Thursday in class we discussed whether we found the Bundrens to be heroic of clowns. That really got me thinking. Because on the one hand, working as hard as they do to fulfill the wish of their dead mother is an inherently heroic thing to do. And in most other stories that have a parallel to that, it is solely portrayed as a heroic thing. However, in this case, the heroic aspect is undercut by two things. First of all, Addie, who is essentially the one who sent them on this quest, did it simply to get back at Anse for Darl. The other thing that undercuts the heroic aspect of their journey is the way Addie's body is being treated in the progress. Even though it was her wish, ignoring the fact that it is her revenge, they try to complete her wish to a ridiculous degree. At some point, the way her body is being treated should outway her wish. But it never does. The drag her around for days, she floats down a river, is in a burning barn, and more. This failure of accomplishing a heroic goal through effective methods really undercuts their goal.
That's when I started to think about how often the Bundren's attempted heroics resulted in them becoming clowns because they tried to be too heroic. That isn't to say they don't have their moments in which they are solely portrayed as clowns. Those can be found throughout. One example is when Anse doesn't even remember to bring shovels to dig Addie's grave and they have to borrow some from a family that lives in the town. However, many other moments like that are driven by an urge towards heroism. Take for example the all the shenanigans with getting the new mules for the carriage. Anse is forced to give up his teeth money, Cash's money, and Jewel's horse just to get the mules. All the while he could have just borrowed them but because he thought Addie wouldn't want them to be beholden to anybody he refused to. So I think that the Bundrens are mostly clowns with a heroic goal that gets taken too far (mostly by Anse).
Friday, March 8, 2019
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Oh Brother it's the Odyssey
I'm clearly not making any wild claim here seeing as we have constantly talked about how the movie is based off the Odyssey and the fact that it is is even stated in one of the title cards at the start. That being said I just wanted to go through all of the connections that I saw as well as connections that I wasn't sure about but that I thought might be there. Also fair warning, these might not follow the plot of the movie or the Odyssey because my notes merged the two.
First of all, and by far the most obvious, the movie invokes the muse at the start just like the Odyssey. Soon after that, we see the three main characters escaping the chain gang, which I think is supposed to represent Calypso's island. Moving o, the next connection that I noticed was that Wash Hogwallop seemed like Melanthius because just like how Melanthius betrayed Odysseus, Wash betrayed Everett. If that's the case then Everett assumes the role of Odysseus and Pete and Delmar assume the roles of Eumaeus and Philoetius. This makes sense given the way they are portrayed in the movie. That means, assuming that the Soggy Bottom Boys match up with the four who partake in the slaughter of the suitors, that Tommy is Telemachus. Going from there I think that the KKK were the suitors. This makes sense to me for two reasons. First of all, they plan to kill Tommy like the suitors planned to killed Telemachus. And second of all, when Everett, Pete, and Delmar they are armed qith shields and a spear (the confederate flag) just like how Odysseus and the rest are armed with spears and shields when they go to kill the suitors. Soon after that is the scene when Everett tosses the flag into the air and it heads towards the radio station man. This of course seemed to be referencing the scene where Laertes throws his spear into the air and it kills Eupeithes.
After all of that I've got a bunch that don't really connest in any particular way so this is basically just going to be a list. First there is Big Dan Teague who is Polyphemus. He has an eye patch, is bigger that Everett and Delmar, squashes "Pete" and uses a stick like a club. Then there are the three women in the river who are a combination of the Sirens and Circe. The entrance Everett, Pete, and Delmar with their singing like Sirens and turn Pete into toad like how Circe turned Odysseus men into pigs. Then there is Penny, who is Penelope (I don't think the name similarity is an accident) becuase she is the wife of Everett who is the Homer of the story. There is also the guy on the pump trolley who is supposed to be one of the prophets because he issues a prophecy. And last is the cop with the dog and sunglasses. However, I'm not actually sure if he has a counterpart in the Odyssey, I just thought he had a weird emphasis put on his like there was a connection.
First of all, and by far the most obvious, the movie invokes the muse at the start just like the Odyssey. Soon after that, we see the three main characters escaping the chain gang, which I think is supposed to represent Calypso's island. Moving o, the next connection that I noticed was that Wash Hogwallop seemed like Melanthius because just like how Melanthius betrayed Odysseus, Wash betrayed Everett. If that's the case then Everett assumes the role of Odysseus and Pete and Delmar assume the roles of Eumaeus and Philoetius. This makes sense given the way they are portrayed in the movie. That means, assuming that the Soggy Bottom Boys match up with the four who partake in the slaughter of the suitors, that Tommy is Telemachus. Going from there I think that the KKK were the suitors. This makes sense to me for two reasons. First of all, they plan to kill Tommy like the suitors planned to killed Telemachus. And second of all, when Everett, Pete, and Delmar they are armed qith shields and a spear (the confederate flag) just like how Odysseus and the rest are armed with spears and shields when they go to kill the suitors. Soon after that is the scene when Everett tosses the flag into the air and it heads towards the radio station man. This of course seemed to be referencing the scene where Laertes throws his spear into the air and it kills Eupeithes.
After all of that I've got a bunch that don't really connest in any particular way so this is basically just going to be a list. First there is Big Dan Teague who is Polyphemus. He has an eye patch, is bigger that Everett and Delmar, squashes "Pete" and uses a stick like a club. Then there are the three women in the river who are a combination of the Sirens and Circe. The entrance Everett, Pete, and Delmar with their singing like Sirens and turn Pete into toad like how Circe turned Odysseus men into pigs. Then there is Penny, who is Penelope (I don't think the name similarity is an accident) becuase she is the wife of Everett who is the Homer of the story. There is also the guy on the pump trolley who is supposed to be one of the prophets because he issues a prophecy. And last is the cop with the dog and sunglasses. However, I'm not actually sure if he has a counterpart in the Odyssey, I just thought he had a weird emphasis put on his like there was a connection.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Odysseus is a Suitor
Something that struck me while reading book nine of the Odyssey was how horrible of a person Odysseus could be. There were multiple occasions in the one book where Odysseus did things that most heroes wouldn't have done. For example, when he ends up at the lands of the Cicones he sacks their city, kills their men, and enslaves the women as concubines. The book doesn't suggest that there is any military significance to this so it is just straight up piracy. However, what really seemed weird to me was that they were blown to that land by Zeus and since Odysseus himself said Zeus is on the side of guests, it would suggest that Zeus was trying to make Odysseus's crew guests there. This explains why Zeus was mad at them and why he gave them bad luck in their fight.
But beyond that, I think it shows something a little more important. It draws a connection between Odysseus, the hero of the story, and the suitors, some of the antagonists of the story. For one, both show up where they don't belong. Odysseus is trying to get to his home but instead ends up at the Cicones and the suitors should probably be at their houses but instead, they are all at Odysseus's house. For two, both commit acts of piracy or similar to piracy. Odysseus raids the town and takes all their wealth while the suitors are at his house taking all of his wealth. And lastly, both try to take the wives of the men who are gone. In Odysseus's case he succeeds and enslaves the women and we see the suitors still trying to convince Penelope to marry them and forget Odysseus. I think it is interesting that so many parallels are drawn especially considering the Telemachus has grown up hating the suitors while wondering who his dad is and it seems like he's going to find out his dad acts basically like the suitors.
But beyond that, I think it shows something a little more important. It draws a connection between Odysseus, the hero of the story, and the suitors, some of the antagonists of the story. For one, both show up where they don't belong. Odysseus is trying to get to his home but instead ends up at the Cicones and the suitors should probably be at their houses but instead, they are all at Odysseus's house. For two, both commit acts of piracy or similar to piracy. Odysseus raids the town and takes all their wealth while the suitors are at his house taking all of his wealth. And lastly, both try to take the wives of the men who are gone. In Odysseus's case he succeeds and enslaves the women and we see the suitors still trying to convince Penelope to marry them and forget Odysseus. I think it is interesting that so many parallels are drawn especially considering the Telemachus has grown up hating the suitors while wondering who his dad is and it seems like he's going to find out his dad acts basically like the suitors.
Friday, January 18, 2019
Personal Reflection
One hero narrative that really has had an impact on me is The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. The Name of the Wind follows the hero of the story Kvothe, but in a way that is slightly different from most hero narratives. Instead of simply following the hero from the beginning of their journey, The Name of the Wind starts with the Hero's journey already over for Kvothe. He is known as a hero by many people and yet he chooses to hide his identity and live his life as the owner of a tavern. Eventually, a scribe comes to town and convinces Kvothe to tell his story. This results in a dual story where Kvothe is both telling the story of his past while dealing with new problems arising in the present. Something that struck me about that part of the story was that the scribe really had to work hard to convince Kvothe to tell his story. That mixed with the fact that Kvothe was living under the radar despite his hero status was revealing. It showed me that he didn't want to look back because there was some aspect of his journey to becoming a hero that he was ashamed of. And while I certainly am not on some heroic quest it still made me think that whatever I ended up doing I never wanted to look back and hate the choices I made to that degree.
Another thing that stood out to me about The Name of the Wind was the fact that Kvothe is seems to be given the chance at redemption. I say seems because the series isn't concluded yet but the build-up suggests that Kvothe will have to once again become some sort of hero. I liked this because it made me think about a sort of comeback story. Like if I dindn't do something right the first time I could always try harder to do better the next time.
The last thing that really made me think was actually a sort of character in the book. It was basically a demon tree that showed anyone who got close to it a horrible vision of the future. That person would then try with all their might to prevent that future but in the end that would just end up being the cause of the horrible future they saw. I feel like this has really had an impact on what I do, becuase I also don't like to go too far because I often feel like it actually make the problem worse.
Another thing that stood out to me about The Name of the Wind was the fact that Kvothe is seems to be given the chance at redemption. I say seems because the series isn't concluded yet but the build-up suggests that Kvothe will have to once again become some sort of hero. I liked this because it made me think about a sort of comeback story. Like if I dindn't do something right the first time I could always try harder to do better the next time.
The last thing that really made me think was actually a sort of character in the book. It was basically a demon tree that showed anyone who got close to it a horrible vision of the future. That person would then try with all their might to prevent that future but in the end that would just end up being the cause of the horrible future they saw. I feel like this has really had an impact on what I do, becuase I also don't like to go too far because I often feel like it actually make the problem worse.
Monday, December 17, 2018
Cult
Something that immediately struck me about Sorry to Bother You was how much WorryFree resembled a cult to me. And yet despite this and the ever increasing backlash against it, ads for it continued to be run on television and billboards stayed up, albeit often with a little touch of graffiti. Not only that but congresspeople are shown celebrating after it is revealed that WorryFree is turning people into horse people. I think the director, Boots Riley, definitely trying to make a point by doing this.
But first I want to start with what about WorryFree seemed like a cult to me. First of all, their message is extremely suspicious. They claim that they will solve all of your problems if you just join them and sign a lifelong contract that prevents you from leaving. And if that doesn't sound like a cult I don't know what does. Second of all, it is undoubtedly exploiting people. This made me think of a flowchart I saw about whether something is a cult. One of the questions leading up to the answer, "definitely a cult!!", was do people get exploited. And if the answer was "yes but no stuff" then it was a cult. And this is what is happening in the case of WorryFree. Everybody who is signing up is being exploited for their labor and receiving almost nothing in return. Another sequence in that flowchart was the question "is it a cult" and one of the answers was "it's a movement". While nobody every calls WorryFree a movement, the creator, Steve Lift, calls it the future which is eerily similar. The final thing is about Steve Lift. He just looked like a cult leader to me. I don't know what it was but while watching the movie, the first time I saw him, the first thought that popped into my head was, "he looks like the leader of a cult".
That brings me to how despite the obvious signs that WorryFree is a cult, the ads continue to be run and people still continue to support it. I think the most revealing scene in that regard is when the congresspeople are shown celebrating with WorryFree when their stocks increase after it comes out they are turning their workers into equisapiens. My best guess is that Boots Riley is trying to criticize how people are willing to do anything for enough money. This also matches pretty well with how Cassius Green is willing to be a power caller despite how horrible it is simply because it pays enough.
But first I want to start with what about WorryFree seemed like a cult to me. First of all, their message is extremely suspicious. They claim that they will solve all of your problems if you just join them and sign a lifelong contract that prevents you from leaving. And if that doesn't sound like a cult I don't know what does. Second of all, it is undoubtedly exploiting people. This made me think of a flowchart I saw about whether something is a cult. One of the questions leading up to the answer, "definitely a cult!!", was do people get exploited. And if the answer was "yes but no stuff" then it was a cult. And this is what is happening in the case of WorryFree. Everybody who is signing up is being exploited for their labor and receiving almost nothing in return. Another sequence in that flowchart was the question "is it a cult" and one of the answers was "it's a movement". While nobody every calls WorryFree a movement, the creator, Steve Lift, calls it the future which is eerily similar. The final thing is about Steve Lift. He just looked like a cult leader to me. I don't know what it was but while watching the movie, the first time I saw him, the first thought that popped into my head was, "he looks like the leader of a cult".
That brings me to how despite the obvious signs that WorryFree is a cult, the ads continue to be run and people still continue to support it. I think the most revealing scene in that regard is when the congresspeople are shown celebrating with WorryFree when their stocks increase after it comes out they are turning their workers into equisapiens. My best guess is that Boots Riley is trying to criticize how people are willing to do anything for enough money. This also matches pretty well with how Cassius Green is willing to be a power caller despite how horrible it is simply because it pays enough.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Unreliable Narrator
Something that I've been thinking about a lot is how trustworthy of a narrator Gunnar Kaufman is. The main reason I've been asking myself this question is that the narrative voice is Gunnar from the present when he is the messiah and renowned poet. This means that he isn't telling his story as it happens but what he remembers it as. As such it is vulnerable to him altering memories of the past of even interpreting his experience differently than he did at the time. We had a similar discussion about the Narrator in Invisible Man and how we weren't sure whether we could trust him for similar reasons.
The other reason I have trouble trusting the narrator is it seems like he is embellishing the story to at least some degree. Take for example the scene when he is recounting how he told his story of his entire family tree when he was in elementary school. For one, I find it hard to believe he can remember what happened in elementary school clearly, because I, for one, know that I can hardly remember anything from them. But putting that aside it is still strange. For one he is surprisingly eloquent for his age. I'm pretty sure there was no one at my elementary school who could speak that well and I'm pretty sure I couldn't even now. The other thing about that story is when Gunnar is telling it he uses words most elementary schoolers would use. Just a few examples are quintessential, daguerreotype, and honeysuckle. One other example of something that seems embellished is his introduction to the sport of basketball. However, at the same time, Gunnar in the present has sold 126 million copies of a book of poetry so maybe his childhood isn't as embellished as it seems.
The other reason I have trouble trusting the narrator is it seems like he is embellishing the story to at least some degree. Take for example the scene when he is recounting how he told his story of his entire family tree when he was in elementary school. For one, I find it hard to believe he can remember what happened in elementary school clearly, because I, for one, know that I can hardly remember anything from them. But putting that aside it is still strange. For one he is surprisingly eloquent for his age. I'm pretty sure there was no one at my elementary school who could speak that well and I'm pretty sure I couldn't even now. The other thing about that story is when Gunnar is telling it he uses words most elementary schoolers would use. Just a few examples are quintessential, daguerreotype, and honeysuckle. One other example of something that seems embellished is his introduction to the sport of basketball. However, at the same time, Gunnar in the present has sold 126 million copies of a book of poetry so maybe his childhood isn't as embellished as it seems.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Confusion
I'll admit the first thing I thought when I read the first page was, "What?" That confusion lasted until class and we had a chance to talk about what happened and clarified who the characters were. While the readings have started making more and more sense to me as we go on there are still some things that trip me up or have tripped me up. So I thought I'd write about what I found to be most confusing about Beloved.
The part that was the most confusing was definitely the beginning. I think the main reason that it was so confusing is that the book expects the reader to instantly understand the rules of the world within the book. That would be okay if the rules were the same as the real world. But they're not. So you're entered into a world where it is accepted that ghosts are a real thing. Reading a ghost story that you don't know is a ghost story is confusing because you look for a logical explanation for things even if there isn't one. Combine that sense of not knowing what's going on with the confusing names Toni Morrison uses and that makes for a really confusing first chapter.
After learning that ghosts were real within the context of the novel everything started to make more sense. However, there are still some things that confuse me while I'm reading. The two things that still get me every now and then are whose perspective the book is being told from and what time is the story taking place. The way Morrison writes it, the transition between both the points of view and between the past and the present is hard to notice. This has caused me to have to reread on multiple occasions because I wasn't sure who was talking or when what was going on was going on. A perfect example of this is when Sethe is heading to the place where Baby Suggs used to preach and it keeps switching back and forth between the past and the present.
The part that was the most confusing was definitely the beginning. I think the main reason that it was so confusing is that the book expects the reader to instantly understand the rules of the world within the book. That would be okay if the rules were the same as the real world. But they're not. So you're entered into a world where it is accepted that ghosts are a real thing. Reading a ghost story that you don't know is a ghost story is confusing because you look for a logical explanation for things even if there isn't one. Combine that sense of not knowing what's going on with the confusing names Toni Morrison uses and that makes for a really confusing first chapter.
After learning that ghosts were real within the context of the novel everything started to make more sense. However, there are still some things that confuse me while I'm reading. The two things that still get me every now and then are whose perspective the book is being told from and what time is the story taking place. The way Morrison writes it, the transition between both the points of view and between the past and the present is hard to notice. This has caused me to have to reread on multiple occasions because I wasn't sure who was talking or when what was going on was going on. A perfect example of this is when Sethe is heading to the place where Baby Suggs used to preach and it keeps switching back and forth between the past and the present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)