I am disappointed that I have to write this during my last--and busiest--week of the semester because, although I have had plenty of time to think about the future, I do not right now. My thoughts in two weeks might not be what they are today. As R.D. Laing said, “we live in a moment of history where change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present only when it is already disappearing.” We live for the future, and it is often the deciding factor in what we choose to do today. With that said, the question becomes: how is literature, and my study of it, going to determine what I do in the future?
In order to try to understand what I plan to do with an English degree, I am going to go back and look at what I was thinking when I first made the decision. Just eight months ago, I had declared my major as finance, and I had no idea what I was going to do with that degree—I just knew that a business degree gave me many options. As a requirement for my business major, I had to take Business Law. I loved the course and, although I had had thoughts in the past of law school, they were always ideas and never plans. With my interests in the study of law rekindled, I sought advice from various people about what they thought the best major was for an aspiring law student. My professor suggested English. I was ambivalent at first, but the more I thought about it and the more I talked to people, the more confirmation I got that it was a good idea. So, I went to see an adviser and I changed my plans.
Now that I have spent a semester as an English major, I have been exposed to some excellent literature and literature discussion. The depth of analysis and interpretation of the works we have studied has really opened my eyes to the importance it has in my life. After we discussed The Moviegoer, I thought about how I could one day end up like Binx—a wandering soul in search of fulfillment at the ripe old age of thirty. Persepolis brought me into a world of family struggles and sacrifices during a period of political upheaval, which could be the experiences of people I know (have known). Glengarry Glen Ross showed me the inner workings of a real estate office with cutthroat agents that care only about one thing: closing. Is my friend and real estate agent at all like these men?
Literature can (most of the time) only be based upon real life experience—either first or second hand. Thus, reading what others have written is the key to a box full of answers; answers to questions that people ask every day. I love that when I ask the question, “should I go to law school,” or “what were people thinking when this [insert historical event] happened,” there are hundreds of books out there (all written from different people and viewpoints) that I can read to help me figure out what people were/are thinking. Reading about the experiences of others, learning from them, and using them to help me make decisions are some of the many tools I will use from my study of literature.
The most important reason for my study of literature is that I like it. Literature will provide me with answers to questions, entertainment, and questions to ponder; and it will do all of these things while adding a smile to my face. Leonardo da Vinci encapsulated it for me: “Study without desire spoils the memory, and it retains nothing that it takes in.”
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Geography III?
When I first saw the title for this book, I thought to myself, "What? This is a book of poetry about geography?" I thought it sounded strange, but still interesting. When I saw the epigraph and ensuing geography lesson, I thought the poetry was geared toward a younger audience. Then I opened my copy and saw numerous notes scribbled in throughout the pages. From the notes I concluded that the poetry was probably not specifically for elementary school students (unlike the lesson at the beginning of the book). So, why title it Geography III? It might be because location and direction are commonly mentioned in her poetry.
Of the five poems we studied, there was mention of something geographic in each of them. The first poem, “In the Waiting Room,” mentioned the writer’s experience of reading a National Geographic magazine. Volcanoes and Worchester, Massachusetts were also mentioned. In “Crusoe in England,” volcano is again mentioned and repeated throughout the poem. In “The Moose,” Bishop describes the scenery visible to bus riders as they journey west by islands, houses, marshes, et cetera. Then there is “Poem,” which describes a painting of a landscape full of houses, trees, churches, plants, and animals. Finally, in “One Art” Bishop mentions cities, rivers, and continents. So, there is the obvious inclusion of geography in each of her poems, but does something that simple really explain the title? Maybe, but what really helped me understand the title was the lesson at the beginning of the book.
The most important question provided in the front of the book is: “What is geography?” Answer: “A description of the earth’s surface.” With this information, along with the geographical reference in each poem, I glean that Bishop is saying how important her surroundings (the earth) are to her. I think each poem can be loosely connected to some significant lesson—a “first lesson”—she learned by observing her surroundings. It is obvious that she spent a great deal of time studying her surroundings, as evidenced by the descriptions in her poems.
Even though this poetry is fairly easy to read, it was not enjoyable for me at first. I have never loved poetry, but I do not hate it by any means either. I have just never found pleasure reading poetry like I have prose. It was my idea that the more I read poetry, the more likely I would be to enjoy it because of my increased awareness and understanding of it. I am happy to say now that, after delving into Elizabeth Bishop’s work, it is growing on me.
Of the five poems we studied, there was mention of something geographic in each of them. The first poem, “In the Waiting Room,” mentioned the writer’s experience of reading a National Geographic magazine. Volcanoes and Worchester, Massachusetts were also mentioned. In “Crusoe in England,” volcano is again mentioned and repeated throughout the poem. In “The Moose,” Bishop describes the scenery visible to bus riders as they journey west by islands, houses, marshes, et cetera. Then there is “Poem,” which describes a painting of a landscape full of houses, trees, churches, plants, and animals. Finally, in “One Art” Bishop mentions cities, rivers, and continents. So, there is the obvious inclusion of geography in each of her poems, but does something that simple really explain the title? Maybe, but what really helped me understand the title was the lesson at the beginning of the book.
The most important question provided in the front of the book is: “What is geography?” Answer: “A description of the earth’s surface.” With this information, along with the geographical reference in each poem, I glean that Bishop is saying how important her surroundings (the earth) are to her. I think each poem can be loosely connected to some significant lesson—a “first lesson”—she learned by observing her surroundings. It is obvious that she spent a great deal of time studying her surroundings, as evidenced by the descriptions in her poems.
Even though this poetry is fairly easy to read, it was not enjoyable for me at first. I have never loved poetry, but I do not hate it by any means either. I have just never found pleasure reading poetry like I have prose. It was my idea that the more I read poetry, the more likely I would be to enjoy it because of my increased awareness and understanding of it. I am happy to say now that, after delving into Elizabeth Bishop’s work, it is growing on me.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
From the Frat House to the Real Estate Office
In Glengarry Glen Ross, David Mamet exposes us to a male-dominated world of immature, manipulative, salesmen whose rapacity rivals that of wolves. The demands placed on the men drive them to do whatever is necessary to succeed. At the beginning of the play, the sales maxim “always be closing” is introduced. These three words echo constantly in the minds of the characters and they encapsulate the mindset required—at least in their heads—to be successful salesmen.
The first thing that struck me about this play was the language. With vocabularies that comprise mostly curse words, Shelley Levene, John Williamson, Dave Moss, and Richard Roma set the tone for a play with a lot of anger and contempt in it. I was initially turned off by the obscenities when I read them, but once I saw actors utter them in a movie, I was much more accepting. The other aspect of language in this play is its use as a means to an end. The agents manipulate their words in a way that is always advantageous to their goal. Although all the men in the office possess this ability to varying degrees, Roma utilizes chicanery better than any of his colleagues (this is only my opinion, and it may be biased because of Al Pacino’s omnipresent dominance on screen). The scene in which Roma talks to James Lingk regarding their real estate deal illustrates his ability to adapt to a situation and always speak when it is beneficial to him. The oral deception employed by these men is, in actuality, a sign of inner weakness though.
What makes these men weak? The reasons are different for each of them based on individual circumstances, but for all of them to work in sales where they are often forced to lie so they can ‘close the deal, ‘they surely all have inner weaknesses. The lack of intellectual development limits their career options. Some of them are in denial about their weaknesses—particularly Levene who often praises his past success to shift focus from his present-day slump. Moss cites Williamson’s distribution of bad leads for “deadbeats” as the reason for his declining sales. The only misfit salesman in the office is Aaronow who does not possess the cut-throat sales ability that the others do. Interestingly enough, Aaronow’s silence keeps him out of trouble when his fellow agents incriminate themselves because of their big mouths. Williamson ruins Roma’s deal with Lingk when he reveals that the Lingk’s check was already cashed. Levene brags about his sale to the Nybourgs, which rouses suspicion out of Williamson and eventually leads to Levene’s interrogation with the police. Could there be something else besides deceptive language that affected these men?
One aspect of the backgrounds of these men that has not been mentioned is the role of women in their lives. Throughout the play, women are almost non-existent to the shallow observer. The presence or absence of women in the story is not something I ruminated much until it was discussed in class. The idea that women play a larger role in this play than meets the eye is very interesting to me. The effect Mrs. Lingk has on her husband is one that reduces him to a self-proclaimed weak man. Levene’s daughter, who lies sick in a hospital bed, may be the person who pushes him to the point of desperation when he steals the ‘good leads.’ It is safe to say that women do affect some of the happenings and the men’s attitudes in the play—even though there are no women who are main characters. Since Mamet has been called “anti-feminist at best and misogynist at worst” however, I doubt he meant for readers and audiences to interpret the role of women in this play as central.
I think one of the most interesting interpretations of this play is one that views it as a microcosm of American capitalism. Certain characteristics of the salesmen, such as greed, risk, and duplicity, are all traits that American business men and women have in our society. The intense competition of the real estate office mirrors the ferocity found in many areas of business all over the United States. On one hand, competition is good for consumers because it allows for competitive pricing and also motivates business people to work harder to satisfy their customers. On the other hand, people get greedy and act unethically or immorally attempting to stay ahead of the competition. It is a tough world out there and the idea that fraternity brothers idolize men who have a misguided moral compass, like those in Glengarry Ross, bothers me.
The first thing that struck me about this play was the language. With vocabularies that comprise mostly curse words, Shelley Levene, John Williamson, Dave Moss, and Richard Roma set the tone for a play with a lot of anger and contempt in it. I was initially turned off by the obscenities when I read them, but once I saw actors utter them in a movie, I was much more accepting. The other aspect of language in this play is its use as a means to an end. The agents manipulate their words in a way that is always advantageous to their goal. Although all the men in the office possess this ability to varying degrees, Roma utilizes chicanery better than any of his colleagues (this is only my opinion, and it may be biased because of Al Pacino’s omnipresent dominance on screen). The scene in which Roma talks to James Lingk regarding their real estate deal illustrates his ability to adapt to a situation and always speak when it is beneficial to him. The oral deception employed by these men is, in actuality, a sign of inner weakness though.
What makes these men weak? The reasons are different for each of them based on individual circumstances, but for all of them to work in sales where they are often forced to lie so they can ‘close the deal, ‘they surely all have inner weaknesses. The lack of intellectual development limits their career options. Some of them are in denial about their weaknesses—particularly Levene who often praises his past success to shift focus from his present-day slump. Moss cites Williamson’s distribution of bad leads for “deadbeats” as the reason for his declining sales. The only misfit salesman in the office is Aaronow who does not possess the cut-throat sales ability that the others do. Interestingly enough, Aaronow’s silence keeps him out of trouble when his fellow agents incriminate themselves because of their big mouths. Williamson ruins Roma’s deal with Lingk when he reveals that the Lingk’s check was already cashed. Levene brags about his sale to the Nybourgs, which rouses suspicion out of Williamson and eventually leads to Levene’s interrogation with the police. Could there be something else besides deceptive language that affected these men?
One aspect of the backgrounds of these men that has not been mentioned is the role of women in their lives. Throughout the play, women are almost non-existent to the shallow observer. The presence or absence of women in the story is not something I ruminated much until it was discussed in class. The idea that women play a larger role in this play than meets the eye is very interesting to me. The effect Mrs. Lingk has on her husband is one that reduces him to a self-proclaimed weak man. Levene’s daughter, who lies sick in a hospital bed, may be the person who pushes him to the point of desperation when he steals the ‘good leads.’ It is safe to say that women do affect some of the happenings and the men’s attitudes in the play—even though there are no women who are main characters. Since Mamet has been called “anti-feminist at best and misogynist at worst” however, I doubt he meant for readers and audiences to interpret the role of women in this play as central.
I think one of the most interesting interpretations of this play is one that views it as a microcosm of American capitalism. Certain characteristics of the salesmen, such as greed, risk, and duplicity, are all traits that American business men and women have in our society. The intense competition of the real estate office mirrors the ferocity found in many areas of business all over the United States. On one hand, competition is good for consumers because it allows for competitive pricing and also motivates business people to work harder to satisfy their customers. On the other hand, people get greedy and act unethically or immorally attempting to stay ahead of the competition. It is a tough world out there and the idea that fraternity brothers idolize men who have a misguided moral compass, like those in Glengarry Ross, bothers me.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
King Lear
I always get excited when I have to read Shakespeare in one of my classes. It is not because I have an insatiable desire to learn about him though. It is because each time I tell myself it is one more chance for me to try to understand him. I have studied several of his tragedies in the past including Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth. Although I was not turned off by either one of these, I was not fully turned on either. The language was always difficult to understand so I usually did not devote much time to studying the works. I found King Lear a bit easier to read though. I also enjoyed it more than any others I read before.
On the first day we discussed King Lear, Dr. Watson asked us to try and view Lear and his daughters not as royalty, but of average, middle class social status. In my attempt, I compared Lear dividing his kingdom to a modern-day father dividing his business. A man who spent his entire career building a business to give to his children, but in doing so neglected them is something I can relate to more easily. Three kids who grew up without a mother and without a compassionate father would understandably be less likely to have a close relationship with their father. After the father gave away his business, he would also understandably go through periods of sanity and search because of the drastic change. How much would the absence of a mother in the family affect everything? It is not something I thought about until presented with Coppelia Kahn’s argument.
To hear that Lear gradually sees the woman in himself as the play progresses was, at first glance, a stretch for me. I always thought that simply giving up his power and kingdom was so hard for him that it drove him into periods of madness. For most of his life, Lear knew only of his importance as king. He embraced the position that he did not earn and he never questioned it. Once he stepped down though, he began to question—with the help of those around him (the fool for instance). In his time of uncertainty, Lear showed different emotions than he ever had before. Therein lies the basis for his “understanding of the woman in himself.” As for Kahn’s premise, I like it. It certainly may or may not be the case, but Kahn’s argument is such that it cannot be dismissed. I happen to think that Lear's loss of power with which he closely identified himself and his conflicting relationships with his daughters that followed had more to do with his changing emotions.
On the first day we discussed King Lear, Dr. Watson asked us to try and view Lear and his daughters not as royalty, but of average, middle class social status. In my attempt, I compared Lear dividing his kingdom to a modern-day father dividing his business. A man who spent his entire career building a business to give to his children, but in doing so neglected them is something I can relate to more easily. Three kids who grew up without a mother and without a compassionate father would understandably be less likely to have a close relationship with their father. After the father gave away his business, he would also understandably go through periods of sanity and search because of the drastic change. How much would the absence of a mother in the family affect everything? It is not something I thought about until presented with Coppelia Kahn’s argument.
To hear that Lear gradually sees the woman in himself as the play progresses was, at first glance, a stretch for me. I always thought that simply giving up his power and kingdom was so hard for him that it drove him into periods of madness. For most of his life, Lear knew only of his importance as king. He embraced the position that he did not earn and he never questioned it. Once he stepped down though, he began to question—with the help of those around him (the fool for instance). In his time of uncertainty, Lear showed different emotions than he ever had before. Therein lies the basis for his “understanding of the woman in himself.” As for Kahn’s premise, I like it. It certainly may or may not be the case, but Kahn’s argument is such that it cannot be dismissed. I happen to think that Lear's loss of power with which he closely identified himself and his conflicting relationships with his daughters that followed had more to do with his changing emotions.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Persepolis
As a child, I spent little time reading comic books. I am not sure why exactly, but regardless I never developed an appreciation for them. I think if someone suggested this book to me, I would open it, glance at a few pictures, and quickly set it down with little intention of returning to it. Obviously circumstances under which I actually read the book were different because of this class. Now that I have read Persepolis (my first experience reading this genre), I can say that I was pleasantly surprised by Satrapi’s work. Not only does she write effectively, but the images add another avenue for the reader to better understand her story. I guess one could say the graphic novel works well.
In a country where revolution and war were seemingly the only occurrence to the outside world, Marjane Satrapi lived to tell her story of how she and her family survived the terrible events that they encountered through no choice or fault of their own. This story was enlightening to me as I have not spent much time reading about or thinking about what life would be like growing up in a country that severely limited my freedom (well, at least not in a country post World War II). In some ways I think Marjane’s life is relatable to those who lived in Nazi Germany. Although there was not a holocaust, families still experienced the horror of war in their own country. Surprise attacks, bombings, and tyranny were all part of the daily lives of the Jews as well as Marji and her family. Satrapi even references Nazism when Eby, her father, says: “That is like the Jews inviting the Gestapo in for a drink.” I think that quote came from the movie, but it does show that similarities can be drawn.
Behind all the violence during the war were Marji and her family—a family loyal to each other simply trying to survive and lead some sort of normal life. By normal I mean a life that does not revolve around war. Marji gives us a great sense of what that was like. I particularly enjoyed all the humor in the book. Two examples of times the book brought a smile to my face: Eby complained that if women showing hair was arousing to men then certain women should shave their mustaches; on page 133 when Marjane says: “Back then, Michael Jackson was still black.” These along with her descriptions of the forbidden parties her and her family hosted and attended gave me a sense of the people that I would not find any many other readings.
As far as her father’s statement that "politics and sentiment don't mix," I think in this situation they do. Although I think the family would be just as loving and caring toward each other if they lived in a country where neither of those occurred, I do think the war brought them together in a way that few other events could. For the family to survive they had to stick together and, in the time they spent together, they bonded. My contention is that a family that lives through tragic events and manages to stay close through all of the misfortune they encounter is more likely to have strong sentiment toward each other than one that does not.
In a country where revolution and war were seemingly the only occurrence to the outside world, Marjane Satrapi lived to tell her story of how she and her family survived the terrible events that they encountered through no choice or fault of their own. This story was enlightening to me as I have not spent much time reading about or thinking about what life would be like growing up in a country that severely limited my freedom (well, at least not in a country post World War II). In some ways I think Marjane’s life is relatable to those who lived in Nazi Germany. Although there was not a holocaust, families still experienced the horror of war in their own country. Surprise attacks, bombings, and tyranny were all part of the daily lives of the Jews as well as Marji and her family. Satrapi even references Nazism when Eby, her father, says: “That is like the Jews inviting the Gestapo in for a drink.” I think that quote came from the movie, but it does show that similarities can be drawn.
Behind all the violence during the war were Marji and her family—a family loyal to each other simply trying to survive and lead some sort of normal life. By normal I mean a life that does not revolve around war. Marji gives us a great sense of what that was like. I particularly enjoyed all the humor in the book. Two examples of times the book brought a smile to my face: Eby complained that if women showing hair was arousing to men then certain women should shave their mustaches; on page 133 when Marjane says: “Back then, Michael Jackson was still black.” These along with her descriptions of the forbidden parties her and her family hosted and attended gave me a sense of the people that I would not find any many other readings.
As far as her father’s statement that "politics and sentiment don't mix," I think in this situation they do. Although I think the family would be just as loving and caring toward each other if they lived in a country where neither of those occurred, I do think the war brought them together in a way that few other events could. For the family to survive they had to stick together and, in the time they spent together, they bonded. My contention is that a family that lives through tragic events and manages to stay close through all of the misfortune they encounter is more likely to have strong sentiment toward each other than one that does not.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Pursuit of Purpose
My experience reading The Moviegoer was somewhat enjoyable. I think Percy is an excellent writer and there is no doubt that his craft enables him to convey the story in a way that makes it interesting for the reader. For me though, I liked reading the book, but I hated talking about it.
Each day we had a discussion in class, I came happily to share my thoughts on what I liked or disliked about the book, what themes I was able to see, and what I thought were the central conflicts. To my chagrin, I left each class unable to dispel my feelings of disappointment. Hearing mostly negative responses about Binx and his quest for purpose and happiness reminded me how much I hate hearing pessimistic thoughts. Although I do agree with most of what was said in class, I did not experience the same feelings on my own when thinking about the book. I saw Jack as a man who was coasting through life and feeling no signs of progress or any sort of calling, but I did not think it was worst thing in the world to be a little bit lost. I guess I failed to realize the degree of Binx’s unhappiness. With that said, I’d say I was unsuccessful in my attempt to identify with the main character.
The misfortune that Mr. Bolling experienced throughout his life is something to which I cannot relate. I have a very fortunate background and most people with whom I have close relationships do too. Felling little identification with the character, I concentrated more on future action rather than how sad of a life Binx had. Anyway, now that I have stated my feelings about the book, I am going to try to connect the dots and give my opinion about Binx’s state at the end.
Throughout the majority of this book, Jack Bolling describes how his life is unfulfilling and how he is unable to find everlasting happiness. Dr. Watson informed us of Kierkegaard’s philosophy of existentialism and how Binx remains in the aesthetic stage. I think this is a good assessment, but I find myself trying to focus on the good aspects of his life. With a good job, a nice car, relationships with women, and a caring-albeit not immediate-family, Binx has a life that many people could only dream of. I can certainly see why people would want more-a wife; a family; a house; the American dream in short. Still, he has so much more than so many other people.
I would like to say that I do not understand his complete state of ennui, but since it is human nature to want what you do not have, I can see why his life is unfulfilling. He does not have a happy childhood to recollect; he has no people in his life that he feels understand him; he is not religious; and he cannot find a woman who holds his interest beyond anything physical. The only one of these that changes later in the book is his relationship with women when he and Kate get engaged. This seems to be the first step en route to a happier life.
In the end, when Binx marries Kate and attends medical school, one might think he has advanced to the ethical stage of existentialism. There is even an argument that he is nearing the religious stage when he tells the kids “He’ll be like you,” when he tells them what Lonnie will be like in heaven. I happen to disagree with both. The ending of this book is so ambiguous that, even though many ideas can be argued and supported, I just have to go with my gut. I see Binx happier married to Kate and working as a doctor, but I still think he will be living more to find himself and his place in the world than for other people. Perhaps he will espouse religion after a short time of living for others. At the conclusion of the book I think he is exiting the aesthetic stage, but he has not yet progressed to the ethical stage.
Each day we had a discussion in class, I came happily to share my thoughts on what I liked or disliked about the book, what themes I was able to see, and what I thought were the central conflicts. To my chagrin, I left each class unable to dispel my feelings of disappointment. Hearing mostly negative responses about Binx and his quest for purpose and happiness reminded me how much I hate hearing pessimistic thoughts. Although I do agree with most of what was said in class, I did not experience the same feelings on my own when thinking about the book. I saw Jack as a man who was coasting through life and feeling no signs of progress or any sort of calling, but I did not think it was worst thing in the world to be a little bit lost. I guess I failed to realize the degree of Binx’s unhappiness. With that said, I’d say I was unsuccessful in my attempt to identify with the main character.
The misfortune that Mr. Bolling experienced throughout his life is something to which I cannot relate. I have a very fortunate background and most people with whom I have close relationships do too. Felling little identification with the character, I concentrated more on future action rather than how sad of a life Binx had. Anyway, now that I have stated my feelings about the book, I am going to try to connect the dots and give my opinion about Binx’s state at the end.
Throughout the majority of this book, Jack Bolling describes how his life is unfulfilling and how he is unable to find everlasting happiness. Dr. Watson informed us of Kierkegaard’s philosophy of existentialism and how Binx remains in the aesthetic stage. I think this is a good assessment, but I find myself trying to focus on the good aspects of his life. With a good job, a nice car, relationships with women, and a caring-albeit not immediate-family, Binx has a life that many people could only dream of. I can certainly see why people would want more-a wife; a family; a house; the American dream in short. Still, he has so much more than so many other people.
I would like to say that I do not understand his complete state of ennui, but since it is human nature to want what you do not have, I can see why his life is unfulfilling. He does not have a happy childhood to recollect; he has no people in his life that he feels understand him; he is not religious; and he cannot find a woman who holds his interest beyond anything physical. The only one of these that changes later in the book is his relationship with women when he and Kate get engaged. This seems to be the first step en route to a happier life.
In the end, when Binx marries Kate and attends medical school, one might think he has advanced to the ethical stage of existentialism. There is even an argument that he is nearing the religious stage when he tells the kids “He’ll be like you,” when he tells them what Lonnie will be like in heaven. I happen to disagree with both. The ending of this book is so ambiguous that, even though many ideas can be argued and supported, I just have to go with my gut. I see Binx happier married to Kate and working as a doctor, but I still think he will be living more to find himself and his place in the world than for other people. Perhaps he will espouse religion after a short time of living for others. At the conclusion of the book I think he is exiting the aesthetic stage, but he has not yet progressed to the ethical stage.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Blog Content
This blog is for my English 2145 class at KSU. It will contain some of my thoughts about the literature we read for the course.
DC
DC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)