grade I achieve. I remember close to graduation I had this dream where it all seemed so real. Taking place at the graduation hall, me dressed the way I had planned and when they call out my name they say sorry you cant get a diploma because you didn't have the sufficient amount of credits required. The dream seemed so real because I remember crying in my dream and the next morning when I was up my pillow was a little wet. That was one of the most strangest dreams I had ever had mainly because i was thinking about this situation so much that I made myself dream about it I guess.
Reading Vanessa's dream about her thinking about the blog and actually dreaming of the blog. I think that is just what dreams are about, the events that take place in our daily lives and we end putting together those images and events into a story. I believe her dream is only of the actions that took place in last class plus her thoughts of it before sleep.
Reading Vanessa's dream about her thinking about the blog and actually dreaming of the blog. I think that is just what dreams are about, the events that take place in our daily lives and we end putting together those images and events into a story. I believe her dream is only of the actions that took place in last class plus her thoughts of it before sleep.
Dream
My dream last night was probably one of the strangest dreams I've had in quite some time. I guess the blog was on my mind because I dreamt that I needed to make my dream interesting for the blog. Basically in my dream I knew that I was dreaming and I wanted to make my dream interesting so that I may be able to post a good dream. In my dream I was thinking so hard about what to dream about random people began to appear to try and help me. An old friend of mine, who is now more like an enemy, appeared and she began talking to me but instead I was just very rude to her and told her to leave and that I didn't need her help. Then all of a sudden I was at my computer with someone I didn't know looking to see if people had posted their blog and I remember seeing that Alicia posted her blog. I also remember hearing someone talk about the font size of my previous blog postings and saying that the font was too small or I needed to be consistent with the font I used. It was very strange and after seeing the blog I began to get anxious for my dream to begin. But, unfortunately my dream did not begin there and I woke up at 2am uncomfortable. When I woke up this morning all I remembered was my strange dream.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Awhile back, I had a rather unusual dream that seemed like it came straight out of a horror novel. There was a man, one whom I have never seen before, who killed me. However, I don't think that "kill" is the correct term to use because although he stopped my heart from beating, I was still able to walk, talk, and think. He had made me into what he was, a person who was technically dead, but possessed all the qualities of being alive. Instead of being frightened or outraged at the one who took my life away, I actually adored him and saw him as a father figure. I moved into his house where there were lots of people who were just like us, many individuals who he had "turned" and now were his loyal "children." Then, for some reason, I was wandering outside by myself and I came across this man who was still alive. He knew what I was, even though there was no term for my condition, and told me that he could make my heart beat again. I was conflicted, because I wanted to be alive again but at the same time, I did not want to disappoint my "father" and the family that I had joined. The man made my heart beat again without my consent, for I was still trying to make a choice. I was horrified that he had done this, and I didn't know what to do. I went back to the house, and tried to make my heart stop beating so that my "family" would not notice. But, they noticed right away, and my "father" told me that I could no longer stay with them. I tried to convince him to let me stay, and if not, to at least change me back but he refused and said that I had to leave. That is all that I remember of this dream, but for some reason, this dream in particular has stuck with me.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the reason that Laura had her recurring dream about being late for graduation is because she was afraid that she would be late for graduation. Somehow, her mind knows that because she has the habit of oversleeping for class, it is within the realm of possibility that she might oversleep on graduation day as well. She was worried that since oversleeping was a habit that she possessed throughout all of high school, she would be unable to kick the habit once she was ready to graduate and move on after high school. When Laura finds herself at Nassau Coliseum alone, she is dressed in her gown and is ready to graduate and leave high school behind, but her oversleeping and lateness is a hindrance that forces her to miss a crucial point in her life and to face the disappointment of her friends and family who wanted to see her get her diploma. Living out the worse case scenario in her dreams allowed her to visualize how awful it would be if she missed her own graduation and motivated her to avoid that.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Freud & Lacan relevance to literature
Freud’s and Lacan’s writing are relevant to literature in the sense that they both explain their views on the consciousness and unconsciousness of humans. Freud does this by discussing and interpreting dreams. “And let me remind you once again that the work which transforms the latent dream into the manifest one is called the dream-work.” Freud writes about three different achievements of the dream work in which where he is interprets dreams. Lacan writes more about the psychoanalysis experience and the visualization of images. “We have only to understand the mirror stage as identification,” his interpretation is more on the mirror effect and what is being displayed in front of you.
Reading Literature through Freud and Lacan
I don’t know enough to say anything about Lacan’s purpose for creating the idea of “ The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytical Experience” but I do know a little about Freud who was the founder of psychoanalysis. He used ideas on human personalities, at the time and combined tem with his own to produce a major theory of psychology and a new approach to the understanding of human personality. From his experiments, he applied these ideas to the psycho-therapy treatment of mental ill patients. His observations were based on his understanding of unconscious thought processes and their relationship to the symptoms. Reading literature may have a link to this theory.
Within the piece we can identify two parts of a dream, the symbolic representation and the plastic representation. The symbolic representation being what the dream means or was interpreted to mean, and the plastic representation being what the dream simply appears to be without interpretation. The study of dreams and it interpretations consists of condensation, displacement, and visualization. By discussing the representation of symbols in dreams and the fact that behind the dream itself, we might find a deeper meaning.
Symbols are found in both novels and dream. This might by a way of understanding how reading literature is linked to the psychoanalytical theory. Symbols, in most novels are present to be interpreted and to discover the deeper meaning. Freud says that when we dream, we are putting pictures to our thoughts. "It consists in transforming thoughts into visual images." Books also accomplish this is some way. When we read and interpret books, we take the thoughts of the writer or narrator, as well as out own thoughts about the novel, and form pictures in our heads. This process leads us to get a better understanding of the literature and also be able to remember it, like the baby learns and remembers his reflection in Lacan’s piece.
Within the piece we can identify two parts of a dream, the symbolic representation and the plastic representation. The symbolic representation being what the dream means or was interpreted to mean, and the plastic representation being what the dream simply appears to be without interpretation. The study of dreams and it interpretations consists of condensation, displacement, and visualization. By discussing the representation of symbols in dreams and the fact that behind the dream itself, we might find a deeper meaning.
Symbols are found in both novels and dream. This might by a way of understanding how reading literature is linked to the psychoanalytical theory. Symbols, in most novels are present to be interpreted and to discover the deeper meaning. Freud says that when we dream, we are putting pictures to our thoughts. "It consists in transforming thoughts into visual images." Books also accomplish this is some way. When we read and interpret books, we take the thoughts of the writer or narrator, as well as out own thoughts about the novel, and form pictures in our heads. This process leads us to get a better understanding of the literature and also be able to remember it, like the baby learns and remembers his reflection in Lacan’s piece.
Sigmund Freud used psychoanalysis to access the unconscious mind, specifically while they are sleeping and dreaming. He gives us his theory as to how our thoughts and experiences in real life translate into the seemingly unrelated and sometimes bizarre dreams that we have. Freud acknowledges three distinct factors of dream-work which are condensation, displacement, and transformation of thought into visual images. Freud’s theory relates to the study of literature because literature embodies the quality of dreams that places importance on the unconscious mind, and in this case of both the writers and the readers. Condensation takes the larger content of latent dreams and channels it into a shortened translation in manifest dreams, while also compressing numerous factors of different ideas and thoughts into one. He explains that condensations are “not a word-for-word or a sign-for-sign translation; nor is it selection made according to fixed rules…” (Freud 26), an idea that can be applied to literature in that writers use all sorts of vocabulary, prose, and sentence structures that can be used in other contexts and hold totally different meanings and be representative of multiple things. Displacement, in which “the psychical accent is shifted from an important element on to another which is unimportant, so that the dream appears differently centred and strange” (Freud 27) is also relevant to the realm of literature because writers will often place emphasis on things that seem odd or irrelevant, either for the sake of making a point or just for the hell of it. In addition, the presence of contraries in dreams is a problem that is also prevalent in areas of literary study such as Marxism and Feminism. One might take this text about psychoanalysis as a reminder that even in literature, one must not take everything at face value and should be conscious of the unconscious of the writer and reader.
Freud and literature
Like dreams, literature can be interpreted in many ways depending on the person/reader interpreting the subject matter. Like Freud in his interpretation of dreams, readers in literature apply different meanings to stories through symbols etc. Freud also applied the same approach to interpreting dreams. His process was made up of condensation which is the way we understand a dream on the surface, then displacement where we begin to apply meanings to the dream, and then visualization. This is where we finally put everything together and transforming thoughts into images. We use a similar process in literature, and just like in dream interpretation we often are unable to prove that our interpretation is correct. I think that this psychoanalysis applies to literature because the way we interpret literature reveals more about the reader than the actual literature itself. I believe the same applies to dreams, the way a person decides to interpret certain things in a dream reveals our problems or anxieties we have in everyday life.
In the excerpt from Sigmund Freud's "The Dream-Work," he talks about 3 different components of the dream-work, which are condensation, displacement, and "transforming thoughts into visual images" (Freud 27). The dream-work is described to be composed of two components, the latent dream which then transforms into the manifest dream. Although there is no mention of the act of reading literature in "The Dream Work," the notion of dream-work can be used to understand how a person may read a piece of literature. For example, the when Freud describes that a component of the dream-work is to transform thoughts into visual images, this is what generally happens when one reads a book. The text is there to be read but it is up to the reader to take what is written and make it into visual images in their mind. The process in which our dreams for, according to Freud, is similar to how books are read and understood by people. In Jacques Lacan's "The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience" he talks about self-reflectance and how there are different views a person may have of themselves. For example, the Ideal-I is when a person "assumes and image - whose predestination to this phase-effect is sufficiently indicated by the use" (Lacan 190). Much like Freud, Lacan seems to deal with the difference between what is real and what is interpreted, only that Lacan is talking about people and the way they see themselves. This idea of self-reflectance can be used when reading literature. At often times, one's personal experience does affect how they read a book or story as we discussed in the beginning of the year during the discussion about genres. One's knowledge of a certain genre does influence the way they may read something which is where Lacan's idea of self reflectance comes into play.
Freud and Lacan
Freud's piece discussing dreams can be further used to connect to reading literature. The piece begins by discussing the representation of symbols in dreams and the fact that behind the dream itself, there is a deeper meaning. Symbols are something that we see in most novels which we then have to interpret to discover the meaning of them, similar to what Freud desires about dreams. Also, you can take the novel straight for what it says, or you can further interpret the underlying meaning of the novel, as Freud similarly describes dreams. "The process is like constructing a new transitory concept which has this common element as it's nucleus." (Freud, pp.25). Freud describes the process of emphasizing something that people have in common in dreams, the common thing being the nucleus. In a way, when interpreting novels, we may find ourselves doing the same thing, looking for the common thread that pulls characters together and that pulls things together. Freud also describes that when we dream, we are putting pictures to our thoughts. "It consists in transforming thoughts into visual images." (Freud, pp. 27). Books also accomplish this is some way. When we read books, we take the thoughts of the writer or narrator, as well as out own thoughts about the novel, and form pictures in our heads. Freud acknowledges the fact that even the most ridiculous dreams can have meaning, "...that nonsense and absurdity in dreams have their meaning." (Freud, pp.29). Like dreams, even the most absurd and out of wack novels or pieces of writing can have some meaning. Freud also mention that we should not over-estimate dreams and attribute too much to it. Like dreams, there is constant debate over novels and whether they are over-analyzed.
While Lacan's writing was a little harder to comprehend, I can attempt to loosely tie it into what is has to do with reading novels. Lacan discusses a baby being able to recognize him/herself in the mirror at an early stage and form some kind of identification the more he/she looks at the reflection. Like the baby looking in the mirror in order to get to know what he is seeing, when reading novels we try to read more and more to know more about the characters. The way a baby looks at himself and gets to know himself, we read the novel and learn about the characters, presumably the author since he created the characters, and even ourselves in relation to the novel.
While Lacan's writing was a little harder to comprehend, I can attempt to loosely tie it into what is has to do with reading novels. Lacan discusses a baby being able to recognize him/herself in the mirror at an early stage and form some kind of identification the more he/she looks at the reflection. Like the baby looking in the mirror in order to get to know what he is seeing, when reading novels we try to read more and more to know more about the characters. The way a baby looks at himself and gets to know himself, we read the novel and learn about the characters, presumably the author since he created the characters, and even ourselves in relation to the novel.
Freud And Lacan
Freud's work relates to literature in the sense that he talks about how dreams are made and how they are interpreted. Like literature dreams too have a origin and while some have meaning others don't. Freud talks about dreams being of two kind, one is symbolic dreams, which are dreams that have meaning while plastic dreams are dreams that just appear and there are no representation of them. Even though there are many theories there is no real way of proving any of them to be correct. Lacan seems to also extend on dreams and the meaning and interpretations of dreams. He writes of the dreams we have and why we dream.
Freudanamics
Freud is a little on the romantic side if he thinks the latent, that is, actual neurotic conflict within the writer may be traced from the work of literature. However, as a starting point, that, "art is an expression of displaced neurotic conflict," I must completely agree with Frued. The problem is that getting to that neurotic conflict is not that easy, and not always possible - though I do not deny that it is impossible either.
Freud's idea of reversal is important for literary study, as a word may be related to other words in the text; for example, one might consider antithetical words and their relation to one another, as well as the temporal placement of them within the text. Images may take on a dual-quality of representation, just like in a painting, one can look from the center out, or from the frame to the center, well, a literary metaphor may be seen in the same way. For example, a ladder may represent ascent and descent, especially if the ladder can be connected to different contextual relationships, which may exist in two different temporal locations of the text - before and after the image is presented.
Displacement is an important element for literary study. A joke in a piece of literature, though on the surface may simply be funny, in terms of latent meaning and possible condensation of contextual themes, the joke may be examined to reveal displaced meanings and contextual relationships.
Condensation may go hand in hand with reversal. A metaphor made up of different parts, with all the parts relating to different contexts, is a condensed metaphor operating with reversal. Huysmans's turtle in A Rebours, which the protagonist chisels jewels into its carapace (shell) in the shape of flowers, is an example of condensation. A whole chapter is dedicated to flowers which have a relationship to this metaphor, as well as a whole chapter on jewels, and religion, which is related to a word used in the turtle description, ciborium. This one turtle, this one metaphor, has at least three different contextual relationships, which all affect the meaning the reader derives - what the reader will assume the turtle to represent.
I am way too burned out to crack Lacan right now, but I would like to comment that his essay was brilliant and shattered my world-view. I'll make a second post on lacan tommorow or the day after. Too dense.
Freud's idea of reversal is important for literary study, as a word may be related to other words in the text; for example, one might consider antithetical words and their relation to one another, as well as the temporal placement of them within the text. Images may take on a dual-quality of representation, just like in a painting, one can look from the center out, or from the frame to the center, well, a literary metaphor may be seen in the same way. For example, a ladder may represent ascent and descent, especially if the ladder can be connected to different contextual relationships, which may exist in two different temporal locations of the text - before and after the image is presented.
Displacement is an important element for literary study. A joke in a piece of literature, though on the surface may simply be funny, in terms of latent meaning and possible condensation of contextual themes, the joke may be examined to reveal displaced meanings and contextual relationships.
Condensation may go hand in hand with reversal. A metaphor made up of different parts, with all the parts relating to different contexts, is a condensed metaphor operating with reversal. Huysmans's turtle in A Rebours, which the protagonist chisels jewels into its carapace (shell) in the shape of flowers, is an example of condensation. A whole chapter is dedicated to flowers which have a relationship to this metaphor, as well as a whole chapter on jewels, and religion, which is related to a word used in the turtle description, ciborium. This one turtle, this one metaphor, has at least three different contextual relationships, which all affect the meaning the reader derives - what the reader will assume the turtle to represent.
I am way too burned out to crack Lacan right now, but I would like to comment that his essay was brilliant and shattered my world-view. I'll make a second post on lacan tommorow or the day after. Too dense.
Freud & Lacan
The relevance Freud have to the reading of literature in general is the fact that Freud discusses the interpretation of dreams which can be used on a much broader level when it comes to interpretation of literature. He discusses the "manifest content of a dream as a while with the latent dream as it is revealed by interpretation". This can also be said about a piece of literature; there are two ways it can be viewed, as the piece of writing as a whole or as the way others view/interpret it. The dream work process includes three things; condensation, displacement and psychologically "transforming thoughts into visual images". Despite the process and the explanation on all three, the theories can not be proven which can also be said of many different theories, interpretations and/or explanations of work.
Lacan can also be seen as relevant in the reading of literature in general. Although his passage was a bit more complex, it seemed to me as if he was discussing or trying to explain the reasons for dreaming what we dream. I also believe he was branching off of the passage written by Freud. The interpretation Lacan had on Freud's passage and its complexity can be used as an example of interpretation of literature in general. The fact that Lacan, after reading Freud's thoughts on dream interpretation, took it and understood it in a dfferent way that someone else would is reason in itself that literature can have many different types of interpretations.
Lacan can also be seen as relevant in the reading of literature in general. Although his passage was a bit more complex, it seemed to me as if he was discussing or trying to explain the reasons for dreaming what we dream. I also believe he was branching off of the passage written by Freud. The interpretation Lacan had on Freud's passage and its complexity can be used as an example of interpretation of literature in general. The fact that Lacan, after reading Freud's thoughts on dream interpretation, took it and understood it in a dfferent way that someone else would is reason in itself that literature can have many different types of interpretations.
Freud & Lacan
Freud's work on dreams is hard to prove because there is no way to test dreams or get an actual data sample of a dream. He feels that dreams have two parts, one which he calls the symbolic representation and the other he calls the plastic representation. The symbolic representation being what the dream means or was interpreted to mean, and the plastic representation being what the dream simply appears to be, without any kind of interpretation. The study of dreams and it interpretations consists of condensation, displacement, and visualization. During condensation the dreamer has to "understand the fact that the manifest dream has a smaller content that the latent one, and is thus an abbreviated translation of it." Meaning you have to condense the manifest dream, to begin interpreting it. Displacement is when the dreamer replaces the part which seems to be the center and is most important, with something that is not- making the dream "strange." The last step of interpretation is where the dreamer would make their thoughts and ideas into a "visual image." All the processes of dream interpretation are not visible which makes it hard for you to test and prove. Although some of the theorys that Freud has proposed are true, it is very hard to test them. Psychoanalysis is one of my favorite parts of psychology, but unlike the rest of them, which can be tested with experiments and numbers, psychanalysts can not.
FREUD & LACAN
According to Sigmund Freud a dream work is the work which transforms the latent dream into a manifest one. It is broken into three different achievements: condensations, displacements, regressive transformations of thoughts into images. During condensations, “by that we understand the fact that the manifest dream has a smaller content than the latent one, and is thus an abbreviated translation of it.” Displacements “manifests itself in two ways: in the first, a latent element is replaced not by a component part of itself but by something more remote- that is, by allusion; and in the second, the physical accent is shifted from an important element on to another which is unimportant, so that the dream appears differently centred and strange.” In literature we might bump into situations like this. We imagine something entirely different from its real meaning which may not make any sense. In the transformations of thoughts into images… the thoughts are transformed into images. That’s basically what it is. He gave an example of replacing an article with picture writing. You can easily replace the people in the article into pictures but “the difficulties will begin when you come to representation of abstract words and of all those parts of speech which indicates between thoughts.”
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Diatribe #2
I finished the novel and still find it, overall, lacking in literary merit and definitely unworthy of the Nobel prize. Although I had made a false assumption in my previous post, where I assumed that the first prostitute that Luri sleeps with is a suburban housewife, an uncertainty due to the unreliable narrator, Luri, I still stand by everything else that I wrote.
Whether the boy is Petrus's actual in-law is still an open question, as Petrus is unreliable himself; and his comment about "his people" may lead to the inference that he is lying about his familial ties to the boy. Lucy still never challenges her father's idea that black South Africans are out for revenge, helping to create a view that this is the common reality of South Africa, which is implied to extend beyond the particular characters and their particular circumstances.
Evidence of a third person selectively omniscient narrator is on page 142-3, "One Sunday evening, driving home in Lucy's kombi, he actually has to stop at the roadside to recover himself. Tears flow down his face that he cannot stop; his hands shake."
The novel is full of cliches, unoriginal themes, and a character driven plot that does not go anywhere near the psychological depths of masters like Dostoevsky (who it seems Coetzee admires), Kafka or Nabokov, to name but a few. He does offer one significant psychological insight, the under the surface hidden racism of Lurie, covered over with self-deception, through a conscious focus on language. As well as Luri's insensitivity to women, who he uses to fulfill "aesthetic," erotic desires.
There are some other highlights in the novel, a few insights here and there, the classroom scene on Wordsworth, some of the tragically disconnected and depressing sexual scenes - albeit, cliche and nowhere near the level of a Kafka -- each worthy to make a good short story, but when taken together, an altogether badly woven novel. Of course, the one standout passage, Lurie imaginaing being raped by referencing a surgical metaphor is well rendered and poetic.
The scenes on Byron were fairly interesting, but nowhere near as well executed as masters like Calvino and Winterson are able to do when employing historical fictional techniques (Invisible Cities; The Passion). Many lines are downright terrible, unlike the back-cover of the novel which quotes one reviewer stating that this is "spare prose" . . . spare me: "This is what he is becoming: stupid, daft, wrongheaded." What insightful, illuminating, enlightening, redundancy.
The rhythmic qualities of the prose are excellent -- alternating pace, keeping readers engaged, at least this one, most of the time. The plot, however, is unrealistic, the coincidences, the two sisters, the larceny and robbery, the two rapes, fail to strike me as a believable fictional world. Lastly, the dialogue is far from perfect, many times falling into literary posturing rather than realistic vernacular: "[...] your name is mud [...]". (189).
Whether the boy is Petrus's actual in-law is still an open question, as Petrus is unreliable himself; and his comment about "his people" may lead to the inference that he is lying about his familial ties to the boy. Lucy still never challenges her father's idea that black South Africans are out for revenge, helping to create a view that this is the common reality of South Africa, which is implied to extend beyond the particular characters and their particular circumstances.
Evidence of a third person selectively omniscient narrator is on page 142-3, "One Sunday evening, driving home in Lucy's kombi, he actually has to stop at the roadside to recover himself. Tears flow down his face that he cannot stop; his hands shake."
The novel is full of cliches, unoriginal themes, and a character driven plot that does not go anywhere near the psychological depths of masters like Dostoevsky (who it seems Coetzee admires), Kafka or Nabokov, to name but a few. He does offer one significant psychological insight, the under the surface hidden racism of Lurie, covered over with self-deception, through a conscious focus on language. As well as Luri's insensitivity to women, who he uses to fulfill "aesthetic," erotic desires.
There are some other highlights in the novel, a few insights here and there, the classroom scene on Wordsworth, some of the tragically disconnected and depressing sexual scenes - albeit, cliche and nowhere near the level of a Kafka -- each worthy to make a good short story, but when taken together, an altogether badly woven novel. Of course, the one standout passage, Lurie imaginaing being raped by referencing a surgical metaphor is well rendered and poetic.
The scenes on Byron were fairly interesting, but nowhere near as well executed as masters like Calvino and Winterson are able to do when employing historical fictional techniques (Invisible Cities; The Passion). Many lines are downright terrible, unlike the back-cover of the novel which quotes one reviewer stating that this is "spare prose" . . . spare me: "This is what he is becoming: stupid, daft, wrongheaded." What insightful, illuminating, enlightening, redundancy.
The rhythmic qualities of the prose are excellent -- alternating pace, keeping readers engaged, at least this one, most of the time. The plot, however, is unrealistic, the coincidences, the two sisters, the larceny and robbery, the two rapes, fail to strike me as a believable fictional world. Lastly, the dialogue is far from perfect, many times falling into literary posturing rather than realistic vernacular: "[...] your name is mud [...]". (189).
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Nobel Shmobel
Before jumping into the polemical racial issues raised by Coetzee's rightfully controversial novel, Disgrace, I must preface this post with a comment about Nabokov.
Nabokov's Lolita harbors one of the most disgusting characters that I have ever encountered in a literary text, Humbert Humbert. The novel, written from his point of view, attempts to justify Humbert Humbert's mad affair with Lolita (who is only 13-14 at the time). Nabokov never once takes a moral position throughout the novel as everything is left for the reader to determine. When I finished the novel I threw it against the wall because I was so enraged and sickened by what I had read. And then I marveled at the genius of Nabokov for creating a novel that could create such a powerful artistic effect. Unlike Dostoevsky, and other novelists, who selectively sway reader's judgments of their characters, stylistically, rendering their novels less potent, Nabokov allows his readers to decide everything for themselves, their good points and bad points, psychology, ethics, morality.
The reason that I'm making this preface is in order to put forward my position on literature: that the writer and the protagonist are never one and the same, even in autobiographical works, and a writer should never have to take a moral position on his or her characters, as that creates an impotent literary experience. Everything should not be spelled out for the reader. Moreover, if writers have to judge their characters then they can't ever authentically jump into their character's psyches. An essay may be written on this subject, which I will not do. Rather, I will point to Lolita as the quintessential example of artistic achievement in the literary arts without ever baring the mark of Nabokov's own opinion and judgment.
Having said that, let me turn to Coetzee. Coetzee's Disgrace is written from a third-person selectively omniscient narrator that follows David Lurie around, sometimes entering his thoughts, and sometimes turning the general narration into Lurie's thoughts themselves. Already a stylistically weak narrative structure, Coetzee, nevertheless builds his novel around Lurie's perceptions, experiences, and thoughts. Having purposefully mentioned Nabokov, Coetzee cannot be rightly indicted, or any author for that matter, for racism, sexism, etc, that seeps through their characters. Lurie is a repulsive character; however, on this account alone the novel cannot be judged to be racist. It is in the structure of the novel that racism may be uncovered. How this shitty, rather unoriginal book won the Nobel prize is beyond me, but that's not the point. The question is one of racism. And this novel is racist, but not overtly so. The racism is between the lines. In the narrative choices Coetzee has chosen to make within the context of post-apartheid South Africa.
The New York Times rightfully indicts Coetzee, by referring to literary professors and Nadine Gordimer who bring up a glaringly obvious fact: the lack of any fleshed-out black South Africans characters. A case for this can only be made because one of the major motifs within Disgrace is the clash between "whites" and "blacks" in South Africa, post apartheid. To really go into this issue, a non-racist author would have had to go much deeper into "black" mentalities, politics, lives. What Coetzee offers, through Lurie, is an excuse to avoid the questions: "More and more he [Lurie] is convinced that English is an unfit medium for the truth of South Africa [...]." (117). If the novelistic choice, however, was to stay only with white perspectives, which is absolutely fine, then much stronger counter-arguments to David Lurie's position, that black South Africans are, for the most part, all out to get vengeance, need to be explored through other white South African characters.
Coetzee has such an opportunity with Lurie's daughter, Lucy. Who, presumably, should be educated, since she is the daughter of a professor, and should present a much stronger view and opposition to her father. Though she is strong in defending her own views, she does not offer any narrative counter-position to Lurie's views, rather, she seems to accept black African's vengeance as a common reality of South Africa. Coetzee has absolutely no excuse for not exploring the issue to the max, through whatever avenue his choice of narrative structure allows him to take, especially when considering that this is a novel, not a short story, where space is limited, not a novella, but a literary medium that offers the freedom and responsibility to explore complex issues to the fullest of a writer's capabilities. Because there is evidence that Coetzee is not a bad writer, for the most part, there is no one other than him to blame for the novel's failure to explore racial tensions to the best of Coetzee's ability (and if he lacks it, to not write about them in the first place). Having raised the subject, which was his choice, nobody forced him, he damn well better explore it to the max.
Furthermore, considering Gordimer's judgment about the reality of Petrus, a name which according to Wikipedia originates from the Greeks, meaning rock, a man who has no familial ties to the gang rapists, I too am led to question the reality of this racially loyal stoic. Excuse me Mr. Coetzee do you really expect me to believe that this character is the only way you could have portrayed a black South African? Certainly there are immoral shits of all races, but you choose to highlight this one, while never providing a contrast? Wait, wait. A whole banquet of people is in attendance, and implicitly, I'm to believe that they all share Petrus's view? Not even a murmur in the crowd? No dissent whatsoever?
And of course the part-time prostitute, you know, "only on afternoons," is so bloody believable. A suburban mother with kids and a husband, prostituting herself as an extra-familial activity? Just for kicks? Well, I don't know, do I? It was never explored in the novel. What could have led to such a strange juxtaposition, half-housewife, half-hooker, is utterly ignored, as if it were a common occurrence! It reads as if this is nothing out of the norm. Just an exotic adventure for Lurie, given his decadent suburban black neighbors.. Am I to really leave this novel believing that this is how suburban black women are in South Africa?
I've read everyone else's responses and would simply like to add, without replicating the argument, that Polly's point about Coetzee's disgraceful treatment of the two rape scenes in the novel is the last indictment of Coetzee's conscious or unconscious racism. Once again, the repute of the Nobel prize comes into serious question. To think that he wins, while Updike doesn't.
Nabokov's Lolita harbors one of the most disgusting characters that I have ever encountered in a literary text, Humbert Humbert. The novel, written from his point of view, attempts to justify Humbert Humbert's mad affair with Lolita (who is only 13-14 at the time). Nabokov never once takes a moral position throughout the novel as everything is left for the reader to determine. When I finished the novel I threw it against the wall because I was so enraged and sickened by what I had read. And then I marveled at the genius of Nabokov for creating a novel that could create such a powerful artistic effect. Unlike Dostoevsky, and other novelists, who selectively sway reader's judgments of their characters, stylistically, rendering their novels less potent, Nabokov allows his readers to decide everything for themselves, their good points and bad points, psychology, ethics, morality.
The reason that I'm making this preface is in order to put forward my position on literature: that the writer and the protagonist are never one and the same, even in autobiographical works, and a writer should never have to take a moral position on his or her characters, as that creates an impotent literary experience. Everything should not be spelled out for the reader. Moreover, if writers have to judge their characters then they can't ever authentically jump into their character's psyches. An essay may be written on this subject, which I will not do. Rather, I will point to Lolita as the quintessential example of artistic achievement in the literary arts without ever baring the mark of Nabokov's own opinion and judgment.
Having said that, let me turn to Coetzee. Coetzee's Disgrace is written from a third-person selectively omniscient narrator that follows David Lurie around, sometimes entering his thoughts, and sometimes turning the general narration into Lurie's thoughts themselves. Already a stylistically weak narrative structure, Coetzee, nevertheless builds his novel around Lurie's perceptions, experiences, and thoughts. Having purposefully mentioned Nabokov, Coetzee cannot be rightly indicted, or any author for that matter, for racism, sexism, etc, that seeps through their characters. Lurie is a repulsive character; however, on this account alone the novel cannot be judged to be racist. It is in the structure of the novel that racism may be uncovered. How this shitty, rather unoriginal book won the Nobel prize is beyond me, but that's not the point. The question is one of racism. And this novel is racist, but not overtly so. The racism is between the lines. In the narrative choices Coetzee has chosen to make within the context of post-apartheid South Africa.
The New York Times rightfully indicts Coetzee, by referring to literary professors and Nadine Gordimer who bring up a glaringly obvious fact: the lack of any fleshed-out black South Africans characters. A case for this can only be made because one of the major motifs within Disgrace is the clash between "whites" and "blacks" in South Africa, post apartheid. To really go into this issue, a non-racist author would have had to go much deeper into "black" mentalities, politics, lives. What Coetzee offers, through Lurie, is an excuse to avoid the questions: "More and more he [Lurie] is convinced that English is an unfit medium for the truth of South Africa [...]." (117). If the novelistic choice, however, was to stay only with white perspectives, which is absolutely fine, then much stronger counter-arguments to David Lurie's position, that black South Africans are, for the most part, all out to get vengeance, need to be explored through other white South African characters.
Coetzee has such an opportunity with Lurie's daughter, Lucy. Who, presumably, should be educated, since she is the daughter of a professor, and should present a much stronger view and opposition to her father. Though she is strong in defending her own views, she does not offer any narrative counter-position to Lurie's views, rather, she seems to accept black African's vengeance as a common reality of South Africa. Coetzee has absolutely no excuse for not exploring the issue to the max, through whatever avenue his choice of narrative structure allows him to take, especially when considering that this is a novel, not a short story, where space is limited, not a novella, but a literary medium that offers the freedom and responsibility to explore complex issues to the fullest of a writer's capabilities. Because there is evidence that Coetzee is not a bad writer, for the most part, there is no one other than him to blame for the novel's failure to explore racial tensions to the best of Coetzee's ability (and if he lacks it, to not write about them in the first place). Having raised the subject, which was his choice, nobody forced him, he damn well better explore it to the max.
Furthermore, considering Gordimer's judgment about the reality of Petrus, a name which according to Wikipedia originates from the Greeks, meaning rock, a man who has no familial ties to the gang rapists, I too am led to question the reality of this racially loyal stoic. Excuse me Mr. Coetzee do you really expect me to believe that this character is the only way you could have portrayed a black South African? Certainly there are immoral shits of all races, but you choose to highlight this one, while never providing a contrast? Wait, wait. A whole banquet of people is in attendance, and implicitly, I'm to believe that they all share Petrus's view? Not even a murmur in the crowd? No dissent whatsoever?
And of course the part-time prostitute, you know, "only on afternoons," is so bloody believable. A suburban mother with kids and a husband, prostituting herself as an extra-familial activity? Just for kicks? Well, I don't know, do I? It was never explored in the novel. What could have led to such a strange juxtaposition, half-housewife, half-hooker, is utterly ignored, as if it were a common occurrence! It reads as if this is nothing out of the norm. Just an exotic adventure for Lurie, given his decadent suburban black neighbors.. Am I to really leave this novel believing that this is how suburban black women are in South Africa?
I've read everyone else's responses and would simply like to add, without replicating the argument, that Polly's point about Coetzee's disgraceful treatment of the two rape scenes in the novel is the last indictment of Coetzee's conscious or unconscious racism. Once again, the repute of the Nobel prize comes into serious question. To think that he wins, while Updike doesn't.
Disgrace as Racist
After reading the article written about Coetzee and whether or not he wrote the book with racist intent or over tones, I feel that the book is not racist. I feel that the although the black men and people in the novel are not described and "fleshed" like the white people are, I don't think that it is because of race, I think its because they are seen as the bad guys. They broke in and they harmed Lucy and David, and perhaps that is why they are not given faces, they are just described as enemys. Coetzee describes the trio only as the short man, or the tall man, or the handsome man, and does not give them too much detail as a person. If the novel was written from a negative and racist point of view I dont think that he would have written about the one man as "the tall handsome man." He would have just described him with adjectives that did not flatter him and made him seem barbaric and used negative words to describe him and his partners. After the incident, Petrus did not ask how Lucy or her father was, all he did was ask if she was going to be going to the market that day, which seems a bit odd considering that he has known her and worked with her for around a year. You would think that he would care a little bit more and show some remorse but he did not. He says "'Yes,' says Petrus, 'I heard. It is very bad, a very bad thing. But you are all right now." He just assumes that everything is okay, by him not caring it seems like he might have something to do with it, or in fact be harboring one of the culprits which later he is suspected of doing. I don't think that the fact that they suspect him as being in on it, or helping one of the three out is because he is black, but is simply because of the way that he acts towards them after the incident, with no sympathy or emapthy for the situation.
Disgrace as Racist
Deciding if Disgrace is a racist novel is a thought that plagued my mind before this response question was even presented. When comparing Coetzee’s novel to Heart of Darkness by Conrad, I am inclined and willing myself to say that Disgrace is not a racist book, but I am not able to fully come to that conclusion. As we had mentioned in class when discussing Conrad, we agreed that there is a way to write about racism without being bluntly racist, and I think that Coetzee’s novel is a good example of this. Although a part of me agrees that the book can be interpreted as racist, I am going to argue the opposite in order to present the most likely less supported point of view and so I can be an actual willing volunteer to argue this position in class. =)
Although the novel shows some insistence on darkness, it can be argued that in some situations, race is not well presented in the novel. For example, even though we are told that Melanie has dark hair, we are not told about her skin color. In fact, David’s own race, along with many other characters in the book, is not clearly and/or immediately mentioned. Also, we have described David’s “conquest” of Melanie as a form of power over her, which can represent the white’s power over Africa. In that case, can’t we say something similar in the case of Lucy being raped? Lucy was raped by three African men, the narrator describing the situation as “Not her story to spread but theirs: they are its owners. How they put her in her place, how they showed her what a women was for” (Disgrace, pg 115). The men were able to exert power over Lucy and put her in her place. In this way, the novel shows the African men as having some type of power as well. Some may say that David treats his own sexual assault situation without seriousness or importance, but he see’s Lucy’s rape by the African men as a dire situation because she was raped by black men. Let us think about this differently. His own daughter was raped…regardless of the race of the attackers, the situation would be dire to any respectable father. Furthermore, a woman who was raped would feel like a disgrace in any case, not just because she was raped by black men. Didn’t Melanie feel this way? Lucy didn’t want to show her face at the market and Melanie didn’t want to show her face at school. The man who harassed Melanie was not black.
It can be said that David shows traits of racism with Petrus by accusing him of harboring a murderer, but if we look through the novel, David has reasons not based on race for his suspicion and dislike of Petrus. During a conversation between David and Petrus, David is talking to Petrus about the invaders. “I am convinced they knew about Lucy. How could they have known if they were complete strangers to the district…Petrus chooses not to take this question.” (Disgrace, pg 119). This along with future instances of Petrus’ involvement with the three men can be what provoke David’s negative feelings towards Petrus. It is not that Petrus is black, it is that Petrus knows something about his daughter’s attack, a situation that would cause tension regardless of race.
David Lurie grows attached to the animals so it may be interpreted that he treats the dogs better then the black people, but why wouldn’t David treat the dogs nicely. People tend to get attached to their animals, and I would personally treat my dog just the same. It is not David’s place to be going around being a savoir to strangers just because their black and if he doesn’t then he is seen as racist.
Although the novel shows some insistence on darkness, it can be argued that in some situations, race is not well presented in the novel. For example, even though we are told that Melanie has dark hair, we are not told about her skin color. In fact, David’s own race, along with many other characters in the book, is not clearly and/or immediately mentioned. Also, we have described David’s “conquest” of Melanie as a form of power over her, which can represent the white’s power over Africa. In that case, can’t we say something similar in the case of Lucy being raped? Lucy was raped by three African men, the narrator describing the situation as “Not her story to spread but theirs: they are its owners. How they put her in her place, how they showed her what a women was for” (Disgrace, pg 115). The men were able to exert power over Lucy and put her in her place. In this way, the novel shows the African men as having some type of power as well. Some may say that David treats his own sexual assault situation without seriousness or importance, but he see’s Lucy’s rape by the African men as a dire situation because she was raped by black men. Let us think about this differently. His own daughter was raped…regardless of the race of the attackers, the situation would be dire to any respectable father. Furthermore, a woman who was raped would feel like a disgrace in any case, not just because she was raped by black men. Didn’t Melanie feel this way? Lucy didn’t want to show her face at the market and Melanie didn’t want to show her face at school. The man who harassed Melanie was not black.
It can be said that David shows traits of racism with Petrus by accusing him of harboring a murderer, but if we look through the novel, David has reasons not based on race for his suspicion and dislike of Petrus. During a conversation between David and Petrus, David is talking to Petrus about the invaders. “I am convinced they knew about Lucy. How could they have known if they were complete strangers to the district…Petrus chooses not to take this question.” (Disgrace, pg 119). This along with future instances of Petrus’ involvement with the three men can be what provoke David’s negative feelings towards Petrus. It is not that Petrus is black, it is that Petrus knows something about his daughter’s attack, a situation that would cause tension regardless of race.
David Lurie grows attached to the animals so it may be interpreted that he treats the dogs better then the black people, but why wouldn’t David treat the dogs nicely. People tend to get attached to their animals, and I would personally treat my dog just the same. It is not David’s place to be going around being a savoir to strangers just because their black and if he doesn’t then he is seen as racist.
Rascism in Disgrace????
Racism to me didn’t appear in the book until the discussion about South Africa and its vestiges on Tuesday. After that and after he article “Out of South Africa” from The New York Times, I noticed the racism in the novel “Disgrace” which I didn’t paid much attention to. That is because i don't think the author of the article hadn't much of an arguement. (So what if he moved out of South Africa?)“Disgrace” did not seem to be as racist compared to the article from Conrad “Heart of Darkness” and so I don’t believe it is a racist book.
Within the book the author is careful when describing everybody. (Most likely Coetzee is aware of the response to Conrad 's book so why would he want to do that? )He mostly passes his judgment on women like his daughter’s homely look or Bev Shaw’s unattractiveness. When talking about men like Petrus, he describes his hardworker look. Before the actual robbery occurred in the book he describes one of the men saying,”The taller of them is handsome, strikingly handsome.” Only after the incident does he describe them otherwise. I would too if they did that to my child. So, what is racist about that? What is racist about describing everyone in the book according to their relationship to him or how he perceives them.
Within the book the author is careful when describing everybody. (Most likely Coetzee is aware of the response to Conrad 's book so why would he want to do that? )He mostly passes his judgment on women like his daughter’s homely look or Bev Shaw’s unattractiveness. When talking about men like Petrus, he describes his hardworker look. Before the actual robbery occurred in the book he describes one of the men saying,”The taller of them is handsome, strikingly handsome.” Only after the incident does he describe them otherwise. I would too if they did that to my child. So, what is racist about that? What is racist about describing everyone in the book according to their relationship to him or how he perceives them.
Disgrace and Racism
I don't believe Coetzee's novel is truly racist. I think that some people are just looking too deep into it to purposely find racism in the novel. Of course there is going to be themes of race involved since the story takes place in a post apartheid South Africa, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the author is racist. I think the author and the work of fiction the author creates is separated. An author can write from a racist point of view to prove and point and not necessarily be racist himself. In Disgrace I don't believe Coetzee means to specifically means to be racist in his writing. I think he purposely makes the narrator to have an ambiguous view point so the readers themselves apply whatever viewpoint they want from it. I don't truly believe the character David Lurie purposely means to be racist, if anything the author is just trying to project the time period's attitudes in a post apartheid nation. If David Lurie was truly racist I think he would describe the characters of Soraya and Melanie different. I don't believe in any way he has racist attitudes towards them, if anything it's more of a predatory attitude towards women and disregard for law. In the article, Nadine Gordiner criticises the novel by stating “In the novel ‘Disgrace’ there is not one black person who is a real human being,”. I don't agree with this comment because Nadine Gordiner is not considering the time and place of the novel and does not understand what Coetzee is trying to project with the character of David Lurie. I don't believe that Lurie or the narrator describe African Americans as not being real human beings. I think the description of the African American characters is based on the ignorance and strange character of Lurie.
Disgrace
"It’s a confusion the novelist seems to encourage (Donadio)." The confusion is whether is readers can separate the novel from the writer. I will disagree that the novel is racist. Disgrace the whole story is one-sided. It would not make sense to really flush out the other characters in the novel, even the black assailants. For Bhabha, “Disgrace” is so powerful because it “allows people to project onto it some of their own most heartfelt but violent feelings (Donadio).” Coetzee never really makes an issue on the color of the skin and first time I picked on some kind of racial tension was when Lucy was talking to her father about her rape. Lucy was confounded to why they would so such a thing to her. David replied that it was the hatred that was growing in the African community against the their white oppressors. David was not bothered that Petrus was African but was worried that he was scheming for his daughter's land. David feared for his safety. Both parties trying dealing the isolation, trauma and the scars of what happened that day of the attack. David dealing with a world that he did not feel connected. Lucy trying to reconnect with the world she got disconnected from. What I think is interesting was how Coetzee uses the word "disgrace". He uses the word throughout the novel. David's leaving college, "his disgrace". Know his daughter's secret he also calls a "secret disgrace". Is the downfall of this man a representation of the downfall of the white upper classes?
When reading the article “Out of South Africa” from The New York Times, I’ve noticed the racism J.M.Coetzee had put into the novel “Disgrace” which I didn’t paid much attention to as I was reading the novel, so racism didn’t come to mind till today. I guess it’s because the novel “Disgrace” is not as racist compare to the article we have read previously from Conrad “Heart of Darkness”, but Coetzee definitely put racist factors into the novel. It was mentioned in the article of “Out of South Africa”, it says “the white women will have to sleep with the barbaric black men.” In this statement, he had made it clear that he used the term “barbaric” to depict the black men. From the novel “Disgrace”, David says “She does not reply. She would rather hide her face, and he knows why. Because of the disgrace. Because of the shame” (Coetzee, 115). This statement was from when David asked Lucy if she was going to go to the market, but Lucy says no, and from what David says, it’s because of the disgrace and shame. He could have meant the disgrace/shame of Lucy getting raped by black people. Also after David was living with his daughter Lucy, there were constant descriptions of them walking the animal, feeding the animals, and when the dog was killed from the incident of the robbery, David was the one who actually buried the dog. It seems to me that they almost treated the animals more important than the black people. So I believe that this novel involves racism although it didn’t come as strong as it did in “Heart of Darkness”, but there are definitely racist factors running through the novel here and there.
Disgrace and Racism
I never thought of Disgrace as being racist novel until I looked further into it and read the article assigned to us. After reading the article, I have come to realize that the book may in fact contain racist remarks made by David Lurie and the narrator (both of which are very closely related). I didn't look at the book as racist at first because the comments or parts of the story where it may contain racism is very discrete or not bluntly stated. Compared to Heart of Darkness where the racist comments are harsh and severe, the comments made by David are sort of hinted. For example, when he tells Lucy that Melanie is from George and refers to it as another "part of the world", he is basically stating that those who live in this part of Africa are different than he is; from another "part of the world" as if they are aliens and can not be compared to where he is from or the type of person he is. Even when Lucy is described, her appearance is very much emphasized saying that her appearance and where she resides have to do with each other. While his appearance has to do where he is from. Another instance where David might seem as having racist thoughts is when he meets Bev and Bill Shaw and his reaction towards them. I do not think his reaction is solely based on their profession but also who they are. Because all the examples aren't such obvious examples as those mentioned in Heart of Darkness, they may go unnoticed but they do contain a hint of racism. Also, the fact that they offend the people of Africa gives people the sense that the book is racism. Not that everything offensive is racist but if it offends a large group of people it should be considered racist.
Disgracist
After reading the article and reading further into Disgrace, I still do not find the book to be racist. It may contain racial issues or even racist issues, but that doesnt make the author nor the book itself racist. Everyone in society deals with racism and racial issues, thats just the way the world is; the world is diverse and people pull in different directions... so what? For an author to be able to present such a world, in this instance, South Africa, I think that is somewhat of an acheivement to be able to write what he wants freely. Coetzee is dealing with writing about a post apartheid society, of course there is going to be racism or racial issues in one way or another! That should go without even thinking about it. Similar to my opinion of Heart of Darkness, I do not at all find the work itself to be racist. Just because a story deals with racism within the work doesnt mean that the author wrote it with some sense of racial bias. For instance, in the story David is obsessed in the beginning with an escort. I dont think there is one single time where he refers to her in a derogatory way. Coetzee even writes, "He strokes her honey-brown body..." on the very first page and I immediately took it as him showing right away that he is not racist or racially biased in any way. He could've easily wrote "He strokes her body" but he describes her as honey-brown. I dont know about anybody else, but honey is great; tastes good I have nothing bad to say about it. If this were in fact "racist" he could've said "He strokes her shit-brown body" or something even worse that I wont write. South Africa is extremely diverse and a lot of the people who live and were born there are mixed; so for Coetzee to be from there and writing about where he is from, I doubt that he is being racist.
An argument against this could come from the article Out of South Africa, where it is mentioned that the men who rape David's daughter are all black. It is also said that one of the families harbors one of the rapists and that it is almost pointing out that they are only doing it because they're all black. I say BLAH! So what? They're black. I dont think having the three men who rap David's daughter be black is being racist they just happen to be black. If it were the other way around on the other hand if they rapists were all white, and the family that harbors one of the rapists were white, I dont think it would people would be arguing that the book is racist, even though clearly an all white family harboring a white racist would be the same amount of racial bias as the black family harboring the black racist.
An argument against this could come from the article Out of South Africa, where it is mentioned that the men who rape David's daughter are all black. It is also said that one of the families harbors one of the rapists and that it is almost pointing out that they are only doing it because they're all black. I say BLAH! So what? They're black. I dont think having the three men who rap David's daughter be black is being racist they just happen to be black. If it were the other way around on the other hand if they rapists were all white, and the family that harbors one of the rapists were white, I dont think it would people would be arguing that the book is racist, even though clearly an all white family harboring a white racist would be the same amount of racial bias as the black family harboring the black racist.
The Race Case of Disgrace
I am a bit torn between whether or not Disgrace is actually racist considering it could be taken as either a racist work or a non-racist. What would first make me skeptical about the possibilities of the novel being a racist work, would be that authors generally might have a bias when they're writing (such as when we looked at the article on Grace Paley) but would not actually be racist. The Times article pointed out very important points what would go either way for the argument.
I would personally have to say that I did not get the racist vibes from reading Disgrace that Coetzee was a racist (does that sentence make sense?). When the scene in chapter 11 happens, he doesn't describe the black men in a racist way (barbarians, niggers, etc.) and actually says that one of them is handsome: "The taller of them is handsome, strikingly handsome, with a high forehead, sculpted cheekbones, wide, flaring nostrils."
Yes, the possibility of the character being a racist, having been from the older generation of Africa exists, but after what he experiences, his thought process could be influenced by the fact of what they did. Yet, even if the character were indeed a racist, why would he have described whatever his relationship was with in such a way? Or why even have relations with her in the first place? I think that there are certainly points to which you can argue that Coetzee might be a racist, but in the end it made me think about the allusions made my Marxist and Feminist critics, but of course, I could dead wrong since I don't know much about Coetzee.
If I did believe that Coetzee was a racist, I would be just as enraged about his award of the Nobel Prize as the ANC are.
I would personally have to say that I did not get the racist vibes from reading Disgrace that Coetzee was a racist (does that sentence make sense?). When the scene in chapter 11 happens, he doesn't describe the black men in a racist way (barbarians, niggers, etc.) and actually says that one of them is handsome: "The taller of them is handsome, strikingly handsome, with a high forehead, sculpted cheekbones, wide, flaring nostrils."
Yes, the possibility of the character being a racist, having been from the older generation of Africa exists, but after what he experiences, his thought process could be influenced by the fact of what they did. Yet, even if the character were indeed a racist, why would he have described whatever his relationship was with in such a way? Or why even have relations with her in the first place? I think that there are certainly points to which you can argue that Coetzee might be a racist, but in the end it made me think about the allusions made my Marxist and Feminist critics, but of course, I could dead wrong since I don't know much about Coetzee.
If I did believe that Coetzee was a racist, I would be just as enraged about his award of the Nobel Prize as the ANC are.
Disgrace versus Racsim
When reading the article Out of Africa one can clearly see that there is a a strong sense of racism in the words of the writer. When the writer speaks of Africa and its people you can get a sense of him emphasizing on what the black men's personality are. He says "Zackie Achmat, an HIV-positive gay Muslim man of Indian extraction and ANC member," he writes of the man being HIV-positive which I don't think is relevant at all in this piece. There is automatically an emphases on the guy being gay and HIV- positive, knowing that Africa has the largest population of HIV infected people, I would think it is kind of stupid to bring up that the man is gay or HIV-positive just because he is from Africa.
Disgrace was taking place at the time this article was written and from what we have read so far I seem to get that David Laurie seems to be very distant and act very weirdly towards men. He constantly questions if he would do this or that for a Bill Shaw, who helps him from the hospital. Also since this is taking place in Africa I would this the who situation with him and Melanie can be seen as something of racism. I feel that Melanie gave up to this professor not because she was interested in him but because she saw him as a white man with authority over her. Since this was when the apartheid was taking place she felt that he had power over her and if she didn't give up to him he might have failed her in the course.
Disgrace was taking place at the time this article was written and from what we have read so far I seem to get that David Laurie seems to be very distant and act very weirdly towards men. He constantly questions if he would do this or that for a Bill Shaw, who helps him from the hospital. Also since this is taking place in Africa I would this the who situation with him and Melanie can be seen as something of racism. I feel that Melanie gave up to this professor not because she was interested in him but because she saw him as a white man with authority over her. Since this was when the apartheid was taking place she felt that he had power over her and if she didn't give up to him he might have failed her in the course.
DISGRACE / RACISM
When reading Disgrace, it didn’t strike me to be as racist as Heart of Darkness. There wasn’t a constant usage of words describing Africans like shadows, figures, etc. Although after reading Out of Africa, there were some examples of how it was. ‘In the new regime whites could “lose their cards, their weapons, their property, their rights, and their dignity, while “the white women will have to sleep with the barbaric black men.” This line does strike out to be racist referring to the black men as barbaric. It portrays black men as if they were less like humans and more like savages and animals.
Another part that was pointed out in Out of Africa was how “the novelist cared more about animal rights than human rights.” The animals were well taken care of being walked, fed, caressed and being appreciated. After the dogs were shot during the incident, David Lurie was the one who buried them. He described one of the dogs “with the hole in its throat still bares its bloody teeth. Like shooting fish in a barrel, he thinks. Contemptible, yet exhilarating, probably, in a country where dogs are bred to snarl at the mere of a black man.” It sounds like dogs were brought up to dislike black men as though they were the dangerous, vicious animals, not the dogs themselves.
I began questioning if perhaps it displayed racism. “As for him, he does not mind the attention. Let them know I am still here, he thinks, let them know I am not skulking in the big house. And if that spoils their get-together, so be it. He lifts a hand to his white skullcap. For the first time he is glad to have it, to wear it as his own.” Was David trying to prove that after the incident he was strong enough to move on with his life, or was he displaying the “power of whites.” The skullcap was white and he wears it as his own… like representing his own people? Maybe.
Another part that was pointed out in Out of Africa was how “the novelist cared more about animal rights than human rights.” The animals were well taken care of being walked, fed, caressed and being appreciated. After the dogs were shot during the incident, David Lurie was the one who buried them. He described one of the dogs “with the hole in its throat still bares its bloody teeth. Like shooting fish in a barrel, he thinks. Contemptible, yet exhilarating, probably, in a country where dogs are bred to snarl at the mere of a black man.” It sounds like dogs were brought up to dislike black men as though they were the dangerous, vicious animals, not the dogs themselves.
I began questioning if perhaps it displayed racism. “As for him, he does not mind the attention. Let them know I am still here, he thinks, let them know I am not skulking in the big house. And if that spoils their get-together, so be it. He lifts a hand to his white skullcap. For the first time he is glad to have it, to wear it as his own.” Was David trying to prove that after the incident he was strong enough to move on with his life, or was he displaying the “power of whites.” The skullcap was white and he wears it as his own… like representing his own people? Maybe.
Though it would be entirely inappropriate to label “Disgrace” as a racist novel and J.M. Coetzee has a racist writer, a case could be made that some of Coetzee’s assumptions and predispositions have made their way into his book. As the writer, Coetzee has the power to present to the audience what he wishes and potentially sway their opinion of the characters and situations. David Lurie is our protagonist and though many readers are disgusted by his actions and thoughts, Coetzee tries very hard to make the audience understand him and to sympathize with him. What David does to Melanie is “not rape, not quite that, but undesired nevertheless, undesired to the core” (Coetzee 25) because she does not fight back nor show any signs of hysteria while he assaults her. In addition, Coetzee does not show what this sexual harassment situation has done to Melanie, her life, or her personality and fixates instead on David. On the other hand, when Lucy is raped by the three African men, the situation is shown to be a lot more severe and demands that the audience be disgusted by the savagery and horror that these intruders have inflicted. Coetzee describes the mentality that Lucy is left with and as a result “she would rather hide her face…Because of the disgrace. Because of the shame. That is what their visitors achieved; that is what they have done to this confident, modern young woman” (Coetzee 115). There is a vast difference in the way David’s disgrace was portrayed and that of the African men which may suggest that Coetzee viewed the white South Africans and the black South Africans in very unequal ways.
When writing a novel based upon a subject that is personal like where you live or your experiences growing up, the author’s beliefs have some sort of influence on his writings. The presentation of the article and certain things the author says in the novel make it evident that he does have some characteristics of a racist.
The book presents evidence of being racist in scenes when he refers to his daughter that was a victim of assault as being a “disgrace.” It is evident in the scene where she is asked whether or not she will be attending the market. David says “she would rather hide her face, and he knows why. Because of the disgrace. Because of the shame. That is what their visitors have achieved; that is what they have done to this confident, modern young woman. Like a stain the story is spreading across the district. Not her story to spread but theirs; they are its owners. How they put her in her place, how they showed her what a women was for.” These lines make you question why he considers her a disgrace; she is merely just the victim of a crime. It makes one question is it that he considers the deed a disgrace or is it just a disgrace because the attackers are of color? In a sense, isn’t he guilty of committing the same act with Melanie?
The author also shows signs of racism when describing Lucy’s neighbor, Petrus. David wonders if he knows the strangers. Just because they are of the same race doesn’t mean that he would associate with the attackers. The author indirectly tells us that he judges him and feels that he is property. This is evident when the author writes “Does it strike you as fishy that he should disappear at precisely this time? ‘I can’t order Pertus about. He is his own master.’” His absence was automatically questioned that he had some sort of affiliation with the strangers.
His referral to him being linked with another generation is also evidence. In past generations, it was deemed acceptable by society to be racist. By him saying that he belonged to another generation leads us to believe that he did feel that way.
The book presents evidence of being racist in scenes when he refers to his daughter that was a victim of assault as being a “disgrace.” It is evident in the scene where she is asked whether or not she will be attending the market. David says “she would rather hide her face, and he knows why. Because of the disgrace. Because of the shame. That is what their visitors have achieved; that is what they have done to this confident, modern young woman. Like a stain the story is spreading across the district. Not her story to spread but theirs; they are its owners. How they put her in her place, how they showed her what a women was for.” These lines make you question why he considers her a disgrace; she is merely just the victim of a crime. It makes one question is it that he considers the deed a disgrace or is it just a disgrace because the attackers are of color? In a sense, isn’t he guilty of committing the same act with Melanie?
The author also shows signs of racism when describing Lucy’s neighbor, Petrus. David wonders if he knows the strangers. Just because they are of the same race doesn’t mean that he would associate with the attackers. The author indirectly tells us that he judges him and feels that he is property. This is evident when the author writes “Does it strike you as fishy that he should disappear at precisely this time? ‘I can’t order Pertus about. He is his own master.’” His absence was automatically questioned that he had some sort of affiliation with the strangers.
His referral to him being linked with another generation is also evidence. In past generations, it was deemed acceptable by society to be racist. By him saying that he belonged to another generation leads us to believe that he did feel that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)