Eyes of the World

Reflective Essay

2009-08-19T15:28:00.009-04:00

August 7^th, 2009. She had blue on, and I was feeling a bit blue about surfacing issues within myself surrounding Infinite Jest. Over one hundred pages a day had created Gately-like dreams. “One dream consists only of the color blue, too vivid, like the blue of a pool” (934). I was awake this afternoon. The sky was a vibrant blue as I drove and she read pages 348-380. It was the first time I felt the book's words transcending outside of myself. My head constantly down, reading, buried in my own head was my only memory thus far. I heard her read, “You are not unique, they’ll say: this initial hopelessness unites every soul in this broad cold salad-bar’d hall. They are like Hindenburg-survivors. Every meeting is a reunion, once you’ve been in for awhile” (349). This statement made me start to examine AA’s role in this book. I wrote in my seventh blog post:

We are all lonely inside our own heads. This novel is partly about examining the self, our own pleasures and how we fulfill them, and the need for a connection with another human being. Which, I think Wallace would believe to be nearly impossible since we never truly can or will show our whole selves to another individual. What we show to each person is specifically modified in a way to deal with the situation/person.

Secondly, was that part of what Wallace was trying to accomplish? He consciously showed us bits and pieces from different character’s lives because we can never truly know the whole person. We are left to infer and try to relate the best we can because that’s what real life is.

AA takes away that loneliness—that void that was filled by addiction. AA wants you to think that you are not unique—there are other people that have traveled down the same road as you. The grotesque story that is retold by the girl that "Can’t Keep it Simple" is a reminder that people, not just in AA, are told not to judge, but when given too much information it’s hard not to analyze that person based on our own experiences. All the slogans in the world can never get you out of your own head. Hence why AA wants you to keep it simple and why E.T.A. only wants you to think certain ways. Too much thinking might make individuals, and if that happened where would institutions like E.T.A and AA be?

I’m a product of both of these institutions. I’ve had the Latin insignia, Esse Quam Videri, inscribed on the lapel of my sports jacket. I’ve felt alone practicing and studying so hard to accomplish goals the institution regarded as vital for my development. Then something changed, maybe I was desperate to connect with someone outside my own head, or maybe I was willing to show a potential friend a side of myself I’d never showed anyone else, or possibly I just wanted to try and feel alive. As she read I related.

Substances start out being so magically great, so much the interior jigsaw’s missing piece, that at the start you just know, deep in your gut, that they’ll never let you down; you just know it. But they do. And then this goofy slapdash anarchic system of low-rent gatherings and corny slogans and saccharin grins and hideous coffee is so lame you just know there’s no way it could ever possibly work except for the utterest morons…and then Gately seems to find out AA turns out to be the very loyal friend he thought he’d had and then lost, when you Came in. (350)

After awhile you realize you’re right back where you started—Inside yourself again, just showing a different side of yourself to a different set of people. For me I realized what Sven Birkets said in his article regarding the two main protagonists in IJ. Birkets refers to the novel as a “postmodern saga of damnation and salvation” (Birkets 107). As she read I realized it’s up to me how much I show a certain person, and hopefully she’ll know me through my openness and similar experiences we’ve had in the world. “You personal will is the web your Disease sits and spins in, still” (357). It’s just a matter of how stuck you let yourself get, and whether you feel a need to be damned or saved--by yourself.

You see, doll I got ya' all figured out. Ya' think the veil tells the world somethin' about you? All that thing does is hide ya', keep ya' concealed from the world.

The convoluted plot-line, violence, the femme-fatale characters in Joelle and Avril, and the mise-en-scene elements in IJ make this book similar to such Film Noir greats as Out of the Past, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, (Important to note because the main character is stuck inside his own mind) and The Maltese Falcon. I think Film Noir movies are the reasons why I like the confusing aspects of IJ. I was interested in how all the plot points would tie together, as most Film Noir movies do. Like IJ, most Film Noir movies make you infer meaning. I started thinking about this connection through the character of Joelle V./Madam Psychosis. The Maltese Falcon also portrays a woman with multiple identities. At first we meet Miss Wanderly, who only goes by an alias to protect herself and her true motive of crime. We find out later her real name is Brigid O’Shaughnessy. I was excited reading IJ because DFW had to have been a Film Noir fan/critic. The way the author describes the works of Himself are straight from the French term, which is translated as “putting on stage.” Mise en scene encompasses everything Himself was attempting to do with sets, props, actors, costumes, and lighting. I’m thinking specifically of, Dial C for Concupiscence, which seems to be a Film Noir-ish title in its own right. The plot is elaborate, it’s shot in black and white, and contains a femme fatale type character that falls in love with an armless medical attaché.

Joelle is the perfect example of a classic femme fatale character, which drew me to her. Her veil, which partially represents her awkwardness in society is something each person deals with, and allowed me to relate to her as a character. It made me think of the different masks I wear when at class, home, or work. Each mask has been created to deal with the appropriate situation.

Blue is the color of the sky. Blue is an adjective used to describe sadness. Our society tends to associate blue with depression, the sky, and music also. Blue. The references to this color in IJ are many. Have you ever read or heard a new word and then after that point you hear and see the word everywhere? This is how I felt about the word, blue in this book. I don't know when I first noticed the seemingly overused word in IJ, but I found myself underlining blue every time I saw it. I begin to think DFW inserted the word on purpose. I believe his reasoning is linked with the self I eluded to in my first few paragraphs. We see the sky as blue. We're told from an early age it's blue. However, that's what we see and have been told. The more DFW used the word I begin to think of its correlation to depression as well. Many characters have a hard time expressing how they actually feel in this book, and that is directly related to specific individual's definition of what it means to feel, blue. DFW's book, and his constant blue references made me think how I would describe depression, or the sky to a person who had never seen it. Blue would mean nothing to this person, and I think that's one of the reasons DFW uses the reference so much. Most of what we know is a creation of our own mind and the mind's of others. What use is the description, "...even the whites of his eyes finally turning the blue of the bayou" (886) if one doesn't have a reference to the color blue.

I question DFW's motives with the use of many words in this book because he seemed to be a bit of a "word nerd." Pg. 508 lists items in CT's office that are blue. I believe DFW uses the color specifically in CT's office. The narrator tells us, "Dr. Charles Tavis liked to say you could tell a lot about an administrator by the decor of his waiting room" (509). We also get Hal's reaction through the narrator. "Hal loathes sky-and-cloud wallpaper because it makes him feel high altitude and disoriented and sometimes plummeting" (509). I'm still ruminating on why Hal finds the office discomforting. I know for me I have always felt the color blue to have a calming effect. That's why I think it would reveal more about Hal as a character if this section was dissected. I feel like it tells the reader a little about his uncomfortable feelings towards self, and his relationship with CT and the rest of his family.

For me, these three experiences made me look outside the pages of the book. They made me look at myself, my relationship to the world and the people around me, and what I find to be entertaining and pertinent. I enjoyed the different avenues I found into this book. I believe those avenues are what made a dense book accessible.

Work Cited:

Birkets, Sven. "The Alchemist's Retort: A Multi-Layered Postmodern Saga of Damnation and Salvation." The Atlantic Monthly;February 1996; Volume 277, No. 2; pages 106-113.

Wallace, David Foster.Infinite Jest.New York: Back Bay Books, 1996.

WiKi Enteries:

Laughing with Kafka:

http://ijstrose.wetpaint.com/page/Laughing+with+Kafka

The Alchemist’s Retort: Multi-layered Postmodern Sag of Damnation and Salvation:

http://ijstrose.wetpaint.com/page/The+Alchemist%27s+Retort

Stub:

http://ijstrose.wetpaint.com/page/AA

Thread Location: (I feel a little cheated by the 2000 word count)

http://ijstrose.wetpaint.com/thread/3203288/A+Bad+Rap

2009-08-18T15:12:00.001-04:00

This book made me wish I was more of a lot of things: Shakespearean, “word nerd” to quote Scott Waldman from Times Union, and mathematician to name a few. With the Hamlet references I thought it fitting to quote Shakespeare himself.

O, beware, my lord, of jealousy!

It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock

The meat it feeds on. (Othello, Act 3 Scene 3)

I suppose in this book the green-eyed monster would be changed to the blue-eyed monster. In IJ the blue-eyed monster would be addiction. “Then after five or six seconds the Dilaudid would cross over and kick, and the sky stopped breathing and turned blue” (915). Not that I am jealous of the addiction in this book, more David Foster Wallace himself. Jealously, envious, covetous, whatever your adjective might be, I’m enamored by the fact DFW wrote this seemingly masterpiece before he was thirty-five. For an author who seemed to be a natural at writing non-fiction this is quite an accomplishment. Does IJ have its weaknesses? In my opinion, yes. Structure, narration, and drawn out monologues to name a few. Despite my frustrations this book has made me think more than any other book has in some time. At some point I will pick IJ up again and try to unravel some of my own theories.

Wallace, in his commencement speech to the class of 2005 at Kenyon College, said, "the old cliché about quote the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master . . . It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger." (Newsweek, Sept. 14. http://www.newsweek.com/id/158935) Wallace had commented on not being able to get out of his own head, and I believe IJ is a reflection on both of the comments above. First, we are all lonely inside our own heads. This novel is partly about examining the self, our own pleasures and how we fulfill them, and the need for a connection with another human being. Which, I think Wallace would believe to be nearly impossible since we never truly can or will show our whole selves to another individual. What we show to each person is specifically modified in a way to deal with the situation/person.

DFW # 6

2009-08-16T13:06:00.003-04:00

I have issues with this book. Why? Is it that I’m more familiar with the non-fiction work of DFW? Is it that I too have been conditioned in a literary sense and need a narrative style that has a definitive beginning and end? Is it that I find parts of IJ gimmicky and drawn out? My own questions have led me to ponder DFW’s literary footprint. This post is a rant of sorts, and definitely asks more questions than it answers. (Notice my own gimmicky outline.)

Why do we need back-story after back-story in the last 500 pages? What does DFW’s examination of the past and characters add to this book? Is it that I was asked to read this book in three weeks, and I became more annoyed with these attempts at literary perfection instead of finding the overall meaning in the novel? I keep thinking DFW was trying to write the perfect novel. Why else give us back-story upon back-story about characters that don’t seem to have any real importance. Is it that he did not want us to question anything, while at the same time leaving the reader questioning everything as far as how it all relates to each other by the close of the novel? I enjoyed some of the Hal and Gately back-story, as I feel it brings these two characters closer. (I’m still thinking about all the ways DFW does this and his reasons for doing so.) Seriously, how much back-story do we really need about characters like Fackelmann and Ewell? Do we need the entire Gately drug story? I could infer the guys got problems by his attendance at AA meetings. I don’t think DFW gives enough credit to the reader. He should have listened to his editor and cut a lot of this.
What, if anything, do some of these writing techniques add to this novel? In my opinion not a whole hell of a lot. Other than the fact that DFW seems to love footnotes what’s the point? He could accomplish everything the footnotes seem to accomplish inside the pages of the novel. Again, he gives the reader no room for imagination. If I want to know what all these drug references are I could look them up. I don’t need to be told, in a footnote nonetheless, what Ketorolac and Numorphan are. In the end who cares? The longer footnotes would have been more beneficial inside the text. The flipping back and forth brought me out of the story.

I feel he adds the dictionary-obsessed portion of Hal’s character so that he can show off. I get it, you’re really smart! (Okay, I'm grumpy. The wooden-like character of Hal in the beginning of the story is supported by his memorization of something as impersonal and academic as the dictionary.)
All the acronyms, really? I’m now part of the A.A.A.A. [1]

I don’t get any sense of closure. DFW raises issues in the last 500 pgs. I have my own theories of how each character is interrelated, but at this point I feel the book fails. Again, he gives us so much information only to leave us hanging. If you want me to infer meaning don’t give me so much extraneous information. The constant definitions of what constitutes a blizzard started a slight tic on my right side.

I liked the death theme that reoccurs. (898) The idea that, “Death says that this certain women that kills you is always your next life’s mother,” draws Gately and Hal together. (850) Both characters deal with motherly issues, addiction issues, and self. Is it a coincidence it's The Darkness that pulls Hal from his slumber. In the form of dreams, Gately’s visits from wraith, and realization of self.
The realization of self appears in the character of Hal. He finally begins to question life outside of himself. I believe this explains the switch from a narrative perspective of Hal to I. We actually see Hal leave E.T.A. and examine his family dynamic.
The lying theme. Ewells’ confession about stealing. (813) Many characters seem to confess to a character, Gately, that cannot respond. Hal questioning everything, including Orin as a pathological liar. (784, 785) Hal finally shows real emotion! Hal says on 774, “I think at seventeen now I believe the only real monsters might be the type of liar where there’s simply no way to tell. The ones who give nothing away” (774). Hal is finally questioning a life away from tennis and E.T.A.
All the dreams in the last 500 pgs.(846, 830, 933. etc.)

[1] It’s annoying, right? American Association Against Acronyms.

2009-08-12T11:17:00.001-04:00

After reading the blog posts last night while searching the two Wiki sites confirmed my feelings about DFW and his intense fetish with the English language. His essay, Authority and American Usage originally titled, Tense Present: Democracy, English and the Wars Over Usage was published in Harper’s magazine and dissects the origin of snootiness. Wallace states the word snoot originated in his family as a:

…nickname a clef for a really extreme usage fanatic, the sort of person whose idea of Sunday fun is to look for mistakes in Safire’s column’s prose itself. This reviewer’s family is roughly 70 percent SNOOT, which term itself derives from an acronym, with the big historical family joke being that whether S.N.O.O.T stood for “Sprachgefuhl Necessitates Our Ongoing Tendance” or “Syntax Nudniks of Our Time” depended on whether or not you were one. (Harper’s 41)

That’s why I’m a bit miffed by some of the choices DFW makes in IJ. DFW continues with his snootiness on page 631 where Avril corrects the milk sign in the kitchen. “The sign used to say MILK IS FILLING, DRINK WHAT YOU TAKE. Until the comma was semicolonized by the insertion of a blue dot by a fairly obvious person (631). The two scenes in which black characters have dialogue are strangely similar even though the two characters are different and are in different situations in the book. I have to assume DFW has a reason for doing this and it’s not some sub-conscience racism on his part. From the dialogue on page 506 the reader understands Roy to be from a lower socio-economic class. My problem is not that he uses it dialect, but that we don’t see white characters with specific Bostonian accents/dialogue. From the speech of his white characters I can’t decipher the socio-economic class they belong to, while it’s obvious with his black characters.

I started questioning DFW’s motive when I noticed certain subtle lines in the book that seemed bigoted/stereotypical. This leads me to believe DFW wants to push on this issue the same way he questions entertainment or addiction in this book. Specific examples include, but are not limited to:

“It’s like impossible to ever spot a Chinese woman on a Boston street that’s under sixty or over 1.5 m. or not carrying a shopping bag, except never more than one bag” (578).
Inman Square, too, is someplace Gately rarely goes anymore, because it’s in Cambridge’s Little Lisbon, heavily Portuguese, which means also Brazilians in the antiquated bellbottoms and flare-collared leisure suits they’ve never let go of, and where there are disco-ized Brazilians can cocaine and narcotics ever be far away” (479).
“He smokes menthols. He’d switched to menthols at four months clean because he couldn’t stand them and the only people he knew that smoked them were Niggers and he’d figured that if menthols were the only gaspers he let himself smoke he’d be more likely to quit” (478).
“Like most Germans outside popular entertainment, he gets quieter when he wants to impress or menace. (There are very few shrill Germans, actually.) (460)

It seems like an omniscient narrator makes these statements. I might understand these strange insertions if they were part of character development, but they seem random and all encompassing.

Work cited:

Wallace, David Foster. Harper’s Magazine. April 2001. Pgs. 39-58.

Is Hal Pre- Conditioned

2009-08-11T09:23:00.000-04:00

For somebody who not only lives on the same institutional grounds as his family but also has his training and education and pretty much his whole overall raison-d’etre directly overseen by relatives, Hal devotes an unusually small part of his brain and time ever thinking about people in his family qua family members. (515-516)

Has Hal’s reason to be, his raison-d’etre, been conditioned much the same way the viewers of the four major networks had been conditioned by advertising? It’s not surprising Hal notes all of this on page 412. Does his infected tooth act as a metaphor for this family conditioning? If he were some how able to deal with the tooth he would be able to approach his family dynamic differently. (All of his family relationships are somehow strained. He doesn’t seem to know how to interact on a human level with members of his family.) The pain in his tooth leaves Hal, “…sinking, emotionally, into a kind of distracted funk” (411).

I’ve been trying to figure out where, WINTER, B.S. 1963, SEPULVEDA, CA fits into the rest of the story, and this excuse for a theory is all I got. Jim’s dad continuously wears his commercial studio costume throughout this scene. Jim reflects on his own relationship with his father through this costume. He’s unable to recognize the death of his father because he’s just a character, an actor in his life. What resonated the most to me in this scene was his father’s costume. (The wig, the white boots, the makeup.)

Hal’s’ relationship with his parents had been pre-conditioned by his father’s relationship with his parents. Hal deals with the suicide of his father much the same way Jim deals with the death of his. Both seem unable to accept/process the event as real. Hal has this toothache that wakes him from his slumber, his marijuana thinking. Jim deals with a constant squeaking in his household, from his own bed and his parents, that he seems to have accepted and almost enjoy. Jim, speaking of his squeaky bed says, “ Actually, I think I kind of like it. I think I’ve gradually gotten so used to it that it’s become almost comforting” (498). The squeaking bed has replaced parental consoling. Hal’s tooth is a reminder he must actually deal with issues outside of E.T.A even if those issues are inside the institution. (i.e. family relationships, and his father’s suicide.) The squeaking is not the only theme to repeat in this section. We get a lot about rodents as well. Specifically, the squeaking of the bed reminds Jim’s father of rodents. The question was raised last night: Are all these animal/insect references random, or are they specific metaphors?

The organic chemistry reference at the end of this section has to fit in somehow, but I’m not quite sure how. It’s also interesting to note the relationship both Jim and Hal have with their mothers. Jim’s mom is present throughout the entire scene, but speaks only once. This conditioned behavior goes back to the ideas we discussed earlier about the father/son dynamic in this book.

Poor, Poor Tony

2009-08-06T16:50:00.001-04:00

Insects have been used in literature dating back to cave drawings where scientists have found what looks to be honey combs carved on cave walls. Franz Kafka, who Wallace references twice thus far, wrote The Metamorphosis where a man actually turns into a bug. (I will reflect on this more in the WiKi.) Homer used insects to enforce imagery, and Tripp Howell wrote an epic poem entitled, “The Metaphysics of Ants.” Insects have been used throughout literature to represent emotion, they have been used as metaphors, and even characters. Dylan Thomas wrote a poem entitled, “To-Day, This Insect.” In this poem he continues the literary tradition, as Paula Maria Rodriquez Gomez points out in her essay entitled, Dylan Thomas’s Animal Symbology in Celtic Tradition: The Inner Voice of a Poet, “… as an announcer of approaching death and as a conveyor of souls into the Otherworld (Gomez 88). I believe DFW is continuing this tradition with his use of spiders, beetles, cockroaches, and ants. The “militaristic red Southern-U.S. ants that build hideous tall boiling hills” (302) begin to carry Poor Tony metaphorically away piece by piece. In the past ants have been metaphors for a working society. A “working society” cannot function to its greatest capacity with a character like Poor Tony with his flamboyant boa, homosexual tendencies, and drug-using ways. (A capitalist society tends to frown upon these things.) The ants began to dissect his body and soul, carrying him into the Underworld. The ants act as a cleansing mechanism for society. Eventually the ants bombard Poor Tony, “…each vile gleaming ant wanted a minuscule little portion of Poor Tony’s flesh in compensation as it helped bear time slowly forward down the corridor of true Withdrawal” (303).

Ants rely on each other to survive. Each does their part to make sure the rest of the community thrives. At this stage in the book Poor Tony has lost his friends, his community. He has been ostracized—he’s alone. He is no longer welcome in any part of the community.

Ted Hughes, the modernist poet most well known for using animal symbols is quoted in a radio talk saying, “At about fifteen my life grew more complicated and my attitude towards animals changed. I accused myself of disturbing their lives” (Tunnicliffe. Poetry Experience. Pg. 47). Poor Tony is “disturbing” the lives of the ants. He’s now in their world, being carried into decomposition. Is it coincidence DFW chooses the red Southern-U.S. ant? I don’t think so. It seems to me he’s describing the fire ant that has infested areas of the U.S. The fire ant, with it’s “…hideous tall boiling hills” (302) made its way to the U.S. from S.A. Is it coincidence a foreign species takes over Poor Tony, a foreign species to the rest of society himself?

I would like to go back and look specifically at the scenes involving the beetle, cockroach, and spider, and see if some correlation can be made throughout literary history. Dylan Thomas made a career out of the bird as a metaphor. Can anyone think of a poet or author that has done the same with insects?

2009-08-05T13:22:00.000-04:00

I recently attended a four day music festival, and while a separate section of the park was designated, “family camping” I saw a few things that made me think of the habits and quirks we inherit from our parents. In retrospect I’m contemplating Beth’s question of substance abuse, and Randy’s muse on parental responsibility and inheritance.

Special K (Ketamine hydrochloride)

www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/ketamine.php In large quantities users can fall into a “K-hole” where it’s difficult to move and interact with others. As I sat listening to music, close to the “family camping” area I witnessed two little boys playing on some rocks that careened down about ten feet into Long Island Sound. One of the boys was named, River. I heard his name, at first indistinguishable, from a spot just out of my view. I leaned forward and saw three figures lying on the ground. Occasionally they would lean to the side, or attempt to sit all the way up. When I walked over they were quick to offer some K to me, as River came dangerously closer to the Sound.

What do we inherit? Will River be more apt to try drugs because he witnessed potential role models fill their nose cavities with the white substance? Do parents that use give birth to users? Do two athletically inclined people give birth to a genetically advantaged athlete? I’m not sure, but I do know learned behavior is very powerful. My first beer was the same kind I saw my dad drinking growing up. The father to son dynamic is an interesting one because I know I wanted my own father to be proud of me. I played baseball and basketball because I enjoyed them, but also because they were his favorite sports as a kid. Would I have continued with competitive sports if I had heard my father say, “Yes, But He’ll Never Be Great” (166)? Every time I was injured I heard his words inside my head. “If it’s not broken and bleeding get up.”

Are we all powerless? Powerless against some form of addiction whether it be drugs, sports, cleaning, or eating because it all, “…gets learned and passed on” (157). Even before we know we’ve learned a certain behavior we’ve been conditioned to think and act a certain way. So, is there no such thing as pure potential, even at birth?

Switching Gears a Bit: I was re-reading certain parts of this book and I found a relevant definition within Wallace’s six plus page rant on substance abuse and addiction.

“That a little-mentioned paradox of Substance addiction is: that once you are sufficiently enslaved by a Substance to need to quit the Substance in order to save your life, the enslaving Substance has become so deeply important to you that you will all but lose your mind when it is taken away from you” (201).

“That most Substance-addicted people are also addicted to thinking, meaning they have a compulsive and unhealthy relationship with their own thinking” (203).

2009-08-04T09:05:00.001-04:00

What strikes me so vehemently about Wallace’s writing is his attention to detail. Personally, I get lost in his description and the extraneous minutiae he seems to complete with ease. I have found myself re-reading the sections about Ken and Orin. Each is a close examination of one’s life through the lens of a character examining a bug. I began to think of the shift of perspective in each of these sections. (Also the shift in perspective with each character that seems to be addicted to a process more than a substance.) How much is Wallace revealing about his own life? How much do these sections reveal about Orin and Ken? Both characters are in high-pressure situations. (What’s a more high- pressure situation in the game of football than a kicker?) Is it coincidence Wallace chooses an insect that, “was dark and had a shiny case?” Erdedy retreats into his “pot cave” much the same way this bug, which to me resemble some type of beetle, retreats to the safety of the steel shelf. Erdedy, “was afraid that if he came closer and saw it closer he would kill it, and he was afraid to kill it” (17). His fear to kill the insect is much like his fear to kill the addiction/process that runs his life.

Orin deals with asphyxiated roaches on his bathroom floor. Again, an insect with a hard exterior that retreats from view is an indication of the personal issues Orin faces. He feels trapped and suffocated by the heat of Arizona and by the pressures of the game and family. Both characters show fear throw the insect. Ken through his direct fear of killing the beetle, and Orin though the nightmarish urban legend he retells regarding the flying roaches. (45).

Sean talked a bit about pg 107. Much like Schitt’s examination of life through the game of tennis, we see Wallace’s philosophical background again on pg. 107. Tennis and love become metaphors for something larger. (I’m still thinking about parallel/ juxtaposition between the two—if one exists at all.) I agree with Sean when he said Marathe’s comments regarding fanaticism seem to speak to a larger theme of the novel. What that theme is at this point is still manifesting itself in my mind. However, I keep coming back to the author’s philosophical background. Again, (I’m a bit obsessed with this) I see a correlation between Wallace, Yeats’ gyres, and Sierpinski’s triangle. Each is mathematically quantified, but also rooted in philosophy, spirituality to a degree and consciousness. I have included a basic link regarding Yeats’ ideas. http://www.crystalinks.com/gyresyeats.html

2009-01-25T14:16:00.004-05:00

I found one review regarding Gallie's, Philosophy and the Historical Understanding, and another great link on Judith Butler's Performative Acts and gender within our society.

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts.

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/33/1/75

http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai?poMoSeminar/Readings?BtlrPerfActs.pdf

At My Windowsill

2008-06-11T21:11:00.002-04:00

At My Windowsill

You alluded to touch; I fell hands first
Scorched by venomous lashes of flickering tongues
Pistons pump and thrust as minds intermingle like brackish waters
Fluids spewed upon body’s shore

Contorted together; interlaced strings
Feelings abandoned on the road piled high with debris
Again, familiar fragrances engrained on my skin
Deep in the labyrinth of my mind are tiny freckles of you

When the night was still young
Groggily shaken awake; trembling
Frozen to time’s winged chariot near
The concrete wet beyond winter’s thaw
Crispness removes emptiness of breast’s breath

Echoed shapes against a flickering light
Slender, slightly tanned turn of an arm
Golden streaks neatly arranged in place
Quick obsessions pass prolific profiles of you face

Do you know the pout of your lips?
The gentle swing of your hips
Scrutinizing freckles on nose’s tip
With deep breaths I sip

Pattern Recognition

2008-04-16T11:25:00.007-04:00

Wikipedia defines pattern recognition as, "the act of taking in raw data and taking an action based on the category of the data." Our discussion of pattern recognition throughout this semester, and Katie's mention of film noir, made me contemplate Jack Nicholson's character in Chinatown. Most detectives, including Nicholson and Bogart, use pattern recognition to solve the mystery. I use these two examples because Chinatown has been defined as "neo-noir" (one of the first movies after the period defined as film noir) and Maltese Falcon was the first American film to fit into the film noir genre. Both detectives use patterns they recognize in other people to decipher the mystery. So what is it about film noir and neo noir movies that hook people? Why do students and universities devote so much time to this particular median? (of course there are others, but I'll try to focus of noir movies) I believe there are a variety of reasons. One, as Gibson writes on page one hundred and nine, "It's impossible to describe, but if you live with it for a while, it starts to get to you. It's just such a powerful effect, induced by so little actual screen time." I believe this is the exact reason why femme fatales hold so much power in film noir movies. They are mysterious, different, vengeful, and most of the time extremely sexual. Their actual screen time becomes so powerful because there's not much of it. Noir movies have also become cult classics because as you start to live with these movies they become "art". All the subtleties each has in common, what each is able to do cinematically, and the differences from one movie to the next is extraordinary. All the mise-scene elements such as lighting, the use of shadows, dress, a confused plot line, and setting all add to the mystique.
As Katie mentioned, most of the early film noir movies are adaptations of books. Dashiell Hammett has been described as a writer of hard boiled detective novels. Having spent time in the Continental Operations Unit, Hammett held first hand knowledge of the stories he relayed. John Huston , the director of the Maltese Falcon, had to transform the raw material Hammett had written into action. The more I look at written text and movies the more I realize pattern recognition is all around us. It's something we, as humans, do everyday.

Chinatown - Jack Nicholson

2008-04-16T11:18:00.001-04:00

Katie mentioned film noir in our discussion last night, and I just couldn't help myself. Chinatown was back in the spotlight last month as Outside magazine ran a one page article discussing water conservation.

The Image

2008-04-14T20:49:00.008-04:00

In the Fitzpatrick article the power of the image is discussed at great length. Where is the initial image more powerful than in Gibson's Pattern Recognition? The mystery seems driven by the kiss which is circulated on the net. (I haven't finished the book.) Each character is obsessed with the image for different reasons. Bigend's motivation seems purely financial. He must know because he doesn't.
The "white noise" is offered as a metaphor in both sets of work. Gibson describes Cayce's feelings through a city that is very much filled with images and distractions. "She knows, now, absolutely, hearing the white noise that is London..." (1) Fitzpatrick continuously uses DeLillo's movie, White Noise, to distinguish between, "the visual and the tactile, between the ephemerality of the image and the solidity of the physical..." (99) The physical Fitzpatrick discusses transcends into the world Gibson has created in London. The physical is altered by Cayce's dreamlike state due to jet-lag and the opposite state in which London runs. (Right is left, a simple coffee brew, cereal.) Gibson states on page twenty seven, "not so much a mirror-world car as an English car, as no equivalent exists, on Cayce's side of the Atlantic, to mirror." The mirror alternates the image, which in turn alters her reality and the way in which she interacts with the world.
The last detail I wanted to touch upon was Parkaboy. I liked most of his rants and found his character interesting. The statement I found most relevant to Fitzpatrick and my own rant concerning the image is located on page twenty two. "Parkaboy says you should go to new footage as though you've seen no previous footage at all, thereby momentarily escaping the film or films that you've been assembling, consciously or unconsciously, since first exposure." The "image burns" Fitzpatrick discusses are nearly impossible to erase. Therefore, can we ever see an image for the first time? It's like the most photographed barn in America Fitzpatrick discusses. Our experiences become nothing more than a picture of a picture. I'm off to finish this book!

Mike Teevee Video Clip

2008-04-12T12:16:00.001-04:00

The American Novel in the Age of Television

2008-04-12T11:31:00.018-04:00

It's no coincidence Kathleen Fitzpatrick opens this chapter with the following John Berger quote: "Seeing comes before words." This is an argument I have been trying to articulate all semester: Experience of the world helps us to learn different components such as reading, deciphering images, and writing. I believe Fitzpatrick is taking the experience component one step further in this chapter. She states on page ninety eight regarding the relationship with television, "Here, the television's 'meshed effect' produces a new kind of intertwining of human and television set, one that functions 'as if' human perception were required to complete the broadcast." Fitzpatrick uses an example from DeLillo's Americana. She continues to use Americana to explain "image-burns." I found this idea similar to the random commercial you find yourself reciting. You've heard and seen the images so many times they have become part of your subconscious. Fitzpatrick repeatedly references DeLillo's White Noise to conceptualize television's role in destroying "the distinction between flesh and image," as Thomas Ferraro argues on page one hundred. I instantly thought of Mike Teevee in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. He is so obsessed with the "image burns" he has seen on the screen he wants to become part of that world. I tried to find the original clip with Gene Wilder without much success. In that clip you actually see Mike Teevee dissolve and become nothing but particles floating above the television. This clip with Depp is interesting, because like the original, the evils of television are listed as a warning to children everywhere.

Fitzpatrick continues to discuss the relationship between the written word and images in a historical context. We have discussed the threat Fitzpatrick analyzes in some detail so I will not dwell too much on this part of the chapter. In relation to Dr. Collins' speech on Tuesday night, Fitzpatrick refers to interconnectedness, not only in this chapter, but in previous ones as well. Here she says on one hundred and one, "Where older forms are assumed to be 'human,' new media are seen as mechanical; where older forms are individualist, new media are designed for an interconnected mass." This is where I find her comments about newspaper forms, (specifically the Times) and books relevant to our class. This interconnectedness seems to be the goal of mass media because it has potential financial possibilities left untapped.

I wanted to focus on images in relation to books. First, lets look at a few images, especially a few Fitzpatrick discusses. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.unknown.nu/futurism/images/words1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.unknown.nu/futurism/destruction.html&h=442&w=338&sz=121&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=nMNmct__I1kHFM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Band%2Bwords%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7RNWE The interconnectedness discussed on this web site is very interesting. What was the first thing you noticed when you opened the page? What thoughts came to mind? Like me, on some level I think Fitzpatrick believes images and words have and will continue to coexist, just in a different form as we move into the future. However, Neil Postman has argued differently throughout his career. Fitzpatrick states on one hundred and four, "For Postman, such technologies of communication as print and television cannot peacefully coexist. Instead, 'new technologies compete with old ones-for time, for attention, for money, for prestige, but mostly for dominance of their world-view'; such competition leads to the present situation, in which U.S. culture faces 'television attacking the printed word." Based on interconnectedness, I believe Collins would disagree. The overlapping which is occurring today offers a place for literature, the image, and other medians such as photography and music. If anything, I believe the over stimulation of images effects our communication. Our brain becomes a vastness of pictures. To describe those pictures becomes more difficult as more pictures are added without words to enhance the experience. In turn, does this over stimulation create a varied reality? I want not so much to define reality, but to offer a change in one's personal creation of reality. The argument on one hundred and seven is at the heart of this discussion. Does one image provoke stronger feelings of violence? This can also be linked to Fitzpatrick's discussion about the camera and photography. Does the camera act as a metaphor for a gun? I wouldn't go as far to say this, or agree with Delillo's comments on one hundred and thirty three. "We are meant to sense that the poorer the image quality, the more 'real' the event." I do believe the camera lens has the capability to capture pain and death, while offering a disconnectedness for the personal recording or "shooting." In regards to the poorer the image the more real we find the event please refer to the following link. The video is a live, grainy broadcast of Budd Dwyer's death. Notice the quick focus on the camera itself. Warning: This is a bit graphic. http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdjobNdvAg

This violent power the image can possess was the most interesting part of this chapter in my opinion. For example, the violent connotations associated with Hitler are discussed at great length. For me the example of the Cold War worked differently. I see the words McCarthyism and conjure up different thoughts and images in my brain than if I saw a picture of McCarthy.

I think the relationship between the image, television, and the novel differs depending on who you ask. For some see this relationship like this: "In the multiplicity of television's voices, both its manifold interconnections and its teeming information, the novel imagines a further threat: the replacement of the individual with the mass-think of the network." (148) I'm still undecided. On some level I want literature to remain separate from all other medians. In a ever changing world the relationship the book has with society must change as well.

Interconnectedness

2008-04-09T19:01:00.008-04:00

Jim Collins' ideas seemed so logical to me. I'm glad we had the opportunity to listen to an expert so dedicated to many of the topics we have discussed this semester. After thinking about his presentation I had a few comments and questions.
First, I was intrigued by the cinematic love Dr. Collins discussed. My own mother will go see any movie because it the experience she craves. The smell, the candy, the nostalgia she feels is closely tied with her childhood. She suffers deeply from cinephilia and has tried to inflict her obsession onto the rest of the family. (With great success I might add.) I think of my mother every time I go to the movies, and it's still a family tradition to attend at least one movie a year. Where my cult devotion lies with book, hers is linked to movies. With the constant overlapping, our discussions are now not only based around the process of books being made into movies, but the new technology used to influence the viewer. It's interesting because we will both read the book before seeing the movie. Our discussions generally end the same: The book was better.

Secondly, has this interconnectedness tricked the viewer? Will we see anything that was once a great classic? I wonder with the right promotion and push would the American public popularize just about anything because we are being told it's worthy? Most of these Miramax films are adapted love stories. Is Miramax capitalizing on America's lust of sexual tension? The Atonement clip Dr. Collins shared with us last night showed the main actress (Knightly?) interlaced with the words. If we looked at that image closely the words were not only chosen purposefully, but her seductive dress as well. The sexual tension is built throughout the entire movie. One phrase I picked up on was "He put his hands." The reader/viewer is left to imagine when the main characters will become intertwined in a passionate embrace.

In Ron Hutchinson's play; Moonlight and Magnolias David Selznick comments on Hollywood power. He states that power belongs to, "All those Joe Blows and Jane Does, the guy with the lunch pail, the broad in the elevator, all those little people who have nothing in common except they go to the movies and every ticket is a vote for my movie or a vote against it. They're the people who hand out the ulcers, pal, they're the ones who run this town, the world, they have the power, the real power. Mayer? Me? Hedda Hopper? Gable? We don't amount to anything if they give us the thumbs-down. Princes of Hollywood? America's royalty? We are down on our knees sucking the collective dick of the Great Unwashed" (48). My point is, we as a society hold the power to what becomes great and what doesn't. We shouldn't be so quick to buy into the hype Miramax, or any other large company with money, shoves down our throat. For the most part, giant promotions have steered clear of books. (Recently that has changed with classic reprints and the Oprah book club.) It seems like some authors have bought into the interconnectedness fairly easily. If Hollywood is getting rich, then why not the authors too?

Sources

2008-04-02T17:32:00.006-04:00

Even though they are not all secondary sources I felt listing them all would help me some how.

Cerretani, Anthony. “Even Flow.” Outside October 2006: 78-79

Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1994

Earle, Peter. The World of Defoe. New York: Atheneum, 1977

Frazier, Ian. “Yo, Frank.” Outside May 2007:125

Gonzales, Laurence. Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why. New York: W.W.
Norton and Company, Inc., 2003

King James Version Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: World Publishing, 1997.

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1982

News-Medical.Net. Thursday, 7-September 2006. Medical Research News. February 7
2007.
Turner, Jack. “The Solitary Way.” Outside April 2003: 77-79

Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel. London, England: Chatto and Windus, Ltd., 1957

Woolf, Virginia. The Second Common Reader. San Diego: Harcourt and Company, 1932

Outside magazine was one of the first sources acting as inspiration for this paper. I've been a subscriber for almost ten years now and Jack Turner has been a writer I have great admiration for. He blends a reporter style with memoir. I started thinking about the solitary journey into nature. That thought process led me to Crusoe. I wanted to focus on a book deeply ingrained in the literary canon. As I looked at reasons for Crusoe's control over nature I was led to Defoe, the writer and his personal motivations for writing a book like Robinson Crusoe. Finally, I begin to think of urbanization A mentality early Americans adopted from Europe. Most of these ideologies are based on fear and the Bible.

Each one of these sources supports my argument in very specific ways. The Outside articles show man's relationship with the wilderness. The Bible demonstrates an ingrained fear people have of the wilderness based on its words. Keep in mind, there is a specific difference between "paradise" and "wilderness." Most of the other sources discuss Crusoe's character and Defoe the author. I thought Woolf's thoughts were especially interesting. “It would seem to be true that people who live cheek by jowl and breathe the same air wary enormously in their sense of proportion; to one the human being is vast, the tree minute; to the other, trees are huge and human beings insignificant little objects in the background.” Yet we continue to urbanize full speed ahead. I wanted to try and find out where this mentality stems from, and our innate connection with the wild.

I Want Tangible Books Back

2008-03-23T16:13:00.016-04:00

I am yet to look at Shelley Jackson's; Patchwork Girl for numerous reasons. I find it extremely therapeutic to vent my frustrations and I had many trying to load Patchwork Girl. I set aside a few hours Friday night to navigate through this strange, new world. I made my tea and tried to curl up with my laptop: Problem number 1 arose. My laptop does bend or turn like the pages of a book. I tried to remain positive, but then Patchwork Girl would not download on my Mac: Frustration number 2. I had now spent a half an hour and had gained nothing except a few grey hairs. I finally resigned to the fact I would have to download the software of my desktop. By the time I went through this process my eyes were burning and I quit. So, enough about my rant. I have come off my soap box and retain judgment regarding Ms. Jackson. (I swear I hold no animosity.)
The tangible paper I held was much more enjoyable. I really liked Kinder's piece about Bunuel and was able to relate those ideas to Mark Amerika's: Filmtext. For some reason I timed my visits to Amerika's site. I spent a grand total of fifty four minutes navigating through the different levels which I related to Bunuel's "Giraffe" analogy. I found Bunuel's ideas a bit more complex than what Amerika was able to accomplish. His site seemed a bit predictable and limited. I like the idea of the giraffe being the vehicle for unlimited information. Even though I enjoyed Amerika's attempt at something new, the tentacles in which we have to explore ends sporadically. Kinder talks about avoiding interactivity and fetishizing as extremes. She states on page four regarding these two terms, "One productive way of avoiding these two extremes (of fetishizing or demonizing interactivity) is to position the user or player as a "performer” of the narrative-like an actor interpreting a role or a musician playing a score, contributing her own idiosyncratic inflections and absorbing the experience into her own personal database of memories." I immediately thought about Miranda and her work with the Primer and the Dramatis Personae. I had built up this interactive image in my mind regarding the experience Amerika's work would give me. I was waiting for something profound, new, and engaging and was left disappointed.
I wrote down a few things as I traversed through Amerika's creation. The first was sensory overload. I didn't know where to click, sounds and images kept popping up, and strange text scrawled across the screen. Bruenl discussed the idea of no beginning and no end. I felt Amerika's boundaries were more clearly defined. The actual filmtext are the parts I enjoyed the most. The way the lines were constructed reminded me of poetry. For example, “The potential to see what is not there creates an unsettled angst that problematizes the experience of seeing, of being the seer, of being seen." Another example I really liked was "A post-human construct lost in the deep sleep of animal consciousness conjuring up images of the future dead, their stories captured on screen just by thinking of them." Could we possibly be approaching this form of technology? The parts in which my curiosity heightened were the metatourism sections. The pictures were too small to comprehend, especially at the pace they moved. I would have liked the pictures scrawled across the entire screen. When I finally step back into Jackson's technological world I will be interested to see how her ideas fit with the other two pieces.

Strange Days - Trailer ( 1995 )

2008-03-19T13:42:00.001-04:00

Cyberpunks!

2008-03-19T11:48:00.011-04:00

I am tired of The Diamond Age’s vastness, so I focused on some of the ideas Audrey talked about in relation to the book. I'm still vehemently interested in the role movies play in the world of books. I find the entire blog assignment interesting. For the most part each presenter has chosen movie clips or a media stream to support theories and words of writers. Is that linked to the form we are using? How many of us would use movie clips if we were not asked to post blogs?
Audrey's clip and Ryan's virtual reality list made me think of the movie, Strange Days. I believe this movie would also be an example of number three on Ryan's list, which Audrey has summarized on her blog: "3. that represents a complete environment. (Sensory diversity-VR has limited ability to appeal to all senses, especially touch. One example of this (hopefully!) is in the movie Demolition Man when they do not physically have sex, but, instead, have virtual sex." Strange Days is summarized in the following paragraph: "This movie is really more “punk” than cyber, but it does have enough to matter. Besides the rather simplistic recording of memories, Strange Days gives us a potential view of humanity in decline as technology becomes more and more invasive in our lives. On top of this, the seedy near-future settings are great, and all the lead actors in this are terrific, including Tom Sizemore (Lenny’s best friend) and Michael Wincott (the psychopath)." This information was found at this link: http://http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/movie/decade/1990-1999/strange-days/ I have also added a clip for your viewing pleasure.
In the trailer the main character says in regards to cyber tripping," It's like TV, only better, it's life." Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal of technological advancement for companies like Sony? The Wii gaming system is an excellent example of what’s to come. (As Audrey mentioned.) I believe, like the Primer, Wii represents advancement. Stephenson seems to hold the book dear, but on the other hand exploit its potential. What I find interesting is the voice that exists on the other end of the Primer. Stephenson seems to complete this connection with human interaction. This is evident in Strange Days with the actors Cyber tripping. Human experience is vital! In the future I might not have to read my potential children bed time stories because I will possess a virtual book to do it for me. Is it too much to ask for my own, personal Miranda?"Strange Days gives us a potential view of humanity in decline as technology becomes more and more invasive in our lives." This idea is my ultimate concern. If technology replaces experience, as it has in many aspects of our lives, then what happens to us as a human race? Do we become evolved zombies unaware of our surroundings? Our bodies plugged into some multiple level reality created by subconscious thoughts and downloaded hardware.

The Diamond Age: Part II

2008-03-17T11:26:00.009-04:00

The second part of The Diamond Age kept bringing my thoughts back to two themes: Education and Hackworth's ultimate role and dreamlike adventures. As Stephenson writes on page two hundred and seventy, "You can't just trace the connection backward. That's not how media works." I will attempt to trace educations role in this book from the beginning of Book II. I find this the logical approach since the brain seems to learn this way. We don't learn how to read before learning letters. We don't learn letters without some experience of the world. For me, experience is the key to learning. It is vital, not only to become book smart, but to develop common sense and intelligence. Before I learned to read a book I held block letters in my hand. I crawled on all fours and physically touched carpet. Most importantly I was read to. I related pictures with words. (This seems to be instrumental in Nell’s interactions with the Primer.) For the most part, Nell learns from the Primer as she is locked inside her apartment. She does not have the experience to become intelligent yet.Nell's initial interactions at Dovetail (equivalent to Colonial Williamsburg) begins to teach her common sense, intelligence, and further her knowledge in a way. When she first arrives we see her social awkwardness through Stephenson's words on page two hundred and sixty two. "Rita came out of the house. 'Sorry,' she said, 'I got out as fast as I could, but I had to stay and socialize. Protocol, you know." 'Explain protocol,' Nell said. This was how she always talked to the Primer.” Rita informs Nell the need for manners. Of course Nell has never experienced manners so she will need to learn through interaction. Nell is actually a bit mechanical from her interactions with the Primer. Constable Moore teaches Nell the differences between life in the Primer and her reality. Constable Moore listens to Nell's life story patiently on two hundred and eighty one. He adds towards the end, "So the Primer was correct on that point. Now, as to the fact that killing people is a more complicated business in practice than in theory, I will certainly concede your point. But I think it is not likely to be the only instance in which real life turns out to be more complicated than what you have seen in the book. This is the Lesson of the Screwdriver, and you would do well to remember it. All it amounts to is that you must be ready to learn from sources other than you magic book." The Primer is still very useful to Nell, but Constable Moore's point is noted. As he continues, "The difference between stupid and intelligent people-is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations-in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward." According to Moore intelligence comes from life.
Nell's education continues when she enters Miss Matheson's Academy of the Three Graces. Miss Stricken is the perfect example of a teacher consumed with discipline and non-educational factoids. It takes only one teacher to ruin ones educational experience. In Miss Stricken's case we see the Primer face off against teacher. Stephenson describes Miss Matheson's effects on Nell as one would describe a dark cloud looming overhead. "She had brought Nell's most deeply hidden feelings out in the open, like a master butcher exposing the innards with one or two deft strokes of the knife. And now everything was ruined. Now Miss Matheson's Academy had vanished and become Miss Stricken's House of Pain, and there was no way for Nell to escape from that house without giving up, which her friends in the Primer had taught her she must never do." She might have given up if it weren’t for her personal experiences, not only the Primer, but with Miss Matheson and Moore.
I could continue on and on with the education theme as I see it weaved precisely throughout this book. The last educational remark I have is the relationship between Harv and Nell. Stephenson is not only commenting on education, but the quality of education based on race and socioeconomic standing. It is no coincidence Harv still lives in the L.T. hooked up to a breathing apparatus. The building he lives in "was drab in the extreme. (333)" He is left with a ractive that is the complete opposite of Nell's Primer. It is not unlike the video games millions of children are glued to today. Nell's Primer and her experiences have fashioned her smartly. She wears a veil, not because it is required, but to filter inspection. "The veil offered Nell protection from unwanted scrutiny. Many New Atlantis career women also used the veil as a way of meeting the world on their terms, ensuring that they were judged on their own merits and not their appearance. (331)"
Some final thoughts about the book. I found it ironic that Katie mentioned foot binding and there it was on page four hundred and fifty three. Hackworth’s adventures are what kept me glued to the book throughout the second part. I enjoyed his role as the Alchemist as others, including Hackworth, try to figure out this riddle. His main adventures (two come to mind: The Drummers and Dramatis Personage) are so dreamlike I found myself floating along with Hackworth. His decisive goal as the Alchemist was to create the seed. The ultimate connection of information and devoted attention through Hackworth's subconscious. I am still pondering the meaning of the name; Alchemist, the Master's words, and Chinese ti.

Into the Wild

2008-03-12T17:03:00.003-04:00

I'm thankful for this assignment as it might help me make sense of the ideas continually circling in my mind. With some effort, feedback, and mind altering Matrix like thinking I feel my paper might begin to take form. Whereas my thoughts regarding The Diamond Age are muddled like the concoctions my brother and I used to create in my mother's kitchen. I love lists. They help me organize and accomplish. So here goes, in no particular order.

1. Our daily lives continue to be inundated with more and more technology. Therefore, an escape to the wilderness is fundamental.
2. If the wilderness continues to be infiltrated then we as humans lose that link to nature. If we lose this link, which I believe technology causes, then possibly we become less human.
3. This experience is vital for survival and to learn our place in the world.
4. Key books might include Machine in the Garden by Leo Marx, Robinson Crusoe, and Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzalez. I feel like it would be important to add a book like Robinson Crusoe due to its place in the literary canon. Bring into the argument those from the past who acted upon adventure.
It doesn't get much better than this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nmlq7VUr1E
5. Wilderness as a cultural idea. Maybe the Bible in relation to New World. Urbanization?
6. I need to find some secondary sources. Any thoughts would be helpful. Any way to narrow this topic down would also beneficial. (Technology-machine-nature/humans.) Maybe some type of formula would help narrow this topic down?

I just love this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVQEsKDcl2A

The Diamond Age

2008-03-06T20:46:00.007-05:00

I feel like my personal canon is being redefined. I usually do not read Science Fiction, however, I did recognize Neal Stephenson's name from The Cobweb. (A book he co-authored with Frederick George) Therefore, I was a bit more tolerant of the strange world Stephenson placed me in. A world filled with mediatrons, nanotechnology, and pseudo-intelligence. I believe it was Beth that mentioned we as readers are more tolerant of authors we are familiar with. Therefore, the canon becomes individualized. ( Maybe personal peephole would be more apt.) Even though I found it hard to identify with the world Stephenson created I read on. The more I read the more fascinated I became. I also realized this book intertwines the old and the new in many ways. It's part fairytale wrapped within a futuristic story that seems to run parallel with each other. Each reacts and responds to the other.

I'm most interested in the role ancient philosophy and story telling play in this book. Dinosaur's tale was filled with creation myths, the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fate of the reptiles, and the classic good versus evil. A lesson the Primer seems eager to teach Nell. (Or a lesson Nell is eager to learn since the Primer is interactive.) The Confucian philosophy and the thoughts of the Master strangely nesstle themselves in this futuristic world. The Master's thoughts regarding the book on page one hundred and sixty three state, " If the item of stolen property had been anything other than a book, it would have been confiscated. But a book is different-it is not just a material possession but the pathway to an enlightened mind, and thence to a well-ordered society, as the Master stated many times." The Primer helps Nell find her way in the world. It teaches her experience without actually experiencing. (At least before she leaves Leased Territories.) The book becomes an individualized teacher. It is no wonder Mcgraw wants children taught in this way considering his thoughts on the public school system. Which, interestingly enough, are relayed through a Coleridge poem.

Nell's journey, thus far, reminds me of another famous literary character: Nell, from Dickens' The Old Curiosity Shop. Each are young and naive, but quickly learn the ways of the world through direct interaction, storytelling, and guidance. (Nell through the Primer and Dickens' Nell through her grandfather.) Each learns how to avoid trouble through quick thinking. Nell uses the MC blanket to hide from the infrared rays in The Diamond Age. Nell, in The Old Curiosity Shop, is able to avoid Quilp. A character Nell quickly learns is horrible. Dickens writes on two hundred and six, "The street below was so narrow, and the shadow of the houses on one side of the way so deep, that he seemed to have risen out of the earth. But there he was. The child withdrew into a dark corner, and saw him pass close to her." Stephenson writes, "Nell led Harv back to the little patch of forest. They found their way to the little cavity where they had stopped earlier. This time, Nell spread the blanket over both of them, and they tucked it in all around themselves to make a bubble. They waited quietly for a minute, then five, then ten. From time to time they heard the thin whine of a pod going by, but they always kept on going, and before they knew it they were asleep." (227) Both characters use past experiences to negotiate through the world and manipulate that world to survive.

2.2 Finality

2008-02-27T12:15:00.010-05:00

2.2 Finality
Our in class discussion rattled around my brain all night. Like some annoying song, caught between pitch and interval, I couldn't remove it from my mind. Then I became overwhelmed by the immense possibilities of the brain. The words of this poem were the first to catch my eye.

The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will contain
With ease, and you beside.
The brain is deeper than the sea,
For, hold them, blue to blue,
The one the other will absorb,
As sponges, buckets do.
The brain is just the weight of God,
For, heft them, pound for pound,
And they will differ, if they do,
As syllable from sound.
-Emily Dickinson

I would like to continue with our bread analogy from class for a moment. The fact I can conjure up different pictures of bread in my mind allows for Ester's PLANKO analogy to begin work. I can contemplate the effectiveness of bread, the possibility it has to feed the hungry, the history of bread, and if I wanted to go as far to research bread in literary contexts my experiences involving bread would allow me to do so. If I were caught in some unconscious universe where all I thought about was the present, my love for bread as a tool to solve hunger would not exist. The bread story I create would cease to exist if I could not relate it to the world. Like love, for example, reflection is necessary for a relationship to grow. Personally, I feel like we are unique in the fact we can dissect relationships, words, and interactions as humans. This sets us apart from other animals and also proposes the possibility of higher level thinking. A place where we take our own self conscious views and apply them to individuals, groups, and the world. If the brain is wider than the sky, as Dickinson suggests, we should be able to think of ourselves and others on multiple plains. I like the idea of love and looping. In order to elevate any relationship to the next level the circular motion of prior experiences builds the cornerstones of the current relationship.
The relationship C and Powers (Beau) create revolves around words. Not only does Powers enable C, but she allows him to enable her. (Like was mentioned in class.) Powers tries to give himself entirely to C, but his internal love for words and himself makes this impossible. Powers mentions on page one hundred and fifty nine, "My letters were slight things, heavy on romance and style. Thick with linguistic cleverness." As if the words themselves are more important than his actual love for C. His craft is under scrutiny in these letters. "Human knowledge is social." Powers mentions this on one hundred and forty eight. I believe C and Powers were trying to find themselves as they moved from place to place. Both were trying to create human bonds which were absent from their lives. As I look back on our in class discussion this book is sad on so many levels.

All Aboard

2008-02-24T11:17:00.012-05:00

"The Maze performed as one immense, incalculable net. It only felt like countless smaller nets strung together because of indifferences in connection density. Like a condensing universe, it clustered into dense cores held together by sparser filaments-stars calling planets calling moon." (156) This quote epitomizes the way I felt about the book. Each section acting as a small net to be dissected and analyzed, then clustered together to form Powers' Galatea 2.2. Innumerable times I reread a paragraph, contemplated its purpose in his overall scheme, dissected a word, and struggled with my own writing insufficiencies. Overall, I really enjoyed this book. At the heart of this book lie complicated relationships. These parts are what really drew me in, until I realized the whole book connected us as humans. At that point I was hooked. What does it mean to be human? This thought has infested my mind since finishing Galatea 2.2. Powers includes sentence after sentence that force you to contemplate your own existence. "The only explanation for how infants acquired anything was that they already knew everything there was to know. The birth trauma made them go amnesiac. All learning was remembering." Do humans have existing files wired into the cortex of our brains? Each file consists of a specific knowledge. For example, a file on books. We are born knowing what a book is. As we grow, learn, and read our file on books becomes more sophisticated until our file tells us books mean a vast array of ideas. Powers' relationship with the written word becomes more powerful as the novel progresses. That relationship comes to a head on pages two hundred and eighty four and two eighty five. A mentions, “My God, I'm dealing with a complete throwback. You’re not even reactionary! Whose definition of great? Hopkins ain't gonna cut it anymore. You're buying into the exact aestheticism that privilege and power want to sell you." Isn't this question at the heart of most of our conversations? "Whose definition of great?" "Whose English? Some eighty-year-old Oxbridge pederast's?" This conversation regarding the canon presses Powers view into the foreground. Words build relationship; they are the cornerstone of love letters, bedtime stories, and interaction. Powers boards the story train throughout this book. He struggles with the writing process, when in the end "It was about teaching a human to tell." Storytelling; a skill that has existed since the dawn of mankind.
The topic of names is one I kept coming back to. Is it any coincidence Powers gives the two potential loves in his life the names A and C? C calls Powers Beau throughout the book. Together they form a strange triangle of A, B, and C. Powers is desperate for human connect, even if that existence is through Helen. (Helen is referred to through letter recognition before Powers gives her a gender and a name. Two humanistic qualities.) "Several times a week I invented painful contrivances by which I might introduce myself to A. Each time I did nothing but go and talk to Helen." (195) Helen craves human interaction. "Most of all, she craved the human voice." For Powers, Helen grows like a child would grow, except completely opposite. Helen lacks actual interaction, touch, and experience. The name of the book: Galatea made me think of the relationship between Powers and Helen. The color white seems linked closely with the word Galatea. White makes me think of innocence. Helen is born out of the mind of Lentz, then given human qualities by Powers. Her name morphs from the alphabet.
As an author, I believe Powers contemplates the death of written word. (Or the metamorphosis into magazines as jokes on two ninety one.) "I told her that the number of new books published increased each year, and would soon reach a million, worldwide. That a person, through industry, leisure, and longevity, might manage to read, in one life, half as many books as are published in a day." (I felt a little anxiety here.) He goes on to say, "And aging of the collective spirit implied a kind of death." I believe Powers recognizes a cultural shift in interest. The written word however, will never die.