On Nabokov's afteward

I just read Nabokov's thoughts on his own book (311-317) and its exteremly interesting to me how he reflects on his own work. I began believing an author's purpose should be the true meaning of a book but have evolved that to somewhere different, however, I think Nabokov expresses something that made me look at the book differently. I still pick this up very action and event oriented, trying to decipher what each movement makes to the overall message he is trying to get across and I think Nabokov is saying thats not the point. He says "Lolita has no moral in tow". 

This quote also made an impact when I read it, though I don't know entirely what to make of it just yet : 

"For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I will call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm. "

It just takes us back to the same question of what is literature and in Nabokov's mind there are very few things that live up to that standard . I guess I just want to hear what you guys though about this section I found it very intriguing but also hard to pin down.

Humbert Good or Bad?

So I really meant to post this blog a couple of days ago, but never really figured out how to use this new layout till now. So whatever, here it goes.

About a week and a half ago, the day we were first asked to begin reading Lolita, I took the time to Wikipedia search the Book before I opened it. This seems to have become much of routine in my study habits. Well anyway, when I read it at first it described of course the scenario of Humbert, a man in love with a young girl, blah blah blah... And of course I was somewhat disturbed already knowing the book was based on pedifilia. So I went on and kept reading until I noticed that the towards the end, it mentions that Humbert is the "Protagonist". This caught me completely off guard, and even lead me to say "What the Hell!?" out loud in my room.

I could understand how Nabakov sometimes make you pity Humbert's situation, making you sympathize for his inability to control his sexual desires, but really now, Humbert... The Protagonist? You got to be kidding me!?  I don't think there's much to argue about how wrong this is for me. Anyone feeling the opposite?

The Wire and Racial Profiling

So I just want to make this blog short, sweet and to the point.

I just spent a couple of hours watching bits and pieces for the First Season of the Wire, and I am getting a bit frustrated with the very apparent racial profiling that is going on. I apologize  if anyone will get offended by this blog, but really, it isn't fair that all the crooks are black. 

Is anyone else feeling somewhat uneasy or offended?

Re: Dylan's Interviews

More than wanting to avoid being labeled as a part of folk or rock, I think Dylan really wanted to escape the "artist's intention" strategy of interpreting art. Although he protests it in interviews, Dylan clearly has written a number of meaningful songs and instead of laying down, "Well this means this," he allows the listener to interpret his songs for themselves. He wants people to actually listen to his music, not to him.

Plus, he seems to enjoy being contrary and sarcastic in his interviews, don't you think?

Response to “Is Lolita a Love Story’

Love is a very subjective idea; it comes in many forms, takes on many shapes and means many different things to many different people. With that in mind, I don’t think we can objectify the love H.H. had for Lo. But I will offer an argument based on my own opinion of love. I think that one of the many attributes of love is to put one’s own self behind the one that you love. Since somebody mentioned Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, I will use that story as a point of reference. Romeo was willing to take his own life for Juliet and vice versa – in response to the pain of living in a world without the other. Would H.H. do that for Lo? Let’s look at it another way. In Titanic, when Jack Dawson and Rose Bukater were in the ice cold sea drifting about, Jack helped Rose up on a floating door while he stayed in the water and eventually died of hypothermia. This is a good example of putting your loved one’s livelihood in front of your own. H.H. never had Lo’s interests in mind, he never put her first. He essentially used her until she couldn’t take it any more and she moved on. By my standards of love, Lolita is not a love story, but a lust story.

Re: Bruno and more

There is a discrepancy between the traditional concept of what a love story is in literature, and how we apply it to real life. If you really think about it, much of our great literature does not emphasize actual love, but rather, the idealized image of love. In this respect, Lolita is actually a very traditional love story because it emphasizes this idealized concept to an extreme degree. Although this consuming obsession is disapproved of in society, it does happen. One of the greatest love stories ever written, Romeo and Juliet, was based on the "love at first sight" scenario. But if Romeo and Juliet were to have survived, would their relationship have persisted? I doubt it. Never once was there anything mentioned beyond their mutual physical attraction. Nevertheless, relationships usually start this way. Many people mistake this infatuation for love. Under a spell, starry eyed people often claim to have "fallen in love." If a relationship has any potential substance, it would build beyond this initial spark. In Romeo's and Juliet's case, it never does.

Likewise, in Lolita, Humbert never establishes anything for his relationship with Lolita beyond his lust for her. His longing to get close to Lolita was not built on love, but on his own sexual fulfillment and bribes. Humbert is too involved with himself to communicate with Lolita, and he prefers to ignore her unhappiness, rather than to confront it. If he had interacted with her, there might have been a slight chance that Lolita would not have been drawn to escape. However, as an adolescent, Lolita's emotions were most likely taking on an emotional roller coaster ride, and she probably would not have listened anyways.

As a person "in love", Humbert allows his emotions, rather than his intellect, to rule him. Everything that Lolita says or does to Humbert is an indication that she feels the same toward him, when, in fact, it might have been brought about by Lolita's mercurial adolescent nature. She is experimental and flighty, and, like any adolescent, she is inclined to experiment with new and exciting aspects of her life, sexually and emotionally. Humbert's obsession with Lolita is a bit one-sided, as she does not seem to return his affections. In this respect, you could also argue that this is not a love story but more like a recount of a man's consuming obsession, because as you said before, "a love story is made up of charcters coming together with a certain obsession for each other." This mutual feeling of "love" that you mentioned was not shared equally by Humbert and Lolita.

Getting Sucked In

After reading the other comments I'm glad other people are getting sucked into the head of our character in the same way I am. Especially during the diary entries towards the beginning of the book. I was actually more disconcerted with the way I felt as if I was seeing his actual thoughts, almost in a part of his brain I shouldn't be in... than with the whole pedophilia thing.

@maddie - Your first sentiment plays into that idea we have hit on a couple times this year of the author's world being completely seperate and we can only believe that the berries are edible because he tells us so, not because we know it from past experiences.  

Dylan’s Interviews

I was thinking about Dylan’s interviews during our discussion today and made a connection as to why he was being so difficult to his interviewers. One of the themes in his album Bringin it All Back Home is to not trust the “man” and down with structure and authority. But then he tells interviewers one thing one day and a completely different thing the next day. He is creating this mistrust of himself. I think he was doing this so that he could avoid being labeled as the ‘authority’ figure of Folk music and/or Rock music.

Various responses

As far as viewing Lolita, or any work for that matter, from the details to the general and not vice versa, I agree with Leah's explanation. Students, literary critics and many other readers have been "trained" to think that certain symbols are universal across most, if not all works. It's sort of a cop-out technique, and it's very flawed. What if, when watching Blue Velvet, someone thought "Well. There are a lot of blues and reds in this movie. This probably means that the characters are conflicting with sadness and anger," and left it at that? Starting from scratch with the details is effective because it allows you to enter the author's world with a blank slate and no pretenses. If that same Blue Velvet viewer began with the details from Lynch's world rather than prior symbolic knowledge from ours, it would become clear that evidence suggests that the blues and reds represent much more. 

As far as the vulgarity of Lolita goes, I'm having the same issue as you, Glo, but I'm not so sure that mine has to do with some sort of pedophilia immunity, but rather the structure of the text. Nabakov does such an awesome job of sucking the reader (or me, at least) into H.H.'s world, that you almost feel empathy. I began to really dislike the characters that he disliked, just based on the way that he described them. I began to shrug with a possibility of agreement when he used past noble figures as justification for his infatuation with nymphets. And when everything seems to be going wrong for H.H., it gave me a sort of anxious, impatient feeling. 

Blue Velvet tells a story from an unbiased standpoint, making Frank's actions foreign and unjustified. Tropic of Cancer may be from Miller's vantage point, but he does not feel the need to justify his actions- he just does what he wants. Lolita, however, seems to serve solely as an explanation of wrongdoings utilizing whimsical language to evoke readers' emotions rather than hard evidence and a coarse plot. This may be why it comes across as less offensive.

Lolita and to Catch a Predator!

So recently I have been thinking about Lolita and how it doesn't seem very surprising to me that this man Humbert man is a Pedafile. I guess for me, I have just been watching WAY too much TV to a point where I am convinced that these things are normal. I'm sure a lot of you know what I am talking about when I share with you my experience with NBC's "To Catch a Predator". This show places an image in modern society, making it seem the norm to live amongst many perverted old men, interested in younger girls and boys. I also hear about ideas of rape amongst the Catholic Church various time, which is the basis for most of my moral ideals. 

In addition, I feel as if I have been exposed to pedafilia in an early age, considering that when in 7th grade, one of my classmates was caught having sex with our 40 year old teacher. Messed up? Why yes it is. Maybe this is why I am not so shaken up by "Lolita". Sorry, I guess just isn't doing the bother for me as much as "Tropic of Cancer" or "Blue Velvet".  Anyone else with some experiences like this?

Re: details.. or tall tales?

I think the main reason that we shouldn't draw grand conclusions and then go back and "plug in" evidence is that working your way up from the text may lead you to new and more interesting conclusions than what you might arrive at by just picking a universal theme and bending the text to fit. To use an example from class: If you automatically jump to the conclusion that Jane Austen describes leaves as "green" because green is the color of hope, than you limit the color green to its association with hope. I think it goes back to the berries thing. Maybe in Jane Austen's world green does not mean hope, maybe it means hate. Either way, your conclusion has to be built from the ground up using the rules that the author establishes, not the rules that we impose on the text. Phew! It took me a long time to write that because I had to make it make sense to me too! Anyone else feel free to add on!

detials..or tall tales?

Today in class we were lectured on Nabokov's attention to detail and his distaste for large/symbolic concept analyzations. I thought the whole reason we were "close reading", looking at these details, was to lead us  to  large general symbolic interpretations over the material presented. Is then starting with the minor details and working our way up to larger symbolic interpretations given from the cues of the lit. not counter productive? If we can just come to these conclusions first hand, and then if neccacary go back and provide evidence from the details what is the difference?....not trying to be difficult just trying to make sense of it all.

Narrative Style in Lolita

Although Nabokov's style of writing in Lolita does not directly correlate with the established definition of stream of consciousness, there are certain elements of this style that exists. At first glance, it may seem more obvious how this narrative deviates from stream of consciousness. Humbert's personal narration is much more structured and stylized, on account of his own personal pride of being an esteemed literary intellectual. His ability to seduce his readers through his eloquence and writing initially lends him credibility. On the the contrary, the narrator of Tropic of Cancer details his ventures in a much looser structure, thus more closely following the stream of consciousness style of writing. Even though Humbert's discourse admittedly follows conventional linguistic standards, he also inadvertently reveals evidence regarding his mentality, such as when he switches from referring to himself from the first person to the third person.

There are incidences when Humbert vulnerably slips further into the overwhelmingly lure of his subconsciousness. This is particularly evident in Part 2, chapter 2, when Humbert travels with Lolita around the country. Although still maintaining the grammatical structure that he is so adamant on, Humbert unintentionally allows himself to slip further into stream of consciousness. His sentences become somewhat less coherent as he struggles to remember everything that has occurred within the depths of his memory. Humbert's frequent usage of the word, "pubescent" is especially revealing. When describing their exploration of the world's largest stalagmite, he states that admission for "adults [is] one dollar, pubescent sixty cents." By using "pubescent", he applies a sexual connotation to what otherwise could be referred to as "youths." Later, he describes one of the motels at Utah as being "surrounded by pubescent trees [that] were scarcely taller than my Lolita." By referring to everything that is youthful as "pubescent", Humbert reveals further about his psychologically abnormal mindset. Even though Nabokov disapproves of psychoanalysis, his novel, Lolita, is reaped with latent psychological tendencies that would set Freud's mind in a whirlwind.

Stream of consciousness is often used with protagonists who are psychologically unstable, which applies to people of all types, because nobody is ever completely mentally sound all of the time. For instance, William Faulkner uses this style for the mentally retarded Benjy Compson in The Sound and the Fury, and it was also used in James Joyce's semiautobiographical novel, A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.

Annabel...Lee?

In the very first section of Lolita, I was struck by the phrase, "In a princedom by the sea." My mind automatically jumped to Edgar Allen Poe's 1849 poem "Annabel Lee," which reads "In a kingdom by the sea." After re-reading the poem, I also noticed Nabokov's use of seraphs on that same page: "...exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied," in regards to Poe's use of the word in his poem: "...I and my Annabel Lee; With a love that the winged seraphs of heaven Coveted her and me."
Read the next couple of pages, turns out Humbert's first love was named Annabel. How 'bout that. As I read on, he even reused the "princedom by the sea" line a couple of times, particularly when reminiscing about his Annabel (I'm only on section 12 so far, there's probably more). I never suspected this to be something done accdientally by Nabokov, so I wikipedia-ed Lolita. It states that Annabel Leigh is indeed named after Poe's "Annabel Lee," and that Nabokov almost titled the book The Kingdom by the Sea. (I'm really glad he didn't, btw)
I continued to look up things about Nabokov and and Edgar Allen Poe. Maybe Nabokov had a thing for his writing? I found an article written by Steven King titled "Poe, Nabokov, 'Annabel Lee'" here: http://www.todayinliterature.com/print-today.asp?Event_Date=10/9/1849 but I couldn't read it because I'm not a premium member :(
I found another article talking about Edgar Allen Poe's influences on both Nabokov and Alfred Hitchcock. Towards the end of the article, it talks about how Humbert reflects lifestyle habits of Poe himself. http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue03/features/hitchnab4.htm
This interests me a great deal. Hopefully, after reading and re-reading Lolita I'll be able to decipher the rest of the allusions Nabokov is making.

Control Room

For anouther class i watched a documentary called "Control Room" about the war in Iraq and the US's more "conservative" media coverage v. the more explicit coverage of the war from Al-Jezeera the main Arab news source. It was interesting to see how and what images and topics are censored by different governments and bodies of people. In context to this class, it got me thinking in terms of the banned literature we read, and the content that labels it so.  One thing i noticed is that the American media was very apprehensive to air violent and morbid graphic photos or videos, especially depicting tragedies amongst our soldiers, where as Al-Jezeera had almost no limits to the depiction of violence on either side. As a whole in terms of loosening standards in America we have become more tolerant to sexual images and innuendo in the media, but it feels like we have perhaps digressed from the early 1960's when the Vietnam War was aired on T.V. The changes are interesting.Are we saying that we are ok with the promotion of   illicit sexuality, but not ok with the realities of war? Or,  maybe the government just realized a nation is less willing to back a war when they are able to watch their children die fighting it on TV...

Re: Re: Dylan's Influence on the Singing World

You brought up the idea that people listen to these "Top Five" artists because people can relate to their lyrics. However, I really don't think that people are listening to Kanye West or T.I. because of the words their songs have; it's really more about the sound. Songs make the Top Five when they're catchy, easy to listen to or dance to. And vocal quality has everything to do with that. These artists have the sound, vocally and otherwise, that gets the job done for a particular genre, and are thus "good singers." It works the same way with American Idol; they're looking for a specific kind of sound that makes a "good" pop artist. For this reason I think Dylan is a good singer: he has a voice that works with the sound that he is trying to get.

In this way, Dylan left his mark on the musical world; he made it okay for vocalists not to have a traditionally "good voice." Before him, we had Sinatras and Elvises, who have lovely voices and get across what they need to for their purposes, but Dylan was one of the first, by traditional standards, "bad singers." This is just another way he broke the rules. And we're fortunately he did as he led the way for all kinds of artists with unusual vocal talent: Mick Jagger, Tom Waits, etc.

Re: Dylan's influence on the singing world

True, American Idol has rigid standards, but in a way they have to be searching for a very narrow range of vocalist types, otherwise anyone could argue that they're eligible. True, Dylan wouldn't have made it past the first round (he may have even been one of the people who they make fun of for even attempting to audition), but that's because it's not a show about poetry, it's a show about pop singing. 

I don't think vocal quality is a defining factor of what becomes popular right now, otherwise we'd all be listening to Josh Groban and Michael Buble all the time. What about Beck? He mumbles instead of singing most of the time, yet he's immensely popular. Top 40  popular. Or Conor Oberst? His voice is surely nothing to brag about.  

Also, I don't know who created the standards for the most popular music of today, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Simon Cowell, otherwise the top five songs on iTunes right now probably wouldn't consist of T.I., Akon, and Kanye West. They, like Dylan, would not have made it past the first round of American Idol.

I think Piekarski brought up a good point yesterday in comparing folk with rap. They're just telling stories about a lifestyle. And people can relate to that.

The structure of resonance

Singing is a mechanical physical action. Sound resonates in the human body, in the throat, chest, mouth and nasal cavities. Depending on where you "place" the sound you get different vocal effects. Vocal styles (opera, jazz, rock, country, ect) are often distinguished by the different qualities of resonance. The sound you make depends on how you use your instrument. Tension in the mouth, tongue, jaw, or throat changes the sound quality of your voice. If the throat is tense, the position of your larynx is effected and the free movement of your larynx and vocal chords is restrained.



I noticed in the clips we watched in class today that Dylan's harmonica is placed right in front of his face. Dylan tries to sing over his harmonica by stretching his neck above the instrument. The effect this has on his body is a straining of his larynx and tension in this throat and neck. This tension causes his voice to sound strained in parts.

Another thing I have noticed is that he almost always sings with his soft pallet down. * Try this* take your tongue, place it on the roof of your mouth behind your teeth. Run your tongue along the roof of your mouth back towards your throat until you feel a soft fleshy surface. This is your soft pallet. The soft pallet can be raised by yawning, sucking in air like you are drinking through a straw or gasping for air. You can also raise your soft pallet just using the muscles in your mouth. Many vocal styles do not require you to sing with your soft pallet raised, but the soft palled does effect the resonance of sound. There are times when Dylan sings at the higher end of his range with his soft pallet down and it sounds almost like he is yelling. This is a choice in style he is making. His sing-talking lends itself to a lowered soft pallet, because speaking with your soft pallet raised is awkward and unnecessary.

There are other parts where Dylan does not properly support his sound. Generally, all singing should be supported by the lungs and diaphragm. Singing that is not properly supported is often called "singing off the chords." Dylan does not always sing off the chords, but often times when he sings he sings from his throat. Singing from your throat may sound louder, but the sound itself is a more harsh strained sound with little vibrato (slight variation in pitch due to vibration of vocal chords) or resonance. The difference is where the support comes from. *Try this* If you make a face like you are sucking air through a straw and blow out, the air will be cool. This type of breath is not supported by the diaphragm. Then if you blow air like you are trying to fog up a glass window with a "ha" sound, the air will be warm. This type of breath is supported by the diaphragm. Dylan plays the harmonica, an instrument that takes a lot of breath support. And there are many times whey Dylan does use vibrato and achieves a warmer resonating sound. So he is capable of this type of singing. He has achieved a unique style that mixes different resonating qualities. I think that the actual sound produced can be looked at from a structuralist perspective to look at where Dylan follows and breaks the rules vocally in his folk and rock genres.



I think understanding how the sound is made (in an extremely short and general explanation) helps understand that the tone and quality of the sound can be manipulated. And while Dylan's voice is unique and does possess tonal qualities that are specific to him, the placement of sound and the way in which Dylan uses his voice is a choice that has nothing to do with weather or not he has a "good voice."

In continuing discussion about vocals...

Singing has varying objectives for different people; the many ways it is used is astonishing. For instance in an orchestra, singing is often utilized as a basis in which to center our playing on. But even though we use it, this is not to say we are trained or experienced singers. If we were, we would have been in choir. Nevertheless, we utilize singing as a musical tool. Sometimes conductors have us sing the A prior to tuning our instruments so we would have a solid pitch foundation. Other times, singing is used to emphasize certain technical aspects of the music, and in this respect, we are expected to sing the way the music should be played. This includes pitch, rhythm, dynamics, and all other musical aspects. There are times when singing a rhythmically difficult area facilitated our performance and there are other times when it assists in fluctuating pitch. But overall, it aids in our expression because we are urged to concentrate on our musicality through our singing.

You may ask, why is this relevant? Because as has been mentioned quite frequently in blog posts and presentations, Bob Dylan uses music in an unconventional way. The music evokes a different mood than what the lyrics expresses. These conventionally complementary elements are not in correspondence with each other. In this way, Dylan is more of a literary artist than a musician because he urges the audience to focus on the message in his lyrics rather than the more accessible music at hand. Displaying lyrics while listening to Dylan's songs during the presentations were helpful because it allowed us to focus on the lyrics amidst the background of the music, thus allowing us to understand the discrepancy between the two.

Dylan's Fashion Stylings

Since I helped formulate the drama that has already begun about Dylan's Vocals, I am going to attempt to stop the madness by introducing a new subject, Dylan's Dress Style!

Personally, I would have to say that as a fashion major, Dylan's style can be described as rebellious, carefree and somewhat dangerous. I LOVE IT! Through observing everyone's pictures from our recent powerpoint presentations, I have come to really embrace Dylan's form of self-expression. I have noticed that a typical Dylan outfit would be a dark jacket, tight fitted jeans, aviator shades, boots, and a cigar. These trend are and have been very, very popular in the fashion world. Many associate this style as being "punk" or even "indie". I feel that artist like Dylan should be credited for creating styles that have been formulating popularity even though many years later. In fact, today in my accounting class I sat in back of guy who reminded me so much of Dylan, even having his same hair style (which by the way seems to be all the rave nowadays as well).  Being the creeper that I am, I took a picture of him with my camera phone with this blog already in mind. 

Fashion, I feel, can be a very useful medium to understanding an individual's persona. Dylan surely has given many young people a standard for expression and fashion sense.

drums...rap...

So in class today we talked about how Bob Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues was a precursor to rap. I agree. His talk style, sarcasm, and metaphors defiantly fit the style, but we also talked about drums being an essential part of the picture. I also agree, but i feel that in rap today the natural drum sound and use has become archaic. The whole idea of tempo being essential is still there, but the use of drums themselves has been put on a back burner to a more synthesized base and electronic creations. Yes?...or am i totally off?

Re: Vocal twittering

There are no rules for vocal quality. You can't make them because the concept is so incredibly vague. It's a bit like literature, in that you can describe qualities that you like or dislike about someone's voice but you can't say definitively whether it's good or bad, not only because "good" and "bad" are incredibly subjective terms, but because one particular vocal quality may work just as well as another for a work, even if that quality is unusual or different.

The only way you can "objectively" say someone is a bad singer would be if they couldn't sing in a certain style. If you're trying to argue that Dylan would make a bad opera singer, obviously he would be. But he makes a great folk singer.

Re: Desire and Decision

I was thinking the same thing Leslie said as I was reading. H.H. is infatuated with Lo because he sees her as “his Annabel”. His emotions have been “frozen in time” after the traumatic experience of losing Annabel so he is still very much in love with Annabel but obviously he cannot pursue that relationship. Lo is just a replacement for him to fixate on.

Vocal twittering

There's been a lot of rabble on twitter about vocal talent. I realize this has already been addressed on the blog, but a new facet of this argument seems to have surfaced: is vocal talent subjective? 

Someone twittered that it was completely subjective, whereas another made the claim that "music, like any other science, is based on fundamental truths."

I think the truth lies in a hybrid between these two bold statements: vocal talent, like literature, is neither entirely subjective or objective, but a spectrum between the two. 

I'm no musician, but from my understanding, there is no "fundamental truth" concerning what sounds good. Yes, there are rules that determine the nature of high quality singing, but these rules have been created by humans, so why can another human not refine them by tweaking the standards a bit? 

Another reason why I don't understand the whole "fundamental truth" argument is that good singing isn't a black or white ordeal. Singers aren't simply just good or bad. There is such a thing as a mediocre singer. There is a difference a great singer and a really great singer.

Also, singing has evolved over time. I imagine the first type of highly revered singing was somewhat unrefined in comparison to what we typically enjoy today, and what we enjoy today would have probably been considered rubbish back when opera was at its prime. 

Another post was made stating that "if the objective requirements have not been met, subjective analysis is unnecessary." 

Again, the objective requirements have not always been the same, so who is to say that someone who has a new, unique sounds that seemingly falls short of these requirements couldn't have the power to change them?

This isn't to say that this necessarily applies to Dylan, but it certainly could.

Re: Desire and Decision

I feel that Humbert was infatuated with the idea of love. Following the death of his childhood sweetheart, Annabel Leigh, Humbert became obsessed with the prototype of his failed love and has never really been able to move on. His inability to consummate a relationship with Annabel has led to a search to reassure himself that his failed relationship was not a question on his manhood.

From the time when Humbert initially meets Lolita, he focuses constantly on the physical characteristics of Lolita, such as "the bloom along the incurvation of her spine, and the swellings of her tense narrow nate clothed in black, and the seaside of her schoolgirl thighs", yet he makes no mention of an emotional connection with her, an attribute that constitutes the basis of substantial love. I would say Humbert is in lust rather than in love with Lolita. If Humbert really loved Lolita, he would understand that Lolita was merely a child and wasn't emotionally mature enough to pursue a relationship with a grown man.

Desire & Decision

" So Humbert the Cubus schemed and dreamed- and the red sun of desire and decision (the two things that create a live world) rose higher and higher..." This is the first sentence from the last paragraph on pg 70 of Lolita. The words in parenthesis are the most important. They tell you what a live world is made of, desire and decision, how bad you want something versus the decisions you have to make to obtain it. Why is it important to have a live world...i guess it's not...it's just something we do, because as long as we are living that is exactly what we are experiencing. And whether we are aware or not every day is a choice concerning what we want in relation to what we have to do to get it. For Humbert the stakes were high. He was madly in love but in order to keep his love he had to act drastically, and he decided that drastic decisions were worth what he desired.

Re: Alex's Folk Rock?

That's a really interesting observation. I had realized his singing voice was completely different from his actual voice, but never thought about what effect it had on his songs. In my opinion, I feel that Dylan really immerses himself into his songs and the story he is trying to tell. Therefore, the characters he is portraying can only be brought out though his words, music and voice. I think Dylan executes all three of these aspects in his songs really well. One cannot help notice these changes in his voice in his different songs, and it is to distinctly to enrich his story and the emotions that are in them. The "Southern Blues" type voice that Alex talked about I find mostly to be present in his active protest songs on Civil Rights, like Oxford Town, which is unlike his voice in Mr. Tambourine Man, It's All Over Now Baby Blue and Subterranean Homesick Blues.

Re: "Blowin' in the Wind"

My take on this song was more that the answer was completely up in the air, so to speak. We don't know the answer, we may never know the answer, which is why it's blowin' in the wind. War, intolerance, and other such happenstances that occur in humanity are things we may always have to deal with, but then again, we may find a way around them. Who knows?

However, I'm all for hope. And change.

Dylan and Appreciation.

Today I spent my entire morning volunteering at a homeless shelter. I guess for me, this experience was extremely valuable since many people consider me spoiled. (Something I am not very proud of) But seriously, aren't we all spoiled? Just having access to a computer to read this blog makes us all spoiled. 

What I did want to write about this experience is something that was touched on during the first group presentation on Dylan and the Vietnam War. At the homeless shelter there were tons of elderly men that were begging for compensations for their service many years ago. It is so sad that tons of them were Vietnam War Veterans. This situation genuinely broke my heart.

How can we call ourselves Americans if we can not even embrace those who gave us that title in the first place?

I am so glad to see that artist such as Dylan can recognize the crisis and the difficulty out there. I think this characteristic of Dylan's music should be looked into and close-read with a different retrospect. Appreciation. Appreciate Dylan, because he appreciates others. 

Response to Alex on Folk rock??

He does speak differently when he speaks in interviews compared to when he sings. I don’t think it’s unheard of for performers to, well – perform, in this fashion. It’s not very common, but he’s not the only one. For example, Rob Zombie offstage and out of his “character” – you could easily mistake for an account or something like that. He looks totally different from his musical persona. I know this isn’t the something as Dylan changing his dialect, but its similar.

My take on “Blowin in the Wind”

I thought this song was about hope. Dylan sings about different problems going on in the world, such as inequalities for mankind, war, and the suffering of man. He sings about how there are people who just ignore these problems and I could see how that would be the perspective of someone living in that time – overwhelmed and confused by all the injustices going on in the world. But then each verse ends with “the answer”, not specifically stated but an answer none the less. He is singing that there is an answer out there, keep hope and mankind will prevail.

Poor Humbert

The point I'm at in reading Lolita is pg65. At this point Humbert is totally infatuated with Lolita. He writes this of her,"I knew I had fallen in love with Lolita forever; but I also knew she would not be forever Lolita...In two years she would cease being a nymphet and would turn into a 'young girl', and then, into a 'college girl'-that horror of horrors.The words 'for ever'  referred only to my own passion, to the eternal Lolita as reflected in my blood." It has been implied that Humbert ends up killing someone. He refers to himself as a murderer. I feel like the quote I inserted is where he gets desperate. From the beginning you know he is defected, a child molester, but i believe this is where he crosses over and gains the potential to kill. He just expresses such desire for Lolita and hopelessness in the he knows she can never be his, because she will not be the Lolita he loves forever. Basically I feel mentally this is where he snaps.  

Bob Dylan

I want to talk a little about what Bob Dylan has to say about his work as an artist. I find it hard to believe that his songs have no message. Even If Bob Dylan just writes what ever comes to mind, what he writes about and how he writes creates art and, in my opinion, art does not exist for art's sake. The albums we have studied epitomized what many of his peers were thinking and feeling, and even if his influence was unintentional, it was honest and as a result, unifying. Maybe Dylan realizes that he has created something bigger than himself and that is why he feels unqualified to comment on his art. Maybe he feels like he gave as much as he could by simply writing the songs, or resented the public for always wanting something more. Regardless, his songs do not lack meaning, they just lack Dylan's explanation of meaning.

I think it's interesting that the general public does care so much about what the artist thinks. Because Dylan refuses to comment on his work, we are left in this sort of limbo land of wanting validation for our interpretations. Even though Dylan explicitly says, "it means whatever you want it to mean." Somehow, that's just not satisfying. I think that there is a sense of condescension in the way Dylan refuses to acknowledge his own importance. Dylan does not give his audience the chance to judge his explanations because he gives no explanation at all. He always seems to be on a higher level, and we are left on our own to decode his lyrics. I think this bothers some because we want to be told we are right. When we come up with ideas on our own we risk being "wrong," even though in reality there isn't really a wrong interpretation if it can be textually supported.

LSD and the 60's

What I find interesting about the 60's is the emergence of LSD. LSD was developed in 1938 by a Swiss chemist in who was studying the medical uses of a type of fungus that grows on Rye bread. It was originally developed to be used as a drug to aid in circulatory functions.

Time goes on and the Government sees LSD as possibly being a drug that could be used for mind control. Mind control? The hippie rebellion generation was in part fueled by LSD parties, freeing their minds. The drug which the hippie generation adopted was funded, produced, and generated by and for the "man." Those who the generation mistrusted created the drug which fueled the movement that soon became a thorn in the establishment's side.

LSD was a legally available drug in 1966. The government was using the people as guinea pigs for what they hoped to be a mind control drug. The hippies fell right into the evil plot of the man, man! If LSD was successful we would have an entirely different history and present.

Soylent green is made from people.

Folk rock??

I just listened to a Bob Dylan interview from 1965 on YouTube and he said his music wasn't folk rock. He said it was "vision music, it's mathematical." This bothers me because if Dylan doesn't play folk rock then I don't know who does. Also, i watched another Dylan interview and the interviewer asked him if he felt he was "betraying his generation by leaving folk." Dylan, though obviously on drugs responded very defensively; it wasn't really what he said but more how he said it. In addition to this observation, I originally wanted to find a Dylan interview so i could listen to how he spoke vs. sang. His dialect when singing is very "southern blues", but his speaking voice is very regular (in this interview almost timid.) This only leaves me to wonder why he would sing in that accent. What did that dialectical sound give to his music that his natural voice did not? 

RE: Anything about Dylan's Voice

I think we already saw this, but it plays into the argument about his singing... that he doesn't seem to care about the singing. When looking for video of him playing Blowin' in the Wind live, it also seems that almost every performance is different. There is a different cadence to the songs, sometimes its upbeat, sometimes real mellow and slow. Thats different than alot of other artists who try to recreate the album-version of their song every time they go out and play... Dylan was OK with inflecting a new meaning every time. I took a couple things away from that. 

Even though he is quoted in one of those articles we read that the lyrics shouldn't be seperated from the music because they are a package deal, the fact the music changes while he plays it elevates the meaning of the lyrics to me. Each time you hear the song you could garner a little something different, but the lyrics are constant. 

Re: Bob Dylan's Voice

I love Bob Dylan's voice. It's entirely unique; no one else sounds like him or, if they do, haven't showcased it for us. That alone draws me to his music and I feel that at least even if you don't like his voice, you can appreciate its individuality.

Dylan has also used his voice to his advantage in that he writes songs that work for his voice and, in some ways I feel, no one else's. It doesn't feel quite right to hear Bob Dylan covers because no one else has that unique vocal quality.

Bob Dylan's Voice

I completely understand how many people can be turned off by Dylan's voice. He is not a great singer by any normal standards. But, I myself am really (oddly) drawn to his voice. I admire it and really love it. It is raspy, loud and unimpressive, but there is so much emotion and his style totally fit his songs. So, this week I have been obsessed with the song "It's All Over Now Baby Blue," and I cannot imagine anyone else singing that song. I feel this song is only enhanced by Dylan's awkward voice and the part that totally gets me is the last repetition of the chorus:

Strike another match, go start anew
And it's all over now, Baby Blue.

I think it's absolutely beautiful.
Anyone have any thoughts?

Busy being born

I really enjoyed your interpretation of the single phrase "get born." It does sound as though it is a command, as do the other lyrics in that song. 

It also seems to connect quite nicely to the song that I am close reading for our group project, It's Alright Ma.

Possibly one of the more important lines in the song makes a similar statement:

 the hollow horn 

plays wasted words, proves to warn

that he not busy being born 

is busy dying

This phrase could be interpreted in a number of ways, but I'll focus on two: a general suggestion, and a political statement.

In context with the rest of the song, if you were to ignore political implications, this line seems to be saying that certain aspects of our society are corrupt, and we shouldn't simply swallow whatever we're spoon fed. We should occupy our time with attempting to discover who we are and what we believe, thus "being born." Otherwise, we'll lose ourselves and simply become one of the masses. 

This song is, however, not just a general statement. There are obvious political messages. I actually read this quote a while ago, but it was attributed to John F Kennedy. Al Gore also used it while campaigning for the presidency in 2000. I think it is saying that if we continue to be set in our stubborn, dogmatic ways rather than realizing when new ideologies are needed (with JFK I'm sure this largely concerns the civil rights movement), then we aren't going to grow as a country.

This song says quite a bit (it has to- it's seven minutes long!), but that line alone speaks volumes.

RE: Tyler and Glo, Bob Dylan's Vocals

As a trained singer as well, I've come to really admire people who can get up, sing, and sound decent without any vocal training. I think that if Bob Dylan were to have taken vocal lessons (I'm assuming he never did, I don't really know) then he might not have sung the way he did (and still does), and that would have been very sad. There's something about his raw, untrained, just plain different voice that I've come to really, really like. I can't even put my finger on it. Usually, I don't like folk singers at all. Can't stand Johnny Cash, for example. I apologize if that gets a few of you fired up, but his voice makes it impossible for me to get into his songs at all. I have said before that he's talentless when it comes to singing, which is completely debatable. Same with Bob Dylan. Just out of preference and reasons I can't even name I happen to like his voice.

I agree though, that the real point is that he's a songwriter and he can still get his messages across. Because his messages are awesome. I've purposely not listened to Bob Dylan in the past simply because he's a "folk singer," and I'm really glad that I've been forced to listen to him now, because he's very quickly worked his way up to one of my all time favorites.

Films mentioned in Class

While doing RTF homework today, 3 of the films Mr. K mentioned in class were discussed in the textbook: Blow Up (which I think we are going to be discussing), Diary of a country priest and WR: Mysteries of the Organism. The first two were mentioned on the discussion of film auteur, in which the director is compared to the author of the novel in that his camera is his pen and the cast and crew are mere instruments in the director’s vision. A good example of this would be films by Scorsese. If you have seen The Departed, then you know you didn’t watch Leonardo DiCaprio’s The Departed, or Matt Damon’s The Departed, you watched Scorsese’s The Departed. The third film was mentioned in the discussion on films from the 1960s banned due to political associations. None of this has anything to do with this class but I thought it was interesting that the specific films Mr. K mentioned are all considered critical parts of film history.

Response to MartinL on Tangled Up In Blue

There were some re-occurring themes in this song that we did not discuss that I think are important to its interpretation. The first one is locations; north, south, east west. In the fist verse he writes “headed out for the East Coast”, in the second verse he writes “we drove that car as far as we could Abandoned it out West”, in the third verse he writes “I had a job in the great north woods” and “I drifted down to New Orleans”. If we interpret these verses as happening in chronological order, then he starts out in the first verse with a woman not in the East Coast, presumable in the West coast so he leaves the West and heads to the east. Then, he drives as far as he can with another woman and they reach the West coast. Next, he is in the north working in the woods before he ‘drifts’ down South and finds work on a fishing boat. The first two lines mentioning location are evidence to the song being about different women, one being in the East and one in he West. The next two mentions of location are linked to his wandering or drifting around, possibly looking for another woman, maybe he’s looking for the perfect woman and he is singing about why all his relationships have failed. The jobs he mentions are interesting – a cook and a fisherman. Is he trying to learn how to be a better provider for his women I wonder? He later mentions friends who became mathematicians, and carpenter’s wives. These differ from his jobs in that a mathematician uses their mind, not their hands. I don’t know what that says about being a carpenter’s wife. In the last verse he writes “headin’ for another point”, a very vague description of where he is heading to. Maybe this song is about how he has been all over the country and hasn’t found that perfect woman.

Re: Helloglo

While I have been researching Freewheelin' Bob Dylan and Dylan himself, it keeps popping up that these albums exploded him onto the scene as a songwriter. The emphasis on songwriter not on singer or talent. It's also mentioned that his songs were used by hundreds of other groups, big acts of the time like Peter, Paul and Mary. So I wonder if he is more of a songwriter than a stand-up singer. It just so happens that for that kind of folk music you don't need the most beautiful voice in the world since you are telling stories, and aren't driving the song along with melodies. Also, the audience he is singing to probably isn't looking for a refined voice, the grit, the every-man could sing this song idea reinforces the lyrics of the song in my opinion.

I wouldn't say that it is unacceptable to call him a bad singer, because that probably isn't his intention.

Bob Dylan's Vocals

As a singer, I always find myself criticizing other singers. It's natural. And one thing that I noticed about Bob Dylan's vocal stylings is that most of us in this class do not really like it. Many of us have complained that its too raspy, hard to understand, and is very unpleasant to the ear. What I have to say about this is that I too may agree with these statements, but also am aware that there are reason why people enjoy his music and why he has been succeeding for over 4 decades. 

My brother is the one to always tell me never to compare myself to every singer out there because there is always a different kind of talent for everyone. Dylan just so happens to be one of those talents that may not be the norm for everyone, similar to artist like Miley Cyrus of Cher (although I do feel that little Hannah Montana may just be flat out untalented. Apologies, maybe that was a bad example) but none the less, Dylan's voice should be embraced. What is normal and common is not what is always popular right? I mean if all singers had the same voice, same techniques, and same range, wouldn't music just be flat out boring? Where can we as listens distinguish OUR own taste in music? Our preferences? Our choice talent?  I am not saying that all of us have to go out there are root on Dylan's stylings, but I am saying that it isn't fair for some to say he is "untalented". We are entitled to our own opinions, these are just mine. 

Bob's style

From the close readings i've done covering songs from "Free Wheelin", I've noticed that all of the songs are written in very informal venacular, and utlize sarcasim in subtle ways. In the song "Talking WWIII", Dylan makes several flipant statements about the actions of the society he exhisted in, late 1950's early 1960's. His reactions to the isolation, and self serving nature of America at the time is expressed well through lines like, "He screamed a bit and flew away...thought i was a communist " and "A shotgun fired and away i ran...i don't blame them too much though, He didn't know me." I think by writting very informal, observant and sarcastic works he helped define the "beatnick" and following "hippy" movements of the era.

Re: Re: 1963 Dylan vs. 1965 Dylan

The way I've been thinking about the contrast between those two years was that the sudden shift between Folk Dylan and Rock Dylan was intentional, a way of Dylan saying, "Hey, don't pigeonhole me as a folk singer." In 1963, Dylan was the folk god; the folk movement took credit for him and ran with it and considered him one of its own. Consequently, when Dylan switched genres, people saw him as betraying the folk movement. However, I don't think anyone can say the quality of his music declined really; it just changed styles a bit. People just got angry because he broke their expectations.

More on Tangled Up In Blue

Many possible reasons were contemplated during class as to why the speaker was "layin' in bed" and reflectin' "early one mornin' ". Although the possibilities are endless, it could also be quite plausible that there isn't a reason for this. Maybe the speaker just woke one morning and allowed his thoughts to drift toward the source of his anguish. The mind does not need to have a purpose to dwell on thoughts; sometimes it simply glides aimlessly over the complexity and contours of the individual's human psyche. Even so, the speaker would never truly be relieved of his past until he actually encounters and overcomes the source of his distress.

A line that caught my attention was "I thought you'd never say hello." There are instances in our life when we notice others who intrigue us but never have the courage to talk to them. We simply observe silently from the distance. What one may have heard is only what other people say and yet, after awhile you begin to believe that you actually know this person. Illusions and ideals begin to take form from as it is human nature to peceive one's image of perfection in another.

Sometimes we dwell on memories so often that after a while, one begins to doubt what has actually happened. Our memories could be slanted by personal emotion and yearning.

All the people we used to know
They're an ilusion to me now.

Apart from the actual event that occured, what remains is often a vague and unreliable recount. We may remember only what we want to retain and thus only keep an ilusion of the past.

Re: 1963 Dylan v. 1965 Dylan

There is something endearing about Bob Dylan's fresh innocence during his early years. Of course, we cannot expect him to remain like that forever in a tough world; he would surely be trampled on if he does not adjust to his demanding career. As Doug mentioned, Dylan certainly seemed to have adapted to his rock star lifestyle. His naivete is replaced with a smugly confident coolness. Everything about him seemed to change and honestly, I am not to fond of it. Nevertheless, the quality of his work has not diminished and in the end, that is all that really matters.

Tangled Up In Blue

After class I was looking over Tangled Up In Blue more. There are so, so many things to be said for this song. One thing that jumped out at me as I was reading over it again is how closely “tangled up in blue” sounds like “tangled up in YOU.” I thought that this was really interesting considering that the majority of the song is about a woman/women. In many ways the narrator seems tangled up in his remembrances of this woman/women. Using the word “you” could further group many women together, or distinguish one woman in particular. Also, substituting the word “blue” for “you” changes the meaning of the use of the word blue. Because the narrator consciously chose the word blue instead of the word you than blue must have some particular significance to the song/person/persons he is identifying in the lyrics. We talked about some of the possible implications of using the word blue, such as the emotional symbolism of the word, but I might argue that Blue could be a specific reference, maybe a sort of code name. There is no way of really telling, but it gave me something to think about. I also noticed that throughout the entire song, until the last stanza, the narrator uses he, she, and they to separate himself from the other people he is referring to in the song. In the las 2 lines however, he says “WE always did feel the same,/WE just saw it from a different point of view” At this point the narrator is directly associating himself with the people his is talking about. It seems to me that at this point perhaps he has reached some resolve. If the song is an examination of the past and the cause and effect sequences that have led him to the place he is now, than this last part could be seen as his acceptance of the past and his willingness to put the conflicts of his past (the he said she said) behind him and find a common ground.

Oxford Town

My group is close reading Free Wheelin'. I'm close reading the last four songs.  Song no. 9 is "Oxfrd Town". It is obvioulsy about the civil rights movement, protests, discrimination, ect. I was dumb struck after i heard and read did it, because Dylan really did a beautiful thing with it. The words were very simple and plain, the song was short, there were no elaborate dramatizations about the horrificness of the times, but just a clean, breif glimps of racism and the brutality of police against protesters in a small town in america during the sixties. The music and tune itself wasn't dramatic and alarming, it was almost happy- go-lucky, but in a sad and truthful way. Anyway the song is really good, and just for the sake of  getting political we've really com a long way from Oxford Town.

1963 Dylan v. 1965 Dylan

Did anyone else get the sense that Dylan in the 1963 live performance was a different person form Dylan in the 1965 live performance? First of all, he looked 15 years old while singing “only a pawn in their game”. He also seemed much more like a folk singer in that performance. He was dressed very simply in a dress shirt and his hair was a little tamer compared to the 1965 version. In the 1965 performance, he seemed much more like a rock star. He looked 35 in this performance (Gee, I wonder what he had been doing in those 2 years). He was dressed much more ‘rock starish” with his leather jacket and stylish electric guitar. I couldnt figure out how to get pics in the blog but if you search youtube there are vidoes of him over those two years.

Response to Bruno

I find it interesting that you interpreted "Get born" as something liberating, because I found it to be not a command to break social norms and live your life, but as the first part of a retelling of the monotonous and rigid life one would live if he were live up to the expectations of society (which is quite different).

Ah get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance, learn to dance
Get dressed, get blessed
Try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts
Don't steal, don't lift
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift

When reading this verse I immediately saw it as a description of social standards. You are born, you grow up and experience all the "normal" things people do like "learn[ing] to dance" and falling in love. You follow your religion, which I think Dylan points out with "get blessed." And you go to work to "try and be a success," while being good and not "steal[ing]." Even though you have followed through with all of these expectations and hard work you get put into the boring and strict position of the "day shift." I think, basically, Dylan is pointing out the flaws and injustices of following social standards/norms. Which are empty beliefs of gaining respect and power.

On another note, this is probably one of my favorite Dylan songs.

The WIRE

I just started watching The Wire the other night and I am finding that I am suprisingly liking it. When I sit down to watch an episode, I can't stop at just one. Usually I am not big on action themed shows, nor even cop related story lines, but for some reason I am really enjoying this one. In just two days I am already through the first half of Season I.

The Wire is definitely an interesting series. I do have to say though, I thought it a bit awkward to see two thugs kissing in the 4th episode. Maybe this was a way of giving the series something that everyone could relate to, in which case I am not so sure of. I do like how the show it not just centered around the drug busts, but how it develops the characters as people and not just "pawns" so to speak in "The Game".

Response to Doug's Pricking definitions

I too found the definitions of "Prick" to be quite amusing. And like Doug mentioned, the one that has really stuck with me was the term of endearment. RIGHT! How many times have we heard someone call someone a prick lovingly? I know I sure have not. This to me shows that the connotation has evolved and that yeah, this may be one definition of the word, but not anything that would be defined in our society. According to Marriam-Webster, this word dates back before the 12th century and when you look it up on Dictionary.com you get this:

1.	a puncture made by a needle, thorn, or the like.

2.	a sharp point; prickle.

3.	the act of pricking: the prick of a needle.

4.	the state or sensation of being pricked.

5.	a sharp pain caused by or as if by being pricked; twinge.

6.	the pointed end of a prickspur.

7.	Slang: Vulgar. a. penis. b. an obnoxious or contemptible person.

8.	Archaic. a goad for oxen.

9.	Obsolete. a small or minute mark, a dot, or a point.

10.	Obsolete. any pointed instrument or weapon.

–verb (used with object)

11.	to pierce with a sharp point; puncture.

12.	to affect with sharp pain, as from piercing.

13.	to cause sharp mental pain to; sting, as with remorse, anger, etc.: His conscience pricked him.

14.	to urge on with or as if with a goad or spur: My duty pricks me on.

15.	to mark (a surface) with pricks or dots in tracing something.

16.	to mark or trace (something) on a surface by pricks or dots.

17.	to cause to stand erect or point upward (usually fol. by up): The dog pricked his ears at the sound of the bell.

18.	Farriery. a. to lame (a horse) by driving a nail improperly into its hoof. b. to nick: to prick a horse's tail.

19.	to measure (distance, the size of an area, etc.) on a chart with dividers (usually fol. by off).

20.	Horticulture. to transplant (a seedling) into a container that provides more room for growth (usually fol. by out or off).

–verb (used without object)

21.	to perform the action of piercing or puncturing something.

22.	to have a sensation of being pricked.

23.	to spur or urge a horse on; ride rapidly.

24.	to rise erect or point upward, as the ears of an animal (usually fol. by up).

—Idioms

25.	kick against the pricks, to resist incontestable facts or authority; protest uselessly: In appealing the case again, you will just be kicking against the pricks.

26.	prick up one's ears, to become very alert; listen attentively: The reporter pricked up his ears at the prospect of a scoop.

Dylan

I have no trouble quickly liking Dylan since the folk / country background is something I would normally listen to, and I like the stories he tells which is part of that formula for folk music.

In the Frye article it was mentioned something along the lines of the lyrics being as important to the song as the notes being played, that they needed to be viewed together. I find that interesting that it was said when referring to Dylan because when I listen to his music I don't hear a huge connection between the music and the emotion of the song. His voice isn't tied into the melodies, he sort of rises above the music as he speaks the lyrics and if you see him perform he leans into the mic to add an extra emphasis on the words. There aren't any big electric guitar solos or driving beats, so I am wondering how much the music behind the song actually impacts the overall message.

Response to MartinL on Anatomy of criticism

I was confused by Frye’s statements such as “The only way to forestall the work of criticism is through censorship, which as the same relation to criticism that lynching has to justice” and “Shakespeare’s own account of what he was trying to do in Hamlet would not be a definitive criticism, nor would a performance of the play under his direction be a definitive performance” too. Right above that first quote in the handout, Frye writes “A public that tries to do without criticism, and asserts that it knows what it wants or likes, brutalizes the arts and loses its cultural memory”. I think Frye is arguing that criticism is a necessity because, as he states, “art for art’s sake is a retreat from criticism which ends in an impoverishment of civilized life itself”, if that makes sense. Think of it this way, if there was no one around, i.e. a critic, to say with aptitude, “This poem is awful because X, Y and Z” or “This painting is not very good because of this and that”, then more people would be making art just because they could. So without criticism, which is a “structure of thought and knowledge existing in its own right”, according to Frye, without criticism, more bad art would be produced. If critics didn’t tell Spielberg how bad Indiana Jones 4 was, he might have made part five. It’s that kind of relationship that criticism has to art. For me, Frye had one line in this handout that really summed it up, “Criticism can talk, and all the arts are dumb”.

response to CmcLeod

 That's why i was so adament about my group picking one of the close reading projects, because I think my ear would bias my opinion of Dylan's work if could only listen to his songs. By close reading I can focus on the written lyrics and not have to wory about being put off by the musical aspect. Or, on the other hand, because i don't dislike all of Dylan's work, i can avoid favoring a song because i enjoy the musical element even if it lacks poetic substance...whatever that is. But yeah, sometimes his voice is a bit much.

Election Day Dilemma

I have come to realize that this class has a slight involvement with my inability to decide who to vote for today. As a Catholic, I would normally follow what the church says and vote "Prolife", giving McCain a guaranteed ticket from me. However, learning about the different forms of free speech through literature tied in with what I use to call "immoral" ideas, this class has proven to have an influence in my confusion. 

It seems that I have become an open-minded individual who is no longer rooted solemnly through Christian Faith. In a way, I do constantly feel bothered from it, but at the same time feel as if I no longer need to be attached. 

I guess this change has really taken a toll on my everyday decisions, and I have come to a conclusion that the best way for me to exercise my opinion is to not vote at all. I feel that I am being truer to myself by not voting for McCain, like my hardcore Republican would want me to, but am not trying to compensate for the lost by voting for Obama. Oh well, who knows, knowing me and my fickle mind, I'll probably end up figuring something else out by the end of the day.

Opinions of Dylan

I've heard a number of people (not just in our class) who have said that they have a hard time listening to Bob Dylan because of his voice. I myself love Dylan because he makes me feel nostalgic, as my dad used to play his albums in the car and sing along with them when I was little. I think that, at least in part, will make me enjoy this project more just because of that association. But for those of you who have a hard time listening to his albums, do you think that will affect how you analyze during this project? How so?

Anatomy of criticism

Many times in reading Anatomy of Criticism I got completely lost. I find this article very confusing in some parts, and not so much in others. Some specific instances of parts that don’t make sense to me are when Frye says, “The only way to forestall the work of criticism is through censorship, which as the same relation to criticism that lynching has to justice.” I think that Frye opposes censorship, but I’m not sure why. He does not elaborate on their relationship to one another. Another part that lost me was when he says that Shakespeare’s own account of what he was trying to do in Hamlet would not be a definitive criticism, nor would a performance of the play under his direction be a definitive performance. Why? I don’t understand what this means. I understand that Frye is arguing that a critic is a separate animal from an artist, and that both are in a sense dealing with different art forms, but I don’t understand why an artist could not also be a critic. What about David Foster Wallace? He was an artist and also wrote analytical works of criticism, is Frye saying that those analytical works are null and void as true criticism because Wallace was also an artist? And what is determinism? The example Frye gives is if a “scholar with a special interest in geography or economics expresses that interest by the rhetorical device of putting his favorite study into a casual relationship with whatever interests him less. Such a method gives one the illusion of explaining one’s subject while studying it, thus wasting no time.” WHAT? I could not even begin to explain what that means. What does that mean?? There are many more examples of areas in this reading that I just don’t understand. What are some other thoughts on this writing? Can anyone simplify some of Frye’s arguments for me? Because I feel like they might be applicable to our discussions on criticism.

Bobby!

I'm not quite sure what to think of Dylan yet.

His self proclaimed "poet first, musician second" epithet it pretty clear, at least in these albums, and I respect that a lot. I can't say that I completely agree with Doug's statement that bands these days aren't as political as they used to be- there are certainly plenty of bands that make statements about the war and whatnot. However none seem to be as eloquent with their political and social commentary as Dylan is. 

I kind of enjoy the "talk singing" that Leslie is talking about- I think it serves to be articulate, so you can focus on what is being said. Personally I don't think it takes away from the musical aspect of the song, but then again, I'm not really knowledgeable about music. 

Mostly the lyrics confuse me. Songs like Maggie's Farm and Subterranean Homesick Blues seem to just be like sporadic narratives, but I'm sure there is much more to them than what's on the surface, otherwise we wouldn't be studying them. 

Bob Dylan "Freewheelin"

I can't really decide right now how I feel about Dylan. To me a lot of the topics he sings about are irrelevant and contradicting to each other, unlike some artist in our time who are consistent through a particular topic such as "love" or "breakups". 

I'm sure it is apparent to all of us that his music is reflective of events of the time, but for some reason I am having a hard time trying to understand if his emotions through them.  For example, in the song "Masters of War", he begins by feeling vulnerable and is saddened, but then he ends it feeling  annoyed and furious, even feeling powerful. It seems shifts modes, through the verses, which reminded me of the fickle author of  "A Study of Reading Habits". In addition, in several of his songs he refers to a "Lord", yet is never really consistent on his dependence on a God. 

On a brighter note, I love the Harmonica! I think it is fabulous. He has has definitely proven to be a  talented man capable of singing and playing two instruments at once. 

Bob Dylan

I really liked the albums from Bob Dylan. I was familiar with his work being the voice of the counterculture in the 1960s and his songs and lyrics lived up to that expectation. They are very poetic in their structure as well as being lyrical in tune. When listening to his music, even post counter culture era, I think you can tell he had some very profound, radical political, social context to his lyrics that I am sure we will dig deep into. I think today’s rock bands lack this kind of context, maybe Rage Against the Machine would be the only “political” band that would come to mind. They even did a track from Dylan – Maggie’s Farm. I think we will learn a lot about that time period and culture from his work.

Allusion vs. Plagiarism

In the HO on Sins, Virtues and Heavenly Graces HO we received on Friday it talks about the likeness of T.S. Eliot’s poems to Dylan’s songs. One example is “And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly”, written by Eliot, and “Through hostile cities and unfriendly towns” written by Dylan. Coincidence or plagiarism? I didn’t get a strong sense either way from this excerpt from the book written about Dylan. Its not word for word, so I don’t think it constitutes as plagiarism but I use that word merely to make a point. In literature, plagiarism is illegal. In film, plagiarism is an allusion, or an homage. Directors take from one another similar in the fashion that Dylan has taken from Eliot, not in an exact manner but with common themes and directions. Let’s take Lolita for example” why are there two versions of the film and only one book? Kubrick may have simply borrowed from Nabokov’s central ideas and plot to make the 1962 version. Adrian Lyne, who directed the 1997 version could have either paid homage to Kubrick by remaking the 1962 Lolita or adapted a version of Lolita from Nabokov. But if someone were to write a book about a girl named Lolita whose mother marries a pedophile who becomes obsessed with Lolita and they call the book Humbert Humbert, that is plagiarism. In film, Gus Van Sant can make a shot for shot remake of Hitchcock’s masterpiece Psycho 40 years later and no one can press charges against Sant for his paying homage to Hitchcock, as much of a failure as it was. My point is I think its interesting how plagiarism differs from literary community to film community. Dylan was paying homage to Elliot I think but because of the consequences of plagiarism in the literary community, he had to put into his own words what Eliot was saying.

Allusion vs. Plagiarism

In the HO on Sins, Virtues and Heavenly Graces HO we received on Friday it talks about the likeness of T.S. Eliot’s poems to Dylan’s songs. One example is “And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly”, written by Eliot, and “Through hostile cities and unfriendly towns” written by Dylan. Coincidence or plagiarism? I didn’t get a strong sense either way from this excerpt from the book written about Dylan. Its not word for word, so I don’t think it constitutes as plagiarism but I use that word merely to make a point. In literature, plagiarism is illegal. In film, plagiarism is an allusion, or an homage. Directors take from one another similar in the fashion that Dylan has taken from Eliot, not in an exact manner but with common themes and directions. Let’s take Lolita for example” why are there two versions of the film and only one book? Kubrick may have simply borrowed from Nabokov’s central ideas and plot to make the 1962 version. Adrian Lyne, who directed the 1997 version could have either paid homage to Kubrick by remaking the 1962 Lolita or adapted a version of Lolita from Nabokov. But if someone were to write a book about a girl named Lolita whose mother marries a pedophile who becomes obsessed with Lolita and they call the book Humbert Humbert, that is plagiarism. In film, Gus Van Sant can make a shot for shot remake of Hitchcock’s masterpiece Psycho 40 years later and no one can press charges against Sant for his paying homage to Hitchcock, as much of a failure as it was. My point is I think its interesting how plagiarism differs from literary community to film community. Dylan was paying homage to Elliot I think but because of the consequences of plagiarism in the literary community, he had to put into his own words what Eliot was saying.

Bob Dylan's style

Bob Dylan's style seems slightly reminiscent of the "speak-singing" quality of veteran actor, Rex Harrison. If anyone has seen My Fair Lady, Harrison doesn't sing outright, but rather raises or lower his pitch to the music. His means of singing is more like speaking in the background of music. Although Dylan's manner of singing is slightly more lyrical, he still maintains a "speak-singing" quality. According to the second part of the article, "Songs, Poems, and Rhymes", Dylan considers himself "a poet first and a musician second." He seems to undermine the importance of music to his song and is not particularly fastidious about what instrument is used and how it is conveyed. It seems like he simply uses what he has at his disposal simply because "[he'd] rather get something out of the song verbally and phonetically than depend on tonality of instruments." But I disagree. Music is immensely important because it sets the mood and feeling that the lyrics seeks to express. If there were no musical background, there would be no songs, only poems. But as mentioned before, Dylan considers himself first and foremost a poet. He relies on the literary aspect of music by having his listeners focus on the message in his lyrics rather than the background.