The last novel we studies in class was A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'engle. I was a bit surprised that so many of the literature theories and concepts we discussed we applicable to a children's novel. I think taking a course in children's literature would be really neat. I found the representation of femininity and womanhood in the novel particularly interesting. Our instructor referenced a paper titled Finding a Happy Medium: The Design for Womanhood in A Wrinkle in Time by Katherine Schneebaum, which I read over the weekend and found to be pretty controversial. Schneebaum argues that "The final message is that a girl becomes a woman only when she voluntarily takes on the role of moral leader and keeper of love, subordinating her other interests and capabilities to this one." I don't think that Meg set aside her other interests and the traits that made her unique aside when she became Charles Wallace's saviour. I'm also having a hard time understanding how this "moral saviour" concept is a characteristic of femininity. Yes, woman are traditionally seen as good and sweet and even submissive. But the act of saving someone through or in the name of love is, in my opinion, actually a very courageous and bold action. Love is not at all passive, as Schneebaum suggests. Love is a verb and to act because of love can be risky and even dangerous, as seen in A Wrinkle In Time.
- - -
Today we finished with a discussion of contemporary Freaks and Geeks. One such example, is Michael Jackson as a Celebrity Freak. I am kind of in awe with the celebrity he has created for himself. So many celebrities seem to be moreso "victimized" by their fame - they seek attention of any kind, but take little control over how exactly they want their image to be perceived. I found it fascinating to learn today that when MJ was just breaking out of the Jackson 5 and starting his solo career, he referred to PT Barnum's philosophies as Bible. Michael Jackson WANTED to become the greatest living Freakshow ever. RIP MJ
- - -
I have thoroughly enjoyed our Freaks and Geeks course - I was a bit apprehensive at first, but this short semester has turned out to be very eye-opening. The exposure has given me a new appreciation for ideas, lit theories and genres that I had never before considered. That's one thing I love about university undergrad - you have the opportunity to take courses in so many different disciplines. Even if you don't love a new subject, learning more about it will at least allow you to gain an appreciation for what others find so fascinating. I did love this course though, I can say I've been inspired to do more literature studies.
Thanks for a great semester, Veronique :-)
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
what does it mean to be human?
In the concluding chapters, Miss Emily claims belief in part of the objective of the Hailsham experiment: that it could be demonstrated that the students do possess souls. Yet, in the way she expresses pity towards Kathy and Tommy and disdain for their situation, it becomes apparent that she does not sincerely accept that the students are the same as she, that they are as human as she. The non-clones in Ishiguro’s Dystopian society view cloned humans as lesser beings, in some way lacking elements of real humanity. It is interesting how Ishiguro toys with this question, what does it mean to be human?
On one hand, Kathy’s narrative of her childhood allows the reader to relate to her character through the ‘coming of age’ story. The conversational tone especially is engaging and convincing of the idea that these students are perhaps like any other young people, experiencing the heart aches and pleasures of friendship and young love.
Yet on the other hand, upon realizing how the ‘rest of the world’ views these children, the reader’s perspective shifts. At least, as I read the concluding chapters I began recalling how many emotional and intellectual qualities seem absent in the students throughout the novel. It’s the questions don’t ask that make them seem like... something’s missing... For example, they never seem to question what their greater purpose is. Ruth states that her purpose is to donate and complete. But it is not at all convincing that she made a personal self-discovery regarding this purpose, rather she (and the other donors) hardly even questioned her fate. The donors, it seems, barely give thought to will happen to them, to their souls, after they die. I would have expected that in a place like a recovery centre where they are just waiting to complete, the topic of life after death would have been prominent.
We do see great desires of the characters to feel a need to relate to something that could in some way give them a purpose, relevance or meaning. This is evident in the importance of Kathy’s friendships, and their obsession with ‘possibles’. However, the relationships between Ruth and Tommy and Kathy just seem to lack real feelings of love and friendship. Kathy’s account of her friendship with Ruth is always so rational and calculated, and the attempt of couples “in love” trying to get deferrals seems so insincere and without passion.The propensities to try to ‘belong’ give the students the appearance of experiencing genuine emotion and deep desires, but upon reflection the realness of the children's humanity along with their school are made to look like a ‘sham’.
Ishiguro prompts the reader to consider what qualities make a person human, or deem them in possession of a soul. However I also think that Ishiguro is also making a statement about how making such a determination is extremely complicated. We, as readers, try to evaluate the clones based on what we think it might mean to possess a soul, but what would we find if we in turn evaluated ourselves with the same criteria? How often do we apathetically accept a pre-chosen path for us without exerting any measure of independence or defiance? Do we consider what may happen to us after we die? How many times, when we have questions, do we just avoid discussion or dismiss controversial ideas, just because it’s easier? How often do our relationships lack sincerity and meaning?
It is difficult to create a criteria of ‘what it means to be human’. I think the aspects I discussed above are only a very small part of it. Every person is different and may experience these ‘types’ of human experiences in varying amounts and with different intensities. There are all different kinds of existence that we are perhaps too ethnocentric to appreciate.
On one hand, Kathy’s narrative of her childhood allows the reader to relate to her character through the ‘coming of age’ story. The conversational tone especially is engaging and convincing of the idea that these students are perhaps like any other young people, experiencing the heart aches and pleasures of friendship and young love.
Yet on the other hand, upon realizing how the ‘rest of the world’ views these children, the reader’s perspective shifts. At least, as I read the concluding chapters I began recalling how many emotional and intellectual qualities seem absent in the students throughout the novel. It’s the questions don’t ask that make them seem like... something’s missing... For example, they never seem to question what their greater purpose is. Ruth states that her purpose is to donate and complete. But it is not at all convincing that she made a personal self-discovery regarding this purpose, rather she (and the other donors) hardly even questioned her fate. The donors, it seems, barely give thought to will happen to them, to their souls, after they die. I would have expected that in a place like a recovery centre where they are just waiting to complete, the topic of life after death would have been prominent.
We do see great desires of the characters to feel a need to relate to something that could in some way give them a purpose, relevance or meaning. This is evident in the importance of Kathy’s friendships, and their obsession with ‘possibles’. However, the relationships between Ruth and Tommy and Kathy just seem to lack real feelings of love and friendship. Kathy’s account of her friendship with Ruth is always so rational and calculated, and the attempt of couples “in love” trying to get deferrals seems so insincere and without passion.The propensities to try to ‘belong’ give the students the appearance of experiencing genuine emotion and deep desires, but upon reflection the realness of the children's humanity along with their school are made to look like a ‘sham’.
Ishiguro prompts the reader to consider what qualities make a person human, or deem them in possession of a soul. However I also think that Ishiguro is also making a statement about how making such a determination is extremely complicated. We, as readers, try to evaluate the clones based on what we think it might mean to possess a soul, but what would we find if we in turn evaluated ourselves with the same criteria? How often do we apathetically accept a pre-chosen path for us without exerting any measure of independence or defiance? Do we consider what may happen to us after we die? How many times, when we have questions, do we just avoid discussion or dismiss controversial ideas, just because it’s easier? How often do our relationships lack sincerity and meaning?
It is difficult to create a criteria of ‘what it means to be human’. I think the aspects I discussed above are only a very small part of it. Every person is different and may experience these ‘types’ of human experiences in varying amounts and with different intensities. There are all different kinds of existence that we are perhaps too ethnocentric to appreciate.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Freaks and Geeks in Pop Culture: Lady Gaga
Over the past week I’ve noticed some connections between Lady Gaga and many of the themes arising in two of the books we’ve read so far (Geek Love and Nights at the Circus). Lady Gaga attracts attention not only with her catchy pop music, but even more so with her outlandish costumes and dramatic performances in concert and in her music videos. In these and several other ways Lady Gaga brings an element of freakishness with her creativity, making her stand out from the average pop divas. I think Lady Gaga certainly may be considered a ‘celebrity freak’.
Here are some ties between the literature topics we’ve discussed in class and Lady Gaga:
The Deformed Female Body
Lady Gaga is famous for her bizarre outfits, many of which are revealing and make it seem as though she’s trying to sell her music by using her body... But the way she dresses is also provocative in the sense that she challenge the conventional female sex symbol image. Many of her outfits are disfiguring and make her look deformed. According to an interview with Lady Gaga, her explanation regarding her freakish image has to do with helping people who feel ‘othered’ relate to her:
Challenging Gender Boundaries
The rumors about her being a transvestite only further the perception of her as being physically freakish and challenge views of her as being just another pop diva. The way she dresses and dances is not necessarily feminine, and portrays an image that is more masculine and aggressive. Also, many of her lyrics either subvert the role of the classical pretty, gentle female and parody the role of the submissive helpless girlfriend in relationship with a man.
Lady Gaga as a Feminist?
I found two blog posts (part 1 and part 2) that offer a really comprehensive interpretation of Gaga’s lyrics, highlighting many of the feminist meanings in her songs. A couple examples: her lyrics repeatedly subvert the role of the female/girlfriend, and parody the way pop culture portrays the female as being a piece of a$$ and nothing more.
The Fame: Is she fact or is she fiction?
In interviews she presents herself as being outrageously self-centered and projects a largely inflated sense of self-importance. She is clearly obsessed with fame, yet her lyrics parody that very obsession shared by celebrities. And as is the case with so many celebrity figures, there is much speculation regarding every aspect of her life - from her shopping habits to her sexuality. The media and public eats up every detail about her because it loves to wonder about her and loves to ask the question: is she for real or is it all an act?
and lastly,
Performance and the Carnivalesque
Everything about her style, music, concerts, personality is a performance. Judith Bulter theories aside, if the rumors about her being a man are true then her gender is definitely a performance.
I also found this quote from Lady Gaga, which is absolutely reminiscent of the carnivaleque theory we discussed in class:
Here are some ties between the literature topics we’ve discussed in class and Lady Gaga:
The Deformed Female Body
Lady Gaga is famous for her bizarre outfits, many of which are revealing and make it seem as though she’s trying to sell her music by using her body... But the way she dresses is also provocative in the sense that she challenge the conventional female sex symbol image. Many of her outfits are disfiguring and make her look deformed. According to an interview with Lady Gaga, her explanation regarding her freakish image has to do with helping people who feel ‘othered’ relate to her:
I didn't fit in in high school, and I felt like a freak. So I like to create this atmosphere for my fans where they feel like they have a freak in me to hang out with, and they don't feel alone.
Challenging Gender Boundaries
The rumors about her being a transvestite only further the perception of her as being physically freakish and challenge views of her as being just another pop diva. The way she dresses and dances is not necessarily feminine, and portrays an image that is more masculine and aggressive. Also, many of her lyrics either subvert the role of the classical pretty, gentle female and parody the role of the submissive helpless girlfriend in relationship with a man.
Lady Gaga as a Feminist?
I found two blog posts (part 1 and part 2) that offer a really comprehensive interpretation of Gaga’s lyrics, highlighting many of the feminist meanings in her songs. A couple examples: her lyrics repeatedly subvert the role of the female/girlfriend, and parody the way pop culture portrays the female as being a piece of a$$ and nothing more.
The Fame: Is she fact or is she fiction?
In interviews she presents herself as being outrageously self-centered and projects a largely inflated sense of self-importance. She is clearly obsessed with fame, yet her lyrics parody that very obsession shared by celebrities. And as is the case with so many celebrity figures, there is much speculation regarding every aspect of her life - from her shopping habits to her sexuality. The media and public eats up every detail about her because it loves to wonder about her and loves to ask the question: is she for real or is it all an act?
and lastly,
Performance and the Carnivalesque
Everything about her style, music, concerts, personality is a performance. Judith Bulter theories aside, if the rumors about her being a man are true then her gender is definitely a performance.
I also found this quote from Lady Gaga, which is absolutely reminiscent of the carnivaleque theory we discussed in class:
I want to create a space for my fans where they can feel free, and they can celebrate.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The Power to Choose
A passage in Angela Carter’s Nights at the Circus that I found particularly interesting was the introduction to the clowns of Clown’s Alley in the ‘Petersburg’ section of the novel.
Buffo, the chief clown, makes a profound, yet ironic, statement: “And yet... we have possess one privilege, one rare privilege, that makes our outcast and disregarded state something wonderful, something precious. We can invent our own faces! We make ourselves!” (Carter 141).
I love the idea of “we make ourselves”. This freedom that Buffo is speaking of, the freedom to be who we want to be, is real and invaluable, especially in a nation like Canada where we experience great privilege and opportunity. We can choose who we become.
Yet, I would argue that Buffo’s statement about the freedom to create ones own self is ironic because he does not exercise that very freedom! True, he makes the choice to take on the persona of Buffo the Clown, but he even admits his constraints of his choics: “But, once the choice is made, I am condemned, therefore, to be ‘Buffo’ in perpetuity...” (Carter 141). Buffo’s choice to play the role of the clown limits him to only that predefined identity. He further admits that without his clown mask, there is no substance or depth to his own real character. “And what am I without my Buffo's face? Why, nobody at all. Take away my make-up and underneath is merely not-Buffo. An absence. A vacancy” (Carter 142). He plays a character, but has no character.
In class we talked about how our society is obsessed with a ‘pilgrimage to perfection’ - we know how we want to look and what we want to achieve. Though I often wonder if many people give enough thought to how they want their character to develop. We have control over the personal qualities we develop: the inherent qualities we already possess and magnify, or ones we strive to acquire. For example, I believe there is great power in recognizing we can overcome natural weaknesses like impatience, laziness, pridefulness, vanity, selfishness, the list goes on. I suppose not everyone may consider these traits to be less desirable... but as there so many factors that can affect our identity that it seems we have so little control over (traditional gender roles in society, as highlighted in Nights at the Circus is one such influencing factor), we need to take ownership of the things we can control, such as the personal traits and qualities that comprise our character.
Nights at the Circus touches on the concept of self-discovery and finding a comfortable sense of self. I would suggest that in being true to oneself is more that just accepting ‘I was made this way’. I think it involved becoming the person you want to be, based on your own set of values. It’s exercising your power to change, not to conform or to satisfy the expectations of others, but to become the kind of person you want to be.
Buffo, the chief clown, makes a profound, yet ironic, statement: “And yet... we have possess one privilege, one rare privilege, that makes our outcast and disregarded state something wonderful, something precious. We can invent our own faces! We make ourselves!” (Carter 141).
I love the idea of “we make ourselves”. This freedom that Buffo is speaking of, the freedom to be who we want to be, is real and invaluable, especially in a nation like Canada where we experience great privilege and opportunity. We can choose who we become.
Yet, I would argue that Buffo’s statement about the freedom to create ones own self is ironic because he does not exercise that very freedom! True, he makes the choice to take on the persona of Buffo the Clown, but he even admits his constraints of his choics: “But, once the choice is made, I am condemned, therefore, to be ‘Buffo’ in perpetuity...” (Carter 141). Buffo’s choice to play the role of the clown limits him to only that predefined identity. He further admits that without his clown mask, there is no substance or depth to his own real character. “And what am I without my Buffo's face? Why, nobody at all. Take away my make-up and underneath is merely not-Buffo. An absence. A vacancy” (Carter 142). He plays a character, but has no character.
In class we talked about how our society is obsessed with a ‘pilgrimage to perfection’ - we know how we want to look and what we want to achieve. Though I often wonder if many people give enough thought to how they want their character to develop. We have control over the personal qualities we develop: the inherent qualities we already possess and magnify, or ones we strive to acquire. For example, I believe there is great power in recognizing we can overcome natural weaknesses like impatience, laziness, pridefulness, vanity, selfishness, the list goes on. I suppose not everyone may consider these traits to be less desirable... but as there so many factors that can affect our identity that it seems we have so little control over (traditional gender roles in society, as highlighted in Nights at the Circus is one such influencing factor), we need to take ownership of the things we can control, such as the personal traits and qualities that comprise our character.
Nights at the Circus touches on the concept of self-discovery and finding a comfortable sense of self. I would suggest that in being true to oneself is more that just accepting ‘I was made this way’. I think it involved becoming the person you want to be, based on your own set of values. It’s exercising your power to change, not to conform or to satisfy the expectations of others, but to become the kind of person you want to be.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Where is the Geek Love?
Welcome to my blog!
First off –
I have a science background and, honestly, I am perfectly comfortable writing about genetic mutation, comparative anatomy, and the effects of toxic drugs on fetal organ development …from a biological perspective. I don’t know how I’ve waited this long in my post-secondary studies to enroll in a Humanities course, but until this week I was a university English class virgin. (The only junior level English course I’ve taken was by correspondence through Athabasca University.) That being said, the ENGL 387 classroom this spring has thus far been a somewhat daunting and eye-opening environment for me. Responding formally to the evidently non-scientific literature on our reading list will prove to be an intense yet welcome challenge for me.
I’m not sure if I intended this introduction/confession to be a disclaimer of what will follow in my blog, or simply to let any readers know where I’m coming from. Either way, the stage is set. It is time to dive in and rip the head off this live chicken.
Reading Katherine Dunn’s Geek Love was an eye-opening experience in itself. I admit it was difficult to get through the first three chapters: I was turned off by the vulgar language and the crude details, almost resenting the fact that I agreed to complete the reading and study of the novel when I signed up for the course. This stylistic element of Geek Love was peculiar to me (in the sense that I don’t often expose my delicate mind to such obscenities), repulsing at first, but intriguing enough to keep me turning the page for another peek. It was as if I felt some kind of sick fascination with the novel, similar to the way a freak show attracts paying customers to behold exceptional grotesqueness. Geek Love was a literary freak show and I was paying to not only privately read the spectacle, but to participate in a classroom dissection of the material. Yuck?
A theme in Geek Love that I pondered as I read was that of Love, particularly how love is a motivating force for many the characters. The novel completely defied my expectations rising in the first chapter that Geek Love is a charming tale of how a bizarre family of freaks were blended and united by their love for each other. The Binewski family characters proved to be very complex, and though love was indeed a motivator for many of their behaviors, it certainly wasn’t the quaint Family Matters-type love I was expecting.
Oly loves Arty, in a doting obsessive possessive way. Her obsession and devotion to Arty is increasingly evident throughout the novel. She plainly expresses her love in the narrative as explanation for her actions – for example, why she wanted to father a child for Arty. Interestingly, in a letter to Miranda, Oly claims otherwise: “Dear daughter, I won’t try to call my feeling for Arty love. Call it focus.” (page 315) as if she is ashamed at her love and obsession – she knows it seems irrational for her to love a man, her brother, who so spitefully used her and others. Oly isn’t content with herself, so she focuses her attention outward, specifically on Arty. His need of her allows her to feel secure and that she has worth. I think in that sense she loves him because he gives her purpose. Later in Oly’s life that focus and purpose is shifted to stalking her daughter Miranda.
Arty’s selfish and dominating acts throughout the novel, from control of his siblings’ love lives to the dictatorship of his cult-like admirers, appear to be driven from a love of his own self. Or perhaps more accurately, a lack of love for himself. That is, Arty appears to experience great insecurity. His insecurity may stem from the lack of control he has over his own body (having no dexterity, he is reduced to having others wait on him and transport him). This leads him to compensate by using the psychological manipulative power he possesses in order to “kick ass by remote control” (page 244).
Chick, on the other hand, seems to be motivated by pure selfless love for others. Throughout the novel he performs acts of servitude for his siblings, with little regard to his own desires. Chick is portrayed as innocent and weak, yet he is not ignorant of the enormous power he possesses. He chooses to control his power and use if for the service of others and not for his own benefit. Chick chooses to commit to servitude at the expense of his own autonomy because he loves his siblings.
Dunn’s characters in Geek Love portray an array of varying representations of how a love for self, others, objects and ideals can motivate a person to act boldly or not at all.
First off –
I have a science background and, honestly, I am perfectly comfortable writing about genetic mutation, comparative anatomy, and the effects of toxic drugs on fetal organ development …from a biological perspective. I don’t know how I’ve waited this long in my post-secondary studies to enroll in a Humanities course, but until this week I was a university English class virgin. (The only junior level English course I’ve taken was by correspondence through Athabasca University.) That being said, the ENGL 387 classroom this spring has thus far been a somewhat daunting and eye-opening environment for me. Responding formally to the evidently non-scientific literature on our reading list will prove to be an intense yet welcome challenge for me.
I’m not sure if I intended this introduction/confession to be a disclaimer of what will follow in my blog, or simply to let any readers know where I’m coming from. Either way, the stage is set. It is time to dive in and rip the head off this live chicken.
Reading Katherine Dunn’s Geek Love was an eye-opening experience in itself. I admit it was difficult to get through the first three chapters: I was turned off by the vulgar language and the crude details, almost resenting the fact that I agreed to complete the reading and study of the novel when I signed up for the course. This stylistic element of Geek Love was peculiar to me (in the sense that I don’t often expose my delicate mind to such obscenities), repulsing at first, but intriguing enough to keep me turning the page for another peek. It was as if I felt some kind of sick fascination with the novel, similar to the way a freak show attracts paying customers to behold exceptional grotesqueness. Geek Love was a literary freak show and I was paying to not only privately read the spectacle, but to participate in a classroom dissection of the material. Yuck?
A theme in Geek Love that I pondered as I read was that of Love, particularly how love is a motivating force for many the characters. The novel completely defied my expectations rising in the first chapter that Geek Love is a charming tale of how a bizarre family of freaks were blended and united by their love for each other. The Binewski family characters proved to be very complex, and though love was indeed a motivator for many of their behaviors, it certainly wasn’t the quaint Family Matters-type love I was expecting.
Oly loves Arty, in a doting obsessive possessive way. Her obsession and devotion to Arty is increasingly evident throughout the novel. She plainly expresses her love in the narrative as explanation for her actions – for example, why she wanted to father a child for Arty. Interestingly, in a letter to Miranda, Oly claims otherwise: “Dear daughter, I won’t try to call my feeling for Arty love. Call it focus.” (page 315) as if she is ashamed at her love and obsession – she knows it seems irrational for her to love a man, her brother, who so spitefully used her and others. Oly isn’t content with herself, so she focuses her attention outward, specifically on Arty. His need of her allows her to feel secure and that she has worth. I think in that sense she loves him because he gives her purpose. Later in Oly’s life that focus and purpose is shifted to stalking her daughter Miranda.
Arty’s selfish and dominating acts throughout the novel, from control of his siblings’ love lives to the dictatorship of his cult-like admirers, appear to be driven from a love of his own self. Or perhaps more accurately, a lack of love for himself. That is, Arty appears to experience great insecurity. His insecurity may stem from the lack of control he has over his own body (having no dexterity, he is reduced to having others wait on him and transport him). This leads him to compensate by using the psychological manipulative power he possesses in order to “kick ass by remote control” (page 244).
Chick, on the other hand, seems to be motivated by pure selfless love for others. Throughout the novel he performs acts of servitude for his siblings, with little regard to his own desires. Chick is portrayed as innocent and weak, yet he is not ignorant of the enormous power he possesses. He chooses to control his power and use if for the service of others and not for his own benefit. Chick chooses to commit to servitude at the expense of his own autonomy because he loves his siblings.
Dunn’s characters in Geek Love portray an array of varying representations of how a love for self, others, objects and ideals can motivate a person to act boldly or not at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)