Re: It's a Strange World

I think this is a good point that you make about the "shock value" of the movie; it's sort of dated by modern standards. When I was watching this myself, I can't say I was really shocked by seeing Rossellini standing naked on the police captain's lawn, which Ebert took such offense at, and in fact, while reading your post about the violence in the movie, I thought, "That wasn't violent!" That sort of says something about how modern standards of society have progressed towards violence and sexuality being more acceptable in film and other art forms. The only scene that did creep me out a little was the BSDM scene with Frank and Dorothy, which seemed to be the case with a number of other people in our class. This, to me, seems an indicator of American society's less positive, more repressive view towards sexuality, because if you watch European movies, even the ones that make it in the mainstream audience here, there's quite a bit of sexuality and the like in them.

Or it could be that I'm just desensitized to weird stuff in movies. Anybody else see anything to do with Blue Velvet and how it relates to society?

Response to: "Blue Velvet a Dream?"

I mentioned this on Twitter, and I'll mention it again here.

The argument that you put forth is an extremely valid one, obnoxiously valid.

I guess I say "obnoxious" because in most instances, writing a story off as a dream seems to be the only logical way to explain all of it's occurrences in a way that society is comfortable with. 

Yes, dreams are a very powerful motif in Blue Velvet, but I believe that their underlying meaning is not that the movie itself was all a dream, but that if we get too caught up in fantasy worlds, we can use their dream-like nature to justify wrong doings. 

Let me try to explain this in the least rambling way possible:

Sandy's father is a detective. He is used to dealing with the dark issues, the underworld, the happenings behind the curtain. He makes this statement concerning his line of work: as Jeffery seems to be swooning over the greatness of mystery, Sandy's father agrees, but he makes a point to say that "it's terrible too," and proceeds to warn Jeffery not to get involved. 

I believe that the point Sandy's father is trying to subtly make is that one must be detached when dealing with this particular type of work. 

I believe a very strong example of the detective's aloofness is his reaction to Jeffery's very first discovery: "Yep, that's a human ear alright." I think any regular citizen, especially one from such a quaint town, would be a bit more disturbed with this finding. The detective takes things at face value, and certainly does not try to distort their meaning so as to gain some kind of comfort. 

Frank, in my opinion, serves to juxtapose this view. He seems to treat his life and all that he does as some sort of game or performance. He disillusions himself in just about every way possible in order to separate himself from reality and his victims, because it gives him justification for his actions. There are scores of examples for this assertion: His alcoholism and drug usage, his inability to look his victims in the eyes, and perhaps most powerfully, the fact that when he shoots, he drapes blue velvet over his gun. He even choreographs his fist fights to wistful songs. Frank is living in a dream world. This is a dangerous state to be in, as the detective subtly noted. Violence and selfish desires now seem less personal. 

In short, I do believe that the movie concerns fantasy vs. reality, but not in a literal sense. I believe that all of the occurrences actually, well, occurred. 

It’s a Strange World

I read the review for Blue Velvet – 20 years later and I was thinking what kind of movie experience this would have been for an audience 20 years ago. This film certainly has its shock value aspect that I think audiences these days might even label as ‘tame’. 20 years ago, audiences weren’t completely void of violence in cinema but as Egbert put it in his review, he felt violated so I would have to imagine that audiences were shocked by the content of this film. Dennis Hopper was already a fan favorite with films like Easy Rider and Apocalypse Now and he was even in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre sequel. The other major roles were filled by the International Star Isabella Rossellini and Kyle McLaughlin who had only been on one other movie – Lynch’s Dune. At this point in time, Lynch had several accomplished films under his belt so he must have had a pretty good following. I guess my point is I don’t think movie goers of our generation would have been as shocked by this film as movie goers of the 80’s generation, due to our desensitization to violence, and when reading this review I thought about this aspect in relation to other works we have discussed, poems and short stories, and how the generations who were privy to see these works come to light had different reactions to the works then our generation.

What is art?

I re-read the handout from David Wallace and it mentions high art and low art. High art being the kind of art that makes you “uncomfortable” and low art being the kind that makes the artist money, like mainstream TV and film. In my film discussion class we were asked “what is art” and we had a very similar discussion on art as we did in this class on the question of “what is literature”. The conclusion was art is a form of expression one uses to express their thoughts or emotions. That seems like a pretty basic explanation. Would it work for literature I wondered; literature is a form of expression one uses to express their thoughts or emotions. I like that simplistic approach to our previous debate. In this film class we were then shown a ‘sculpture’ by an early 20th century artist who put on display at an art gallery an upside down urinal. (http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/altabe_joan/images/duchamp_artwork.jpg) Some argued that this isn’t art but based on the definition we arrived at, how could you argue that this is not art? The artist is choosing to express himself using an upside down urinal. What is he expressing? I don’t know. I think he really just put it out there to challenge people on their understanding of art – just as it did in my film discussion class.

Re: A little overdue but...

I think that the interpretation of the title that we got in class was certainly a good way to look at it, but I saw the "study" to be not just of one person, but of many, indicating the general public's flawed reading habits. This would account for many people reading the newspaper now rather than a novel of literary merit, because they see books as a fanciful waste of time.

I also liked Leslie's idea of the "rose-colored glasses" of the narrator, but I saw the glasses more as a sign of aging than anything else, although certainly reading had something to do with the need for them.

A little overdue, but...

I was thinking, how, after last Monday's class, we came to the conclusion that "A Study of Reading Habits" was an ironic title because the speaker apparently did not possess any notable literary skills. Even so, one could surmise that the speaker lived his life through reading, despite being unable to obtain any significance from doing so. "Reading" has a dual meaning. We are allowed a peek into the speaker's lifestyle or "reading habits", however flawed they might be. In essence, we could substitute "reading" with "life" because reading was basically the way the speaker lived his life.

And what about his "inch thick specs"? Excessive reading would be the most obvious cause that readers would attribute to this affliction. However, I believe that "inch thick specs" alludes to the fact that the speaker looks at the world through rose colored glasses. He does not see things as they really are because he is involved too deeply in his dreamworld.

Phone conversation with Frank

I think there is a great deal to be said about the use of color in connection with the plot and characters in this film; but I also think there are some key observations made from just dialogue, specifically the first phone conversation between Dorothy and Frank, which I will get into later. The scene I chose to close read starts with Jeffrey breaking into Dorothy’s apartment with a key he obtained from an earlier scene and I ended right about the time Dorothy found him in the closet; so kind of one scene bleeding into the next. I think this sequence is an important scene because it captures the characters so well and foreshadows the plot to come. I’ll start with Sandy, who is actually not in this sequence at all and I found that fitting to most of the rest of the movie. Sandy gets sucked into this dark world by Jeffrey that Frank runs and Dorothy is victim to but Sandy is never really in danger. She never even meets Frank I don’t think and she meets Dorothy the one time near the end; other than that she is literally on the sidelines kind of watching Jeffrey’s descent into this dark world. I found it fitting that she was outside the apartment, with safe distance from what was really going on.

What I found fitting about this scene for Jeffery’s character was the fact that his previous brilliant plan was to dress up as a pest control guy and get access to Dorothy’s apartment so he can crack a window to sneak into later; however, there was no window in the kitchen and luckily found a key hanging from the counter to steal instead. The important thing that I think that earlier scene and this second break-in scene points out about Jeffrey is his inability to come up with an actually good plan and his Gumping his way through them. What this tells us about the character is that he is getting in over his head and that he is really not the great Detective that he may think he is and he is not prepared for what’s the rest of the plot has in store for him. This point is made apparent again when he uses the bathroom right in the middle of his big break-in, thanks to the Heineken, and as a result nearly gets caught and messes up the whole warning system Sandy had thought of for him. I’m not an expert at B&E, but I think most people have the common sense to pee first or hold it for later. I digress, again - he’s over his head. I think it’s also important to note his clothes, a little darker than previous scenes, but he was introduced in the beginning wearing dark clothes, represent a connection to the dark side of his psyche; probably the pervert side Sandy had mentioned. As he watches Dorothy undress from the darkness of the closet, he is a sort of peeping tom and at the same time he is still an outsider to this world he is about to encounter.

Although Dorothy was introduced in the earlier scene, almost nothing was revealed about her. She was on guard so to speak when this unannounced pest control guy shows up at her doorstep, which is fitting with her situation that is revealed later. However, in this scene, she thinks she is all alone and only then does the audience get a true introduction of her character. She is wearing a black dress but is almost immediately de-clothed and is just wearing her underwear. This exposes her, or sort of sheds that false appearance we got of her earlier and now we begin to really see who she is. This also makes her vulnerable to the peeping tom in the closet, in a physical sense, and when the phone rings, she is also “undressed’ in that conversation and reveals a lot about her character, in an emotional sense. What we get from the conversation is that she is in distress over a man named Frank, who is with someone named Donny. She is worried about Donny and she seems subservient to Frank. She keeps calling him sir, excessively. At the end she says “Mommy loves” so now the pieces are starting to fit together that Donny is her son. This conversation is a great foreshadow of what happens to Dorothy throughout the plot. Basically, her family is being withheld from her by a psycho named Frank; we don’t get a lot of details as to why or how this happened. If you fast forward to the end of the movie, we don’t have much more than that so in a sense this conversation sets up the whole plot for Dorothy’s character.

And then we have Frank. He hasn’t even appeared on screen yet but we know some things about him from this conversation that I think are important, because again they setup the character that entertains us for the rest of the movie. We know Dorothy obeys him by the way she speaks to him, constantly referring to him as “sir”. We know he has her family but we don’t know why. We know he has some kind of weird obsession with the song Blue Velvet because she says “I like to sing Blue Velvet”. Even before his really bizarre introduction, we get a sense that this Frank guy she is speaking to is short a few marbles and he is in charge, which is exactly what we see as the plot progresses.

Response to Axe by Alex

I was thinking the same thing, sort of. We talked about the axe being a tool of evil but I was thinking it is very necessary. It’s not like Frank attacks Jeffrey with an axe later on, so in no way is the axe depicted as a tool of evil in the move. And I don’t think a ‘town of lumber’ would fear an axe at all. It’s the very thing that they depend on for their living – their homes and livelihood as you said.

Bruno's Shirt

Im not sure if anyone else read Bruno's shirt in class today, but it really seemed to stand out to me. For those of you who didn't catch it, he was wearing a shirt that said "Free your mind" in the shape of a brain. Immediately what came into my mind was the EN VOGUE song entitled "Free your mind". As the song goes "Free your mind, and the rest will follow... be color blind, don't be so shallow" The reason why I am bring this up, other than feeling bad for being distracted from Bruno's close reading of Blue Velvet, is because I feel like this directly connects to what we were talking about last week in class about Phenomenology. This song to me is a perfect summerization of what phenomenologists sought to acheive. "Free your mind, and the rest will follow..." means exactly what the these people were saying about looking at the text "wholly and purely" and the "meaning" will be created from those ideas itself. "Be color blind, don't be so shallow" when looking in this context can have the same ideas of looking at things a-historically. Granted, I dont think this is specially what EN VOGUE was referring to in the song (Although that might be argued with a frame of "significance"), but I do feel that the song is a great representation of that topic.

So thanks to you Bruno for sparking a connection!!!!

Axe

Today the topic of an axe's appearance in a blue velvet scene was discussed and I felt that there could be other explanations for it other than the one given. The axe was suppose to be "bad news" in a town made of wood, which i agree with to a certain extent. I feel that the axe is a symbol of necessary evil. The people of lumberton need axes; their existence depends upon them. They cut down trees to build their homes and ship out that wood to bring in a revenue. The axe, even though associated with a dismal concept...cutting down trees for money is a manditory ideal...making money for the town. The town wouldn't be as well sustained without the axe. The scary axe like the dirty beetles in the undergroth at the begining of the movie which feeds the pretty little bird is essential in the pretty little town's survival.

The Birds

The scene I chose was the Robins of Love scene (53:44)

The first shot of this scene is the outside of the hardware store in daylight. The front of the store looks old timey and cheerful, the perfect small town store. Then the shot cuts to the inside of the store where Jeffrey is on the phone with Sandy. Jeffrey is always plotting something, and this time he’s plotting a get together with Sandy in secret because her boyfriend is over at her house. Jeffrey is whispering the whole conversation for no apparent reason, other than to be sneaky I suppose. Jeffrey is wearing a dark grey shirt in the beginning of the scene, which is important to note, because as the night moves forward he will be shown wearing all black. I think the progression from light to dark in the whole scene emphasizes the contrast between good and evil and from the facade to the reality throughout the whole movie. There is a cut it the picture of Jeffrey on the phone to a man, presumably a lumberjack (wearing plaid) buying an axe. I think this is important because it reminds the viewer that we are still in the same place as the opening scenes of the movie, Lumbertown US of A.

After Jeffrey hangs up the phone, the scene transitions abruptly to a dark room where a red lampshade is casing a demonic glow on Jeffrey's face. This abrupt change takes us from dark to night instantly. The whole shot is just of Jeffrey sitting in a chair. He is very somber, and sinister looking. In the background there is a Lumbertown sign that is hanging on the wall. I think this is important because this is the second time in the same scene that the viewer is being oriented. Although it is darker and much more sinister than the first shot, the location of the action is still in Lumbertown. The camera pans in on Jeffrey, emphasizing the intensity he is radiating and forcing the viewer to get closer to Jeffrey despite his menacing demeanor.

This shot fades to reveal the next shot, and the smooth transition represents how subtly the transition from little to no light can be made, as opposed to the previously abrupt transition from full sunlight to darkness. In this part of the scene Sandy drives up and parks. I thought that the choice to have Sandy park in front of a church was very interesting. In the background of the car there is a church that is in complete darkness, and the only light of the scene is shining through the stained glass windows of this church. There is no talk of religion in the movie, so choosing to emphasize the light from inside of the church was a striking thing to me. In this scene we see Jeffrey dressed in all black and Sandy dressed in light blue. Now, the blue is different from the pink we usually see her in, and I think that this blue suggests that she is becoming more involved in the darker nature of the town through her interactions with Jeffrey. I did note however, that the blue she is wearing is not a saturated color; it is a pastel that suggests that while she is becoming more involved she is still relatively innocent and naive.

This is where it gets interesting. Sandy asks Jeffrey to tell her about what happened the night before in Dorothy’s apartment. So, Jeffrey just out and tells her very matter- of -factly with no emotion what so ever. Jeffrey seems completely in control the entire time he is speaking, he does not appear to be emotionally attached to his words at all, and in fact seems completely unchanged by his experience. He does omit the part about becoming physical with Dorothy. I think that this suggests that he both does not want to hurt Sandy, and plans for a reoccurrence of this action. The only time that Jeffrey shows any emotion is when Sandy asks if they should tell her father. Jeffrey is adamant that they should not, and almost jumps out of his seat in a very sinister way. (I’m creeped out writing about it) BUT, and here is the interesting part. Jeffrey’s reasoning for not wanting to tell Sandy’s father is to protect them. After witnessing what a horrible situation Dorothy is in, Jeffrey is only worried for himself and Sandy, and states that he does not want them to get into trouble. Jeffrey seems artificially concerned about the “trouble in the world” and genuinely concerned about saving his own ass from any repercussions of his actions.

After Jeffrey tells his story, it is Sandy’s turn to talk. She proceeds to tell Jeffrey about a dream she has where Robins save the world with love. In her dream “the world was dark, because there were no Robins, and Robins represented love” and then “suddenly” the Robins are “set free” and they bring a “blinding light” that saves the world from darkness. Sandy notes that the love is the only thing that matters. This just shows how naive she is. First of all, who had captured the Robins in the first place? Sandy attributes all of the world’s darkness to a lack of love. She does not account for action, responsibility of individuals, character, none of that, she puts the fate of the world in the hands of a Robin that represents love. From this I can see the blatant juxtaposition of her words of light and love and the darkness in the car, outside, and sitting right next to her. Then there is an awkward shot of the two of them sitting facing each other, both expecting the other to say something, but neither one talking. Then they drive off and we are again left with the sight of the church in the background with light shining through its glass windows.

A Window into Darkness

(The scene I am refering to is the in chapter 10, while Jeffery is hiding in the closet. I am speaking of the entire scene of him in the closet, until Dorothy finds him.)

There is a contrast between the lighting in the closet and the lighting in the living room. Jeffery is in the dark hiding behind the slatted closet door. The lighting cast into the closet gives the allusion of a Film Noir experience. To contrast this lighting choice, the living room is far brighter than the closet, however it is still very dimly lit for a living room.

The slats on the window cast a shadow much like a window with blinds would. This leaves the viewer the room to interpret that this scene denotes a window for previously innocent Jeffery into the lives of some of the on goings of the dark goings on. One can say that Jeffery is "in the dark" about the whole situation. However, when Dorothy finds him, she brings him "into the light" of the entire situation. He then becomes a part of the dimly-lit lives of the shady characters.

Jeffery hears Dorothy's side of a telephone conversation with Frank. He can hear the terror in her voice and she shows sides of her she wouldn't show if she knew someone was watching. This theme of private experience is extended throughout the scene starting as Jeffery simply as a peeping tom watching her undress, and following through the Frank conversation. It is at this point that Dorothy takes the photo of her son and the marriage certificate out from under the couch. This is obviously a private matter to her seeing as she took care to hide it well.

The camera when looking in on the living room is shot from the perspective of Jeffery. The movement of the camera is limited, and doesn't follow her into the bathroom. We only get to see what Jeffery saw of Dorothy. This denotes that there is still a distance between the situation, and Jeffery. He is still simply an onlooker. It is only when Dorothy discovers that he is in the closet that he is thrust into the light of the entire situation.

"Back to Normal" Blue Velvet

This scene is the last of the movie and occurs 1hr. and 55min. into the movie. This is the scene after Jeffrey kills Frank in Dorothy's apartment.

This scene begins with the camera slowly moving down to the outside of Dorothy's apartment, where police and ambulances have gathered. There are people running into the building in a frantic manner, finally cleaning up the final remains of the perverse world Jeffrey encountered. As this is happening the love music that played when Jeffrey and Sandy first kissed is playing the background and then it shows Jeffrey and Sandy reunited, kissing in the middle of the Dorothy's hall, an obvious indication that everything will be alright because they have found each other throughout this entire ordeal. There is a bright light shown upon them that only gets brighter, which is an allusion to Sandy's dream in which she describes the darkness that surrounded her clearing with a bright light and robins. Lynch uses this light as a transition to the next part of the scene which is a close up of Jefferey's ear. This ironic, in the sense that this is how Jeffrey discovered the dark and grim world behind his house. Now it is being used as an opening to the scene titled "Back to Normal." The camera then pans out to let the audience see Jeffrey lying on a hammock watching the sky, which he looks up and sees a robin in a tree, a symbol of the peace and love that has now entered Jeffrey's life and an indication how he is back to the pleasant and safe world he has always known. Jeffrey is called inside for lunch, as he goes in we see that members of Jeffrey's family and Sandy's family are talking and enjoying each others' company. Lynch intentionally showed this as a reinforcement of the weirdly perfect lives these people lead, where every member of the family gets along and hangs out with each other. In the kitchen, Jeffrey's grandmother and Sandy are making lunch, when they see a robin at the window sill. Jeffrey and Sandy both know that the robin is, as in her dream, a symbol of love and peace that now resembles their lives in their perfect world. The camera zooms into the robin and we see that it has a beetle in its mouth. This was a very powerful symbolization, that the peace and love (the robin) conquered the dark and destructive forces (the beetle, which had appeared underground in the first scene when Jeffrey's father has a stroke). Then we see the same images we saw in the opening of the movie, the roses and white picket fence, the fireman waving. Another clear indication that everything is "back to normal." The scene then moves onto see how Dorothy is after all this. We see her son with the hat Jeffrey had found playing with Dorothy watching him, then embracing him. As this is running, the song "Blue Velvet" is playing, but this time it is Dorothy singing it. The intention of this, I think, was to ensure that Dorothy had also escaped and the good really did triumph over evil, and now she will only "see blue velvet in [her] tears," when she remembers what she escaped. The camera pans up to the sky and transitions to the blue, velvet curtains, as in the beginning of the movie.

Though there were too many annoyingly obvious evidence/symbols that everything was okay, I liked how the movie ended. Lynch had the intention of making everything too normal, so the audience, not only could get the clear idea of good defeats evil, but also to balance out the movie. I thought the close-up of the robin with the beetle in its mouth was a really interesting and strong symbol that Lynch used. It sums up the entire movie in one shot and it was what I remembered most about this scene.

Response to Maranda on Frank's Obsessions

This blog made me think of The Dark Knight (maybe you shouldn’t read on if you haven’t seen it) in contrast to Batman because Frank is a character of such pure evil that in a sense, similar to Heath Ledger’s Joker, he is just absolute. We don’t know why Frank is obsessed with these songs, or the fabric, or the gas, or why he is the only person in this reality to use the F word, (except one other character that was told by Frank to use it), or really any background on him. Had Lunch or the screenwriter chosen to include all that, we might have ended up with Burton’s version of evil, depicting the how and the why and the back-story behind the character. I personally think that the absolute character is the way to go and Frank would have been less of a strong character had we as the audience been privy to the back story.

Response to MartinL on Blue Velvet

I think he rushed over there because he knew they were going to kill Dorothy’s husband.

The Process

We talked in class about how we reached the conclusions we did on Study of Reading Habits and I think that the big picture answer was that we were able to distance ourselves from the work in order to reach that conclusion. I wanted to point out that in order for us to reach that conclusion and distance ourselves that we had to follow a process, which we have been following for all works; observing, analyzing and interpreting. I think its important to make note of because this process seems to be a common thread of all the pieces we will be reviewing in this class and I was wondering if anyone else thought that although the answer we discussed was about being able to distance ourselves from the piece, that we need to be able to repeat the process again to reach that distance and so the real underlying answer to how we were able to reach the conclusions we did was to make observations, analyze and interpret. Or maybe I’m just over analyzing.

Some other thoughts on "A Study of Reading Habits"

Just wanted to put this out there, since I didn't think of it until after class. We all seemed fairly eager to blame the reader for his ignorance and poor reading skills, but what if it wasn't his fault? What if no one ever taught him how to be a good reader or showed him anything less literal about how to read a book? He certainly seemed to have an aversion to school, as evidenced in the first stanza. What if it was the education system who was at fault?

Just putting that out there.

Frank's Obsessions

Frank...is one crazy character. Something about him that I caught on to and tried to further think about was his relationship to music, the songs "Blue Velvet" and "Candy-Colored Clown" specifically. I wanted to know what might have led him to develop such a tie, a dependence almost, to these songs.

Well, obviously, he's obsessed with the material of Dorothy's robe, but who knows which came first, the fabric or the song? In the scene where Jefferey returns to The Slow Club, Frank is there, listening to Dorothy sing "Blue Velvet" and holding onto a piece of cloth that matches her robe. He seems enraptured with the song.
In the scene where he takes Jefferey to Ben's place, he first quotes a line of "Candy-Colored Clown" to Ben after he hands him money and drugs. Then Ben proceeds to play and lip sync the words of the song. As he does this, Frank appears to be in the same state as he was at The Slow Club. He knows the words, and as he mouths them along, he begins to appear more and more troubled until the music is abruptly turned off. He has the song played again just before he beats Jefferey. He quotes lines from the song to him as they are sung in the song, and rubs his piece of blue velvet against Jefferey's face before hitting him.

Questions I asked myself while thinking about this were: Do these songs define Frank? Does he allow them to define him and his lifestyle? I can't really know, because in the movie we aren't told the exact answer, but I do know that he definitely allows them to have some great impact on his life.

Curious Conversation

There is an emphasis on darkness and shadow during this particular scene in Blue Velvet. The scene begins almost literally in darkness, until a door opens and dim light filters downward as Jeffrey creeps down the stairs. It is as if this signifies Jeffrey's entry into a perilous journey. As he is speaking on the stairs, shadow continues to fall over his profile while the living room is encased in light, as if to represent the contrast between the comfortable suburban life and the inexplicable mystery that Jeffrey is about to pursue. The camera then moves toward the television, which shows a man creeping up the stairs, parelleling the previous sequence. When Jeffrey meets Sandy for the first time, she appears to be coming toward him out of the darkness. His association with Sandy plays an integral part in his involvement with the mystery, although Sandy's pink dress is notable because it alludes to her goodness and purity. As we view Dorothy Vallen's apartment for the first time, the sinister music swells as the camera pans upward, and again as we view the street where she lives. The almost blinding light from the next scene proves to be a stark contrast to the scene we have just viewed.

Blue Velvet

Hmm...I really don't understand the ending. At all. I really enjoyed the movie overall, but it frustrates me that I don't have a clue what happened from the point where Dorthy shows up naked to the end. I understand the action that takes place, Jeffy boy goes to Dorthy's apartment and shoots Frank, but why does he go there? Did I miss something? If anyone can explain please do. I feel a little silly because it seems like I should totally get the ending, but sadly, I don't.

blue velvet scene

I was watching the scene where the high school girl and the leading male character go to intitialy sneak into Dorthy's apartment. The largest observation i made was the director's use of color. As the scene begins the focus is on the high school girl and the male character. He is dressed in all black and she in pink and white, contrasting their motives and experiences through out the movie.  Then there is Dorthy, dressed in red. The color of passion but also a warning color, suggesting danger. Dorthy's apartment is fucsia also a color for passion, but mostly for mystery.

Re: The Wire

One of the things that made The Wire so good and popular with critics was that it's supposed to be very realistic. I haven't started watching it yet, but I've heard lots of good things.

Just FYI, if you're intending on going on to the other seasons, the show analyzes drug trafficking through a number of different ways. This first season is about the sellers themselves, but it goes on to talk about how schools are involved, the media, etc.

Re: The Wire

It's hard to say anything in response to your post without giving anything away further, but I will say that your right I think in that it is more true to life than your normal criminal story. I would say that most of these characters are normal people in extroardinary circumstances who choose the criminal lifestyle, but have the same intelligence as the cops that are chasing them. It definitely shows a better balance than when you watch a show and wonder how some guy could be so dumb to get caught. I love how gritty it is, some of that is from production quality, but its not the glitz and glamour Miami Vice or anything. 

Plus, I want to hang out with McNulty.

The Wire

Is anyone else watching The Wire, yet? I just finished the third episode and was curious what others thought. Without giving anything away, I had some general observations about the show. It seems like in this story the criminals are a very well-organized outfit and in contrast the police force are worried about politics and don’t have enough resources to get the job done and they fight amongst one another over petty differences. It’s interesting that the criminals seem more successful in that they have a product they want to sell and they want to sell it without getting caught; which they are extremely successful at doing. It’s scary to think this might actually and probably is how crime outfits and policemen are in real life.

Response to Observation about Observations about Observations

Thank you for the response, Mr. K, it was helpful.

Observation about Observations about Observations

Doug et al.,

You are right, I think. Both kinds of observations should be objective. The ends, however, are different. When you observe a text, you're looking for evidence upon which to build and construe an interpretation. The more objective and specific your initial observations, the more concrete the foundation of your eventual analysis and interpretation. When writing the observations on the Learning Record, however, you also want to start concretely--what did you observe--but the text is yourself. You're trying to, in a sense, mimic Larkin's study of reading habits. The more self-aware you become as a reader and writer and thinker, the more likely you are to notice what needs work and the more likely to discover ways in which to improve those temporarily impoverished areas. Boy, I hope that made sense. Speak again if it doesn't. 

Krzys

Response to Reception Theory

That is a good point of Eagleton’s explanation of the reception theory of literature and when I read it I was also thinking about how people tend to judge the person before them rather quickly rather then going beyond the first encounter to gain a full understanding of the person before them. It reminded me of an interesting fact that I learned in my interpersonal communications class. The teacher in that class told us that the average male will take only 3 seconds to determine whether or not and to what extent they want to get ‘socially’ involved with a female they have just met. I’ll leave the word socially in parenthesis for you to interpret as you want. And the average woman takes 30 seconds.

Response to MartinL on Funny note on Does the author go as deep as we do

That is a great story! I think it really hits home the point that Tyler was trying to make. I don’t know why but it reminds me of a Family Guy episode in which one of the characters says something like “you put a bunch of monkeys in the room and you get Shakespeare” and then it shows the monkeys arguing over whether or not to use the flower Rose in the famous “a rose by any other name” line form Romeo and Juliet or the flower Tulip, as one monkey suggests. And the argument is won by one of the monkey’s sternly stating “Rose is fine, moving on’. And it makes me thing, how much time did Shakespeare really spend on deciding to use the word Rose rather than Tulip, or Daisy or anything else. Would he laugh at us for spending entire semesters and countless hours studying his work with such a magnifying scope or would he tell us he spent even longer than we thought on that word before he decided to insert Rose into the line?

Observations vs Observations

I’m curious to know was anyone else confused on the two kinds of observations we are making in class. One of for purposes of the literary work we are reading and viewing, which from what I understood in class on Tuesday to be a literal interpretation, what you see on the page, what you see on the screen, what you hear on the screen, etc. And then there’s the observation page on the learning record, which is not a literal observation of what we are reviewing in class, but rather an observation of self reflection of how well we are learning, based on the 5 dimensions of learning. Was anyone else confused by that? And more importantly, if you’re reading this Mr. K, am I off base on the difference between the two? This is one of the things I took away from our discussion on TUE; let me know if I’m wrong.

and the student went... BOOM!

While reading Good Old Neon I sat there thinking the whole time, "This sounds strangely familiar." I thought about the sort of "identity crisis" of the narrator and got to thinking about school.

I've always found the systematic binging and purging of information in school to be tiresome and it always pissed me off to see that people on both sides of the tests/grades often don’t really care whether anything was learned or not. The focus is on the student’s retention rates for the test and to hell with the rest. All that matters is a transient measurement of essentially a first reading. The assumption that the higher grade = higher intelligence is also frustrating and I see much daily deception from peers to convince themselves and others of their intelligence. Nothing is taken from their studies save for a few measurements.

I personally feel that if I'm really learning something, I keep talking about it long after I go home. Lately I've been talking to perfect strangers about my subjects so I have a little bit of hope.

This is a rant. I realize this, but it is what reading David Foster Wallace triggered. I’m highly interested in investing in his works now. Thanks Krys! I haven’t reacted violently to a reading in a long time!

Reception Theory

Eagleton gave quite an articulate and thorough explanation of the reception theory of literature. Of all of the literary theories that we have studied, I find myself attracted to this one the most because it parallels, in many ways, to human psychology. The example he used from the first two sentences of John Updike's The Couple, was extremely enlightening. There are many assumptions and questions that arise from simply reading the first two sentences, which we can only speculate about unless we proceed further into the novel. Nevertheless, although the first two sentences might appear intriguing to the casual reader, the prospect of venturing further may intimidate him or her from proceeding deeper into the story. As a result, only a superficial understanding of the text occurs. Just like when we meet other people, many opinions are created based on our first encounter. Unfortunately, most people are often under the false impression that they are able to rely solely on this first encounter to gain a full understanding of another person. Human beings are quite an impatient creature because we often do not take the time to understand the depth of the person before us. Meeting other people is very much like reading a novel because one must take courage to delve past the superficial exterior in order to fully understand what lies beneath the facade.

Funny note on Does the author go as deep as we do

Last year I attended Southwestern University in Georgetown. Every year SU invites a famous author to come and speak, and last year it was Amy Tan. She was wonderful! Amy Tan has a great sense of humor, and she is incredibly humble. One of the first stories she told was about one time when she was in a book store to do a book signing. She was waiting in a back room of the book store and she noticed a shelf with all of the Spark Notes books on it. Absent mindedly she looked over the titles, and then her eyes came across a title all too familiar, The Joy Luck Club, and her first thought was "But I'm not dead yet!" So she picked up the Spark Notes book and began reading. She noted that the biography was slightly embellished, but she didn’t mind because they way they made it sound was much more interesting. Then she told us how she flipped through the section where it breaks down specific words and themes that the author uses in their writing. She read to us (from Spark Notes) some of the central metaphors that are apparent throughout her work and her intended meaning. Then she said "WOW, I am good!" she told us how she kept reading just because she wanted to know what other elaborate metaphors and symbols she had created and what they mean. I wish I could capture for ya'll just how hilarious her speech was, particularly this part. So, this just goes to show that Spark Notes, and all of us for that matter, can read way more into a text than the author ever intended or imagined.

Good Ole Neon

I rally enjoyed this short story by Wallace because of its dark content. Knowing the fate of Wallace’s life, the story certainly did seem autobiographical. I think that the field of psychology has only in somewhat recent years discovered ways to ‘curb’ depression through the use of drugs and therapy and that before those vices, people just had to deal with being depressed because there was nothing they could really do about it. I can agree with Wallace’s stance on not wanting to take drugs to help him with his problem because drugs really just provide a chemical balance in your brain but on the other hand that’s a perfectly acceptable solution considering the alternative of taking your own life. I know people who have been subscribed these drugs for their depression and from my perspective on the improvement of their lives and their perspective of the improvement on their lives, it’s perfectly viable solution.

Phillip Larkin

It’s not surprising that people would disown their love of an artist and their work after discovering flaws in the artist personal character. That’s basically what this article is saying, is that Larkin was a beloved poet and novelist until everyone found out he was a racist pervert. I think to disown your love of someone or their work based on what you consider to be a flawed character is ignorant. Let’s look at another example of this from our history of America. Most of our early forefathers who we honor and cherish more than two hundred years after their passing were themselves slave-owners and built this nation on the principle that all men are created equal, as long as their skin is pale and they are of the male persuasion. By today’s standards, neither racism nor sexism is acceptable, but we still love our founding fathers. Why? Because although their character was essentially flawed by our standards, their goodwill and good intentions overshadows those flaws. Let’s look at another example from a more modern time. The blockbuster at cinemas this summer was Dark Knight and was considered by most critics of the film industry to be a masterpiece. If tabloids came out tomorrow stating that the director, Christopher Nolan, was a perverted racist, then would that make the film any less of a masterpiece? Another way to look at it is if Christopher Nolan wasn’t a perverted racist, would the film have still been a masterpiece? Christopher Nolan, just like Phillip Larkin, is a unique and one in seven billion human being so if Larkin wasn’t exactly who he was, could he have written the literature that his cash customers came to love and respect. If he wasn’t flawed in the ways people believed him to be, then he wouldn’t be the same Phillip Larkin that wrote what he wrote.

Response to Maddie on Study of Reading Habits

I like what you wrote about the metaphor of vision being the way he sees the world. He thinks that he can be the strong willed protagonist in the books he reads but his life turns out differently than expected. I was very confused by the last part, “the chap/Who's yellow and keeps the store/Seem far too familiar” except for the expression being yellow meaning being a coward.

Response to Tyler on Does the author go as deep as we do?

I’m with you on this one, Tyler. I’ve taken several literature classes and every time we get into a discussion of what do you think the author meant by this and what do you think they meant by that, I think to myself, “Maybe he just meant exactly what he put on the page and nothing more”. Honestly, I think there are some pieces of literature that some dead guy wrote 110 years ago and he didn’t mean half the stuff that people get out of it today. If some of the authors could sit in our classrooms and hear the stuff some people come up with, they would probably laugh. On the other hand, I bet the majority of writers of great literature really have spent hundreds of hours contemplating every letter, word, line, grammatical appoint and punctuation. Writing is a craft and I don’t pretend to understand it anymore than you or anyone else but I look at it much like somebody who doesn’t know about football would; to them it might look like a bunch of guys just chasing around a ball trying to score but if you’re really into football you know that there is a lot more skill and craft to it than just chasing around a ball trying to score. .

Re: Does the author go as deep as we do?

I've often wondered the same thing. Are we reading in way more than the author ever intended? Given the myriad different lenses one can view a work (feminism, Marxism, etc), it seems unlikely that the author has something to say that addresses each of these points of view. I've also seen interviews with modern authors, such as Stephen King (I know, not the best example of literature but it goes with my point), that go on to suggest that the authors themselves go back and add symbolism and themes after finishing the book, just because they are expected to have a deeper meaning hidden in there.

However, I don't think that means there's not a deeper meaning to "The Altar." The shaping like an altar was clearly deliberate and his language symbolic of less literal ideas than written on the page. The author may not have intended the meanings that some of us got out of it, but isn't that part of what makes literature interesting? That each of us can get something different out of a work?

Eagleton 9/16

Read the Eagleton pages, and page 48 talks about the contrast between phenomenology and philosophy which I thought was amusing, because phenomenology is a philosophy. I understand what Eagleton is conveying though, and I feel it really applies to this class because were are going to be learning about ways to further analyze literature, which brings to mind the question what are these concepts were are learning but intangible, "abstract and unreal" devices? It's just really cool, i think anyway, that all these theories that we base these classes and textbooks on are  as Eagleton described, that some other guy described, just thoughts that we hold on to to try and make sense of things that were written by real people like us who have their very own meanings and intentions and here we have created this whole english/literature world around other peoples thoughts and that's all any of this is just thoughts.

Good Ol' Foster Wallace

What Leslie mentioned about the stream of consciousness was the main point that I wanted to make about this story. 

The writing style really caught my attention. It is so simple and conversational, almost like a diary entry, that if one was analyzing structure and not content, and was of the opinion that a work should be considered literature when it utilizes language that strays from typical vernacular, they could almost be right in stamping this text "NOT LITERATURE." It reads like a journal, but it says so much more than that.

I feel as though this story serves to relate to the average reader, as people of all different intelligence levels have struggled with defining who they really are, and discovering whether or not their actions align with their thoughts. However, it is apparent that the author is far more intelligent than the average reader, as his introspectiveness is extremely keen. The author notes that even at the age of four, he was able to generate a quick read on someone's attitude or desires, and just as quickly, generate the perfect response to create an ideal outcome. This is manipulative genius, yet the author still chose to express his opinion on the topic through personal allegories rather than intricate language. Why?

Another thing is the long-windedness of the story. I don't know if the rambling nature served to enhance the informal tone, or if that is just Wallace's writing style (Piekarski did mention that his novel is over 1,000 words). 

I agree with the previous posts that the main character of this story could very well have been shaped after Foster Wallace himself, especially if he has been struggling with depression. 

Either way, it is an interesting story that I think I will finish soon!

"Good Old Neon"

"Good Old Neon" is a short story that parallels to David Foster Wallace's innermost thoughts and insecurities. We are able to gain insight into Wallace's identity as a writer and most importantly, as a person. The passage reflects his depressed yet brilliant state of mind. As Alyssa mentioned in her previous post, Wallace addresses the issue of acceptance, something that we struggle with, and continue to struggle with throughout our life. Whether or not we would like to admit it, there would always be an internal struggle to feel included and wanted. It is human nature.

The style of writing is similar to stream of consciousness, except more structured. Nevertheless, Wallace's thoughts are overwhelming spewed forth onto the paper, as we, the readers, are allowed to cautiously peer into them.

Good Old Neon

David Foster Wallace calls the main character (is it perhaps himself?) a fraud, saying that he puts on a front for other people so that they will perceive him or think of him a certain way. But how is this any different than the masks that we themselves put on every day? Sure, people could argue "no way, I'm real, genuine, I don't put on a front". But is this true? Think about it. We all want people to perceive us a certain way, whether it is to shock them, or to get their approval.

Perhaps we should all do as David Foster Wallace has done, and take a deeper look at our fraudulent selves. Maybe getting a better insight into why we put on the fronts that we do will help us to know ourselves a little bit better.

Poor Philip Larkin :0(

Am i right in thinking that Study of Reading Habits is about how Larkin found a great amount of escape in literature (especially fiction) and then over time as he discovered he related more to, "the dude/who lets the girl down before/ The hero arrives, the chap/ Who's yellow and keeps the store", and not as much to the hero "deal[ing] out the old right hook] he lost faith in books? I think so...he reminds me of a teenage boy with allot of self-pitty. emo!

Does the author go as deep as we do?

After reading The Altar, and discussing/analyzing it in class, as we look into each and every literary technique for an underlying meaning, it makes me wonder how far the author went into setting up this poem and if all of those meanings were implied or if they were just a product of the overall meaning he was trying to get across.

For example, the shape of the poem is an obvious blatant attempt to apply extra meaning to the words, but like we discussed in class, his use of the word "O" in the second to last line... was that an attempt to inflect a more personal feel to that line, to make the altar a part of himself or was it just a way to make the poem flow, and work better.

As someone who has never sat down and written poetry I would be interested to here from you guys how much work goes into each little thing like that beyond the basic structure and format.

Response to My thoughts on "A Study of Reading Habits"

I also gave the character a nerdy persona. I actually think I've read this poem before, maybe a few years back. I took the poem to be his progression through literature, and took the final stanza to mean that he had become disillusioned by books. The lines about the yellow man who runs the store appeared to be a commentary on how all stories are repeated. It's almost as if he has run out of original books to read. Personally, I thought the line "books are a load of crap" was far too strong, but it was most likely meant to grab the reader's attention. It's difficult to read "books are a load of crap" without automatically launching into some sort of thought process that makes you ponder over the books you have read and wonder if they were actually literature or just, well....crap.

My thoughts on "A Study of Reading Habits"

In my opinion, this poem was very animated. The imagery the author used was able to provide me with a sense of fantasy and a childlike imagination. In addition, the nerdy persona I gave the character brought out the best of my ignorance, which I thought was very humorous. Overall, I really enjoyed the reading and thought it was quite clever and entertaining at the same time. I even noticed that some of the topics discussed in class were mentioned. 

Still, I am unsure if I interpreted it right, so I was wondering if anyone else saw it the way I did. 

Back to The Mousetrap..

Religion has literature written all over it. Symbolism, various interpretations, and fervent controversies are all aspects of literature that also exist in religion. Gallagher and Greenblatt begin their article with a fable involving four sons. The four sons serve as archetypal figures for the four attitudes that the authors wish to represent. The extreme personalities may seem stereotypical and rarely exist in the real world, but using such embellished symbols is an effective way of presenting a point. But in reality, nothing is ever purely good or purely evil. Everything is all relative to one another. Protestants view Catholic rituals as sacrilegious and blasphemous because of their use of idolatry. However to the Catholics, they are not idly "worshiping" an object. These objects are merely a physical representation of what they believe. But the Protestants disapprove of this, feeling that the love of God surpasses any substantial representation that may exist.

To be part of a close-knit group with others who have similar beliefs is something special and alkows one a chance to identify with people who share a common ground. However, in some cases, especially in religion and politics, extreme devotion to ones' cause results in narrow mindedness and the inability to accept other's viewpoints. It was because of this that numerous of people were burned at the stake. The different religions are synonymous to the various literary perspectives, but only more personal.

Study of Reading Habits

This is sort of a shot in the dark:

In the first stanza, the author makes a note that he is happy to be making a sacrifice (his vision, which I will get to later) for the sake of reading. 

I'm not sure what to make of the second stanza at all. Obviously his eyesight worsens, and questionable deeds become a carefree pastime. 

In the final stanza he seems to have become one of the "dirty dogs" he formerly criticized, legitimizing his final statement that reading hasn't bettered his lifestyle or instilled any sort of wisdom upon him. 

I think the vision metaphor serves to demonstrate how reading seems to have warped the author's vision, or outlook on things. Looking at the world through the fuzzy lenses of an avid reader, he believed that he could be a hero, much like many of his beloved protagonists. 

I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks of certain choices ("meringues," for example). 

I don't understand this part at all: "the chap/Who's yellow and keeps the store/Seem far too familiar." Any input? 

Study of Reading Habits

I'm not too sure what to make of this yet. I like the slang in the poem, the voice, and the progression. I can tell that the author is at a different age and place in his life at each stanza of the poem, but I dont know what to think about each section. I'm really curious to know what time period this was written in. I want to find a picture to associate with the speaker.

Re: Re: A few quick notes on The Altar

Definitely. That also somewhat ties in with my previous mention of the somber, apologetic tone. To be honest, at first I thought "maybe he just needed certain words to take up more space in order to make it look like an altar," but there's obviously more too it than that, and it's not as though the words he chose are completely nonsensical. 

However, I think it could be as simple as him saying that at the altar, he is sacrificing his heart. "Broken sacrifice" makes just about as much sense as "broken altar," but that may not necessarily devalue your argument at all. 

Response to: A few quick notes on The Altar

When I read this the first time, I made a connection between the capitalized words, alter and heart. The first word, Altar, is described as being broken. Then, the second capitalized word, heart, is tied back to the word altar and back to the word broken because a “broken heart” is a pretty common expression whereas a “broken alter’ is not. So throughout the poem whenever I read the word heart, I was mentally adding broken heart. Did anyone else notice this?

Study of Reading Habits

At first I thought the author was saying that he would ruin his eyes to read books he wanted to read outside of school because he loved reading that much. I was thinking maybe he was gifted with bad vision. But then he writes about dealing out right hooks to dirty dogs twice his size. Does he think he can fight bullies at school with his knowledge from books? In the second paragraph he now has glasses. Maybe he did beat up the bullies with his knowledge because he mentions evil just being a mere prank and breaking women like a pastry. Confused yet? In the last passage he talks about giving up on reading perhaps because his life didn’t turn out the way he expected it to and he blames the book. At face value, I think this poem is just a guy trying to make rhyme or reason of why he doesn’t like himself or his life or why his life didn’t turn out the way he expected it to; but I’m sure there is a hundred different little interpretations or hidden meanings that I’m missing.

Mousetrap

This is a brief post, as I don't have a whole lot to say about this essay other than I don't really agree with what it is saying.

The assertion that eating bread which symbolizes Christ's body is idolatry is probably true, but if you put almost anything religious under the microscope the same way this author does with communion, you'll probably arrive at the same conclusion. 

Okay, so Christians wear crosses around their neck in order to display their faith. The crosses that they wear are not the actual cross that Jesus died on, and they certainly are not Jesus Himself, so how is that any different? What about the Jesus fish bumper sticker so frequently slapped on the back of cars, or best-selling Christian authors who put their attractive face on the cover of their novels to sell more copies? 

Maybe I don't have a firm grasp on the whole idolatry thing, but communion seems petty compared to the aforementioned examples. 

Mousetrap

When I was going to a class in preparation for my first communion at a Lutheran church I attended when I was younger, the issue of communion as a representation of receiving the body and blood of Christ was a difficult one for me. I remember one time I argued with my pastor about whether or not the bread was the actual body of Christ. He said that it was, and I thought he was mistaken. The act of communion, to me, always seemed to be a representation, a symbolic action. Reading the Mousetrap and understanding the historical context of the Altar made a huge difference in how I viewed the work. The context of this poem helped me relate more to it specifically because I have a personal experience with being required to view communion a certain way before I was allowed to participate. As a 13 year old, I lied, I agreed that I understood and accepted the practices of the church I attended when in actuality I did not. I was not to fond of the Altar when I first read it, but after reading the Mousetrap and going over the poem in class I can appreciate it much more.

Finally it's working!

OK..so I know we already talked about all this in class, but I just got my LR/Blogging situation straightened out, so here is the post I could not post before!


I viewed The Altar differently than some of the other bloggers, because I saw the altar as a metaphor for the human body. In the first section of the poem the poet says that “no workmans tool hath touch’d the same.” This rings metaphor because only God can create men, where no other workman can use tools to create life.
I took this poem more as a prayer of an individual for the Lord to take his heart (his offering) from his body (his altar). I saw this particularly in the last section of the poem with the line “That, if I chance to hold my peace, these stones to praise thee may not cease” To me this person is saying if my heart is quiet, and does not praise you, may my body never cease to praise you. The altar here is a permanent symbol of praise, the sacrifice is the ceremonial aspect of the praise. So even if the ceremony is overlooked, or forgotten, the symbol still remains. It is interesting, as I think about this more, that after the crucifixion of Christ, the ultimate sacrifice, the ceremony of sacrifice was no longer of any value. The whole point of a sacrifice was to change the gods minds about man, but a relationship with God is based on the fact that God’s mind is already made up about man. His mind was made up when he sacrificed his son, so it is in fact that man’s idea of God needs to change. So this poet takes the image of a Christian making a sacrifice and makes it applicable to modern Christian practice by asserting that the sacrifice he offers is himself, not in death, but in life.

Re: The Mousetrap

Well, "The Mousetrap" isn't really an interpretation of "The Altar;" we were given it to get some context on historical and religious aspects of the poem, because, as was pointed out during class, there is no way that we could have arrived at the interpretation we did if not for knowing about the debate over the Eucharist that was going on during the time the poem was written.

So I rather disagree that it wasn't relevant, because we only got half the story without any historical context.

The MouseTrap

There seems to be a lot of interpretation in “The Mousetrap”. I think this piece is a great example of how far off the path of what a piece of literary work really and truly means you can reach when one spends too much time and energy on trying to figure out the hidden meanings and the true meanings and the figurative meanings, etc., etc. of a piece of literature.

Response to The Nabokov Handout

This is a really beautifully written paragraph, "That mist is a mountain- and that mountain must be conquered. Up a trackless slope climbs the master artist, and at the top, on a windy ridge, whom do you think he meets? The panting and happy reader, and there they spontaneously embrace and are linked forever if the book lasts forever.", and although I have not read Lolita, I am looking forward to it because I have seen the movie, the earlier one not that one we are supposed to watch. I am looking forward to reading it because based on this paragraph alone, I think he is a brilliant writer and I have no doubt that Lolita will be beautiful but the movie was kind of disturbing. I am anxious to see how well the movie reflects and takes from the book. Typically, moves are never better than books, I know that and am not arguing that. I’m just trying to make the connection between this beautiful paragraph above being written by the same guy who wrote the book of this move that disturbed me and what I expect will be some disturbing material in the book Lolita.

The Nabokov Handout

I can't wait to read Lolita, because the way Nabokov creates images with his words is astounding. His metaphor for the creative process of an author in the second paragraph on page two jumped out and grabbed me.

"That mist is a mountain- and that mountain must be conquered. Up a trackless slope climbs the master artist, and at the top, on a windy ridge, whom do you think he meets? The panting and happy reader, and there they spontaneously embrace and are linked forever if the book lasts forever."

This is absolutely fantastic; I could never in a thousand years put into words anything this exquisite my feelings for reading a book that I end up loving for all time, yet here they are, written for me. I think that if you read a book and you do end up loving it, you keep it with you for the rest of your life. After you make that journey into the world the author has created and explored it extensively, I don't think that it's possible to not make a little bit of that book a part of you. I also agree with Nabokov when he says a good reader should use "impersonal imagination and artistic delight." In this way, we really can explore new worlds when we read. Anything the author might create is a possibility as long as we're not trying to make direct correlations in the writing to our lives. It's not to say that you shouldn't try making connections between your life and what you read, but you'd have a hard time of it with a fantasy novel, especially if that's the only thing you were trying to do. Getting lost in the world of another's imagination is a wonderful experience. Now I've gotten into paragraph four on page four, which is also fantastic and I highly agree with it.
Basically, I love reading and I'm really happy that I agree with Nabokov and his standards for reading and writing.

The Altar

I really appreciated this poem because it expressed the unconditional love the author had for God. From experience, I know that this feeling of unworthiness is very common for individuals who are tied down to their religious faith. In "The Altar",  the author expresses a desire for, what seems to be, forgiveness from God through offering "cemented tears". In a more literal sense, I have witnessed a similar occasion where over 500 youths bow before God crying and flooding a church's alter asking for the Holy Spirit to dwell upon them. Regardless of my personal experiences, I understand how this may seem unusual or even taboo for non-believers. 

The Altar

In a different light, this poem also reminds me of the Biblical story of Jesus' being hung on the cross by Pontius Pilate soldiers (on the hill of Golgotha). The altar represents the cross on which Jesus is hung. This sacrifice was certainly cemented with tears, tears of his disciples, mother, and others who mourned for him. Jesus (except for the robbers also on crosses next to him) was essentially alone up on the hill, but stayed strong- "a heart alone is such a stone". "These stones to praise thee may not cease" means that even after Jesus as gone, we would not stop praising God. "Meets in this frame, to praise thy name" = Jesus was meeting his maker on this Altar (the cross) because he loved us and to praise God's name.

The Altar

I agree with Maddie's interpretion that the poem is an apology for flawed worship. I will expand on that by saying that I think the author is also saying that he should be punished for such a flaw. The "frame", being the actual box outline of the top of the altar, is where the punishment of sacrifice would commence. However, the sacrifice is also a gift as well as punishment ("cemented with teares"). Death in itself is a traditional punishment but the divine nature of the afterlife, as well as the sacrifice as Gift to god, is almost a reward/blessing. He is claiming the altar by sacrificing himself upon it ("O let thy blessed sacrifice be mine, and sanctifie this altar to be thine").

The Altar

Again, while reading this poem and discussing it in class I find it hard to separate the literature from previous knowledge and experience. Like someone else said in class today, growing up in a religious household the phrase 'your body is a temple' was commonly heard so my first interpretation of The Altar goes straight to that interpretation. So even though that is the more subtle interpretation for some, it was the most obvious and blatant to me, while the other ones were more obscure. So I wonder how possible it is to truly separate yourself from the literature, because you would have to alienate your past.

A few quick notes on The Altar

I agree with Maranda's observation. 

"Broken" implies that the author feels as though his means of worshipping has been flawed in some way. The tone of this poem seems almost apologetic to me. 

He seems to simply be stating that he is devoted to God because God created him. 

I thought the phrase "hold my peace" was an interesting way of saying "remain silent," considering that the poem is titled The Altar. 

Also, does anyone have any insight as to what the capitalization may mean? 

In addition to Stilldoug's Altar post

I too saw that the poem related to the passage from Milton that we talked about in class on Monday. However, I saw that it might have been written (I promise I didn't look anything up, this is just an interpretation!) from the point of view of one of those accused of being a locked-away Christian. In this, the speaker defends himself from perhaps an argument like Milton's, that he should not be considered a true Christian because he does not go out into the world and speak his faith. Throughout the majority of the poem, the speaker acknowledges that he has been made by God and therefore offers himself to God. Then he says, "That, if I chance to hold my peace, These stones to praise thee may not cease." Basically, "Even if I don't say it out loud, I'm still one hundred percent devoted to God." While this isn't an exact rebuttal to Milton's argument, I still saw it as significant similarity.

The Altar

My interpretation of the poem was that of hope and finding solace in religion. The speaker in this poem, from what I, sees a broken altar and speaks of his plan to rebuild it. He describes the true determination and love that goes into building this altar and, with that, rebuilds his own faith. He then tells of the soul without faith their "heart alone/ Is such a stone," and with his rebuilding this altar, is restoring his own heart. The theme is certainly optimistic, hopeful and loving. After seeing something sacred destroyed, the speaker, with his faith in hand, rebuilds it and finds more love of God. He restores his faith and hopes to restore others.

Thoughts on "The Altar"

The Altar reminded me of the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. In the story, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac with a knife (presumably stone, because this was before the metal ages) and burn his body as an offering. This poem seems very sad, as if the sacrifice the author is giving is a part of himself. I believe the second line is a metaphor for the broken heart this father feels when he realizes that his only son will die by his own hand. The line "no workman's tool hath touch'd the same" possibly refers to the idea that his son is not some wooden carving or piece of clothing that will be burned, but a living breathing human being. The next few lines seem like he's gathering the courage to kill his son because he believes that it must be done if it is God's will. "That if I chance to hold my peace, these stones to praise thee may not cease" could refer to the public stoning Abraham would face were he to murder his son. He may be praying that once the sacrifice is done and over with, the public stoning that will be his punishment would kill him, so he could join his son in death. The last two lines seem to be a build-up to an action event that happens right after those two lines are spoken. I could almost see Abraham raising the knife, about to sacrifice his only child, while saying these last two lines. Of course, in the story God stopped Abraham and Isaac was safe, but it was the idea that he was willing to sacrifice his son that was important.

Response to monday 9/8 assignment

I took the question of what is literature to an even more basic form that is so simple mot people will argue with it. I put that literature is printed words. This could mean books, novels, poems, newspaper, pamphlets, magazines, etc. but I don’t just take the word literature at face value or just literally. I think that song lyrics are literature in a spoken, sung form. Movies and TV shows all started as words on the page. Even speeches, personal diaries and student essays are all literature. Basically, the ideology I have behind the word is that literature is in the mind of the beholder. I think we would be better served to answer “what is not literature”.

The Altar

The poem we were given on Monday, The Altar, I interpreted as an echo of Milton’s speech, specifically the last paragraph we re-read. The paragraph stated that in order to be “good” with God, you have to prove yourself. You have to face temptation, deny the sin and continue a path of purity. A monk locked up in a monastery faces very little temptation or trials to prove himself so is the monk really ‘good” with God. This poems suggests that without heart break, without failure, without loss, without devastation, without suffering and without being tested by the hand of God, you have no way to prove your faith. And that your heart is God’s heart and your life God’s life so if his will is to test your faith then you should be ready and willing to accept that challenge.

Re: Publishing Books Just to Burn Them

It's interesting that you bring up the idea that there might not be a God if there is not Satan, because the predecessor to Christianity, Milton's very favorite and very questioned religion, is Judaism, which has no concept of Satan, or, for that matter, a Heaven or Hell. Yet in Judaism, there still is this concept of good (with the 613 mitzvahs (good deeds) enumerated in the Talmud) and of service to God. There are stories of evil in the Torah, they just don't happen to come from an outside source like Satan. So in Judaism, as well as several other religions, there certainly is a God without a Satan.

However, keeping this in mind, it's also interesting to note that Christianity and Islam, two religions with very definite concepts of good and God, evil and Satan, have a far greater population of followers than Judaism and other religions with no Satan. This suggests that other people agree with Milton's idea that a virtue untested is hardly one at all.

Publishing Books Just to Burn Them

I really enjoyed the talk we had today about the Milton poem. There was one passage in particular that he had read aloud in class that compared good and evil to seeds. The overall theme that good cannot exist without evil is a concept that on first glance seems to be obvious, but when you think about it further it becomes a very intriguing topic.

Without an antagonist there would be no need for a protagonist, and therefore there would be no story. Without bad deeds, good deeds would not be good deeds -- only deeds. This begs the question that without Satan, would there be a God? I myself question the existence of a deity -- I disagree with the term "exist" when referring to a all powerful being. If there is a god does he exist, or is there another way to describe this deity's state of being?

That went a little off topic, but i'd like to know if anyone can enlighten me on that. =]

However -- without Satan, would there be a God? As far as I can remember Satan is a fallen angel. He was basically a challenger to the champion of God. God created Satan correct? This line of reasoning brings me to a rather unsettling conclusion. Does good beget evil?

If we look back to the story of Adam and Eve we see that there was no evil and they lived in paradise. So where did this deceiving little serpent come from? Was he an agent of Satan? Did Satan fall before the creation of man? No matter how you look at it, in the end, all is a result of God. Evil had to be created somewhere -- in paradise there was no evil. God didn't tell Adam and Eve to watch out for the snake -- he just told them not to eat from the tree. If God is all knowing, he would have known that Eve would be tempted by the snake and give in and eat the fruit. So God purposely let Evil out into the world? Is evil really a product of good?

Interesting things to think about.

Re: Re: Truncated Attention Span

I couldn't agree with CMcLeod more. 

Who is to say that attention span directly correlates with intelligence? And who is to say that unabbreviated language does either?

This may be too minute of an example to prove my point, but does Milton's excessive vowel usage enhance his writing? Not at all.

I realize that the topic under investigation is more concerned with sentence structure. Perhaps what we perceive to be admirable long-windedness only seems to be "more intelligent" because that is the writing style associated with intelligent writers. The structure as a standalone isn't necessarily more capable of conveying intelligent ideas.

Although terseness could be due to shorter attention spans alone, one must also consider that perhaps our society is more concerned with efficiency than past cultures. If one can describe that which they aim to describe in one word rather than four, whose to say that they aren't more intelligent than their verbose predecessors? 

Just sayin'. :)

monday 9/8 assignment

The line from eagleton that "moved" me was, "Literature, in the meaning of the word we have inherited is an ideology." It summed up the answer to the question we were presented with on the first class day,"What is literature?". Wether we feel that literature is b.s. as some suggested or we think it's especially  profound works that impact society throughout history...it's easily agreeable to say it is an ideology. 

Re: Truncated Attention Span

If people and language are getting dumber, does that mean that T.S. Eliot is not as literary as Milton? That Nabokov is not as worth while as Shelley? Are we going to rate the value of literature based on age, or worse, sentence length? It seems a little far-fetched.

Just throwing this out there: it's kind of interesting that you bring this up, because I had been thinking about the same thing for a while until I took a couple psychology classes and they discussed the Flynn effect: namely, that as a whole, the average IQ scores have been increasing since the 1920s. What the data suggests is that people are actually getting smarter as time goes on. Although this doesn't have a direct relationship with literature per se, it does give an interesting point of view to the idea that people and language have been becoming less intellectual as time goes on.

Truncated Attention Span

I had British Literature with Bruster and he demonstrated how sentence structure has gone from several lines long to about 12 words on average. Is this a sign of dumbing down society? Or is it a case for Milton to get his point across in a shorter amount of time? Just an errant thought I had.

Re: Literary Theory-Taryn

I also found Eagleton’s explanation of New Criticism to be an attractive way of looking at poetry. I try to look at poems as a sort of emotional snapshot. I might like Eagleton’s idea of “disinterested humility” because I often feel that I’m looking too hard for something “meaningful” when there are only so many stanzas, so many words, and so many characters to hide “meaning” into.
Instead, it is very attractive to simply take poems as they come. To say that Donne’s flea is a clever way to get into a lady’s pants is easy. To wonder aloud why Herrick takes such obvious pleasure in penning lines detailing lady’s clothing is no doubt an entertaining way to pass an afternoon. Though some authors set out to change the world with their lines, even revolutionary lines should be read as a snapshot of the times.

Literary Theory Post

"Poetry was the new religion, a nostalgic haven from the alienations of industrial capitalism. The poem itself was as opaque to rational inquiry as the Almighty himself."

I found this passage disturbing. The New Criticism was almost too obsessed with the idea of poetry and literature rather than the actuality of them. Most authors do not merely write for the sake of writing, it is often to achieve some end however small. The idea that one should forget everything they have ever read or experienced to fully appreciate a poem is preposterous. The writers themselves bring their own thoughts, experiences, and yes, prejudices to their writings, so why do we not?

The idea of literature as God is also disturbing. I understand the comparison of the vaugeness of some works, but to not attempt to understand them is, I believe, an insult to the author. Written language is just as viable a mouthpiece of communication as spoken language. If someone were to merely listen in astonished wonder while another person spoke, while never truly comprehending the meaning of their words, relationships would become as one-sided as man talking to birds.

Milton's allusions

I felt like Milton's extended Adam and Eve metaphor was extremely powerful. 

The way I read it is that God placed something forbidden (the apple) in the world, thus creating a new classification system (the distinction between good and evil) that did not exist prior to this event. 

Milton compares this to the censorship of literature very eloquently. If what some consider to be evil was hidden or banned from society then we would no longer have a standard of what is considered to be righteous. 

Perhaps this is a misinterpretation, but I found it to be an interesting take on censorship nevertheless. 

Response to StillDoug

I came across that same passage and I felt like it too was a really a distinctive way of looking at literature. Each page of literature is a different experience and embodies a different emotion. Just as each bottle of wine has its own taste, literature too has unique characteristics. As a reader, one must savor the flavor of each line that is written and at the same time, the reader must also have their own preferences. Since literature can be so diverse and individual, I feel that is important to recognize that there is a difference in the way that literature affects different people from all walks of life. For example, I don't think that hard core racist or Ku Klux Klan are going to appreciate the same literature as civil rights activists.

What Eagleton says Richards says

"Modern science, Richard claims, is the model of true knowledge, but emotionally it leaves something to be desired. It will not satisfy the mass of the people's demands to the answers of the questions 'what?' and 'why?', contenting itself instead with answering the question 'how?'."

I couldn't agree with this more. Science may tell us what we need to know, but it leaves out what the majority of us crave- a story. This is what I believe literature does. It is there to create the story, whether it be true or false, that people want to hear, about any given subject. From that point on, we can decide what we want to believe, and even incorporate the facts given to us from science if we like. Literature is able to stir the emotions within someone by giving us something to relate to. I know that reading about something scientifically complicated makes me feel incredibly distant from that subject. I want to read something that excites me, something that makes me feel and wonder, because I could envision myself in the situation of a character within a story. In literature, you don't always have to know how something is done. Receiving answers to the more important questions (in my mind anyway), the 'whats' and 'whys,' is much more fulfilling.

Re: Thinking about "the boys i mean"

In my opinion, it's clear that the basic ("monosyllabic") language and lack of capitalization either serves the purpose of being ironic, or of highlighting the "unrefined" nature of the boys the author refers to. 

Of course, if I hadn't known that the poem was written by a well-respected poet, I might not have arrived to that conclusion, and perhaps would have wondered if the author simply lacked an extensive vocabulary. 

I thought it was interesting that someone mentioned the Seussesque nature of rhyming within a line. It seemed very juvenile, and, well, unrefined. Perhaps this also serves the same purpose that I mentioned above. 

The sporadic repetition of the line "the boys i mean are not refined," could possibly be emphasizing the trite nature of the boys. 

One page that stuck out at me while reading Literary Theory was page 17. I was particularly drawn to the first major paragraph on the page where Eagleton talks about literature as a means of escape from industrial capitalism, rationality, and a mechanized way of thinking and doing.

This spoke to me because I feel that in many ways the oppression of necessity distracts many of us from soaking in the benefits of art. Art should be an escape. Eagleton speaks of how just the word 'poetry' had deep social, political, and philosophical implications. I wish that art, in any form, still had the impact that Eagleton speaks of. I realized after the exercise in class where we were making observations about the poem by E.E. Cummings that almost all of my 'observations' were really analysis. Why? Because that is all that literature has been to me over the past 4-5 years. Literature has become a game of picking out the literary devices and themes and focusing on the mechanics. The actual content, the meat of a work, was a secondary priority. After reading about a people that sought literature as an escape from form and oppression I wondered, when is the last time I thought of reading as an escape, rather than a necessity, or worse, an obligation? Sadly, it's been a while.
I want to see literature move me like it moved the people of England during a period of strife and hardship, because I feel that in many ways our world is not so different from theirs. Commercialization, industry, and the necessity of work and money and power overshadow almost every move Americans make. I can relate to needing an escape, and a break from my hectic and frayed life. This passage spoke to me because I once used literature as an escape, and I hope to return to that mindset.

English stereotypes and New Criticisms

The portion of the Literary Theory excerpt that resonated with me the most was that which mentioned how the discipline of English was viewed during the 19th century.

"The rise of English in England ran parallel to the gradual, grudging admission of women to the institutions of higher education; and since English was an untaxing sort of affair, concerned with the finer feelings rather than the more virile topics of bona fide academic 'disciplines', it seemed a convenient sort of non-subject to palm off on the ladies, who were in any case excluded from science and the professions."

While this observation was certainly more pertinent in a time period of Romanticism, when Literature was generally considered to be that which is fictional and not always culturally relevant, one must still inquire as to whether or not the stereotype still exists today. 

Much to my dismay, when I mention that I'm considering English as my second major, I often hear mutterings of various put-downs, usually along the lines of: "So you can earn your MRS degree?"

I fear that many don't realize how all-encompassing literature truly is, sharing differing perspectives on nearly all topics, from science to politics. 

The second portion that stood out to me is a bit contradictory to the first, but piqued my interest nevertheless.

In reference to New Criticism, Eagleton states that "One needed, to be sure, to know what the poem's words would have meant to the original readers, but this fairly technical sort of historical knowledge was the only kind permitted."

This essentially epitomizes my viewpoint on New Criticism. Of course certain basic background information is necessary, as language has a way of morphing over time, and certain words could take on an entirely new meaning. Otherwise, however, knowing the name of the author could seriously hinder one's interpretation of a work. Credible authors could intentionally produce garbage, knowing that it will be revered anyway, which is dangerous. 

Poetry

Upon reading Literary Theory, one particular sentence really stood out to me. "Perhaps the organic society lived on after all, though only in the collective unconscious; perhaps there were certain deep symbols and rhythms in the psyche, archetypes immutable throughout history, which poetry might touch and revive." I found this particular passage to be meaningful simply because that's what I believe Literature is for. I believe that we should be able to turn to Literature to escape from the world around us and just spend a moment in a completely different place. In this passage it goes on to say that "the crisis of European society--global war, severe class-conflict, failing capitalist economies--might be resolved by turning one's back on history altogether and putting mythology in its place." This exemplifies the importance of Literature to today's society. I'm not saying that if everyone picked up a book there would be world peace, but having a way to escape from the turmoil surrounding daily life is always a good thing.
Another phrase that caught my eye was "essential Englishness". This is the belief that some kinds of English are more English than others. I found this to be a very profound statement, and also found it quite interesting. I also believe, as stated by the author, that this was " a kind of petty-bourgeois version of the upper-class chauvinism which had helped to bring English to birth in the first place." In a way this mindset could be good, but I feel like putting a label on English and saying that one word or kind of speech is more English than another is absurd. Granted, some ways of speaking may be more distinguished and scholarly than others but I just don't see how one is more English than the other.

Response to "What Writing Does To Us"

I think that evaluating what writing does to you as a means to determine if its literature or not is not valid because a pamphlet on homeless in Austin may move one person but not another. Does that make one person wrong and the other right? No, it just makes them unique in their perspectives, individualism and emotions.

Literary Theory

Terry Eagleton when explaining the intentions of New Criticism:
"Poetry, as an essentially contemplative mode, would spur us not to change the world but to reverence it for what it was, teach us to approach it with a disinterested humility." pg. 40

I really enjoy this idea. As many artists would like their art to change or mark the world by invoking questions and reactions into their audiences. This statement claims that under New Criticism it should do the opposite. Poetry works as a guide to appreciate what we have. Though it is difficult, in my opinion, to actually produce an art form that will not cause ideas of changing the world; I can relate to thought of acceptance rather than constant struggle for change or influence.

Milton's Speech

I think Milton is easily recognizable as a very passionate man. He defends the human right to create without censorship very elaborately and from various angles. I agree with him that freedom of choice is one of the basic human rights God gave us and government should oblige.

Surviving Literature

"The fact that we always interpret literary works to some extent in the light of of our own concerns - indeed that in one sense of 'our own concerns' we are incapable of doing anything else - might be one reason why certain works of literature seem to retain their value across the centuries."

Although people change with time, there are values that remain intact throughout the ages. A commonly used motif in literature is love. The concept of love is an idealized theme that is yearned and desired by many. It is a common source of motivation, as well as tension. Many frenzied and unforeseeable acts are committed on the account of love. Even though the societal characteristics and values that define an ideal mate change, the hope that one can love and be loved remains intact. Most of the literature throughout the ages utilize the idealized, rather than the realistic, qualities of love. But it is a dream, a wisp of reality, that brings people together throughout the generations.

However, other works of literature receive their merits because it is reflective of the cultural and societal values of their era. Literature does not always have to be reflective of our time in order to survive. Sometimes it is the discovery of something different and unique that triggers interest in readers.

Passage from LIterary Theory

There is a passage on page 38 I think, in which Leavis is being discussed and an analgoy comes up concerning how to interpret what literature is and whether or not its good literature. The analogy is that experiencing literature is much like wine-tasting. You smell it, wafe it, taste it subtly, swish it around and then take in the after taste before deciding whether or not this is a good bottle. I thought that was a interesting way to look at literature. We smell the pages the text is written on, wafe in that new book smell, get a taste of the words and message of the work, swish the ideologies the literature represents around in our brains after completing the literature and then reflecting on how the piece affeced us intelectually to determine its quality.

What Writing Does To Us

"...'literature' maybe at least as much a qustion of what people do with writing as of what writing does to them."

Terry Eagleton makes this statement and I immediately took the Devil's advocate stance in my head. From this statement I get the impression that he is referring to writing which moves us as being literature. As much as this can be true; there are also many instances of moving writing which is not definable as literature. We can get a pamphlet about the homeless of Austin and be move to action. We can read an account of what Concentration camps were like during WWII and be moved emotionally, however that doesn't make these instances of writing literature.

If what literature does to us is a key deciding factor then why aren't pieces of writing such at these considered literature? Well obviously they lack some key literary elements that give it a more 'refined' sense. So a piece of literature cannot be simply determined by the way it moves the reader. There has to be some solid evidence of what defines literature. However, literature is far to broad to define. When you pick a field of study you find that the more you try to narrow a subject down, the more difficult it becomes. It's almost impossible to define culture in exact terms for an anthropologist. Literature is much them same. The closer you get to defining it, the more you realize you're leaving out. Literature is indefinable but it's an item that you will "know it when you see it."

Re: Eagleton agrees that Literature can not be given a meaning.

I feel there was truth behind what Eagleton said, about literature being undefinable. If literature was defined solely on conventional standards, our realm of literature would be very limited. I agree with your statement that literature is "comparable to art". Take music, for example. To an orthodox literary critic, music is not literature because it does not consist of the conventional qualities that define literature. But to call Beethoven's 5th Symphony or Hanson's Merry Mount Suite as “not literature” is scandalous, and, to the very least, narrow minded. If one looks closely enough, he or she would realize that many literary techniques are applied to music. There are musical phrases, motifs, and themes that are prevalent throughout. Composers strive to write a piece that, musically, makes sense, and does not merely consist of random notes placed together. An incredible amount of feeling and depth is involved in composing a musical work, and there is usually a message behind it. For example, many of Shostakovitch's works reflect his dissent and unhappiness with the Soviet government, and, like most controversial literary works, his pieces were highly censored and under strict scrutiny by the Soviet government. Just like noted writers of novels and directors of movies, Shostakovitch signs off his work with a trademark. He incorporates his initials through a series of four notes: D, E flat, C, and B, which in German terminology, translates into D, Es, C, H. This stands for Dmitri SCHostakowitsch, the German translation of his name.

It is clear that there are many other realms of merit that also constitute literature. Not only music, but also art, film, dance, and many other areas, are all synonymous to literature.