zaaaAP Lit Blog 2

Lilly's Purple Plastic Purse

When I was younger I read as much as I could. I always wanted to go to Crown Books(anybody remember that?) and spend my tooth fairy money. One day my mom took me there an a huge crowd was forming around a table. I asked my mom if we could see what was going on and she agreed. There was a book signing for Lilly's Purple Plastic Purse. My mom told me that if I wanted to spend my own money on this book I was welcome to. This book had so many experiences I could relate to. From getting in trouble at school to playing in my backyard. Over the years I kept reading but this book will always be one of my favorites. I know it is not a 500 page novel but sometimes the shortest books have the most meaning. The story taught me many life lessons. When I bought Lilly's Purple Plastic Purse I was so proud of myself. Little did I know this was opening the door even further to my love for reading and imagination. Even though I do not read as much as I would like anymore I think that it one of the most important things a person can do with their time.

I Am Supposed to Be Laughing?

For our final project my group chose the genre of slapstick comedy.  As we are picking what movies/shows we would present as examples to the class, I was assigned the Three Stooges.  Going into to this I disliked the show but thought maybe I would learn to understand why everyone thinks it is so funny.  Well by the third episode I was not having it.  I don't understand what is funny about it.  I personally think that the three men are annoying and have seen better slapstick comedy, that I would actually consider comedy, in the past and present.  So I guess my question is, does anyone else think that the Three Stooges is just not funny? or can anyone try and help me understand why so many people find it hilarious?

The Infamous Joe Christmas

After a marathon reading session of Light  in August (I was behind so I read from chapter 3 through 9) I really came to like Joe Christmas. In the first three chapters he is portrayed as a shady, angry, jerk of a man, and while nothing has changed, I now understand why he acts like he does. I must admit, he has committed some very atrocious acts, primarily his violence against women, yet I still sympathize with him. In class today (2/17) we began to discuss possible reasons for his actions. We talked about how what Joe learned from his father, and in turn religion, and what he learned from the real world were polar opposites which created a conflict resulting in his misunderstanding and behavior towards women. I think this idea is very interesting. While it is obviously more complicated, Joe, essentially is fighting between his primal urges to have sex and societies'/religion's highly negative view on his so called 'lechery.'  We have seen a similar conflict in Lena's case where she is treated differently and looked down upon because of her unwed pregnancy. So far I haven't been able to take in all that I've read yet to be able to come to a definite conclusion (that probably won't every happen), but the chapters we have read have raised some interesting questions that others may have insight on. My big question is this: Do you believe that, through Joe and Lena's experiences (others?), Faulkner is trying to say something about the nature of religious/societal morals?

P.S. I'm lumping society and religion together because in the book's context (1930s deep south) religion is society's moral system.

Modern Drama: The Whoreson of Shakespeare

I've come to realize that Shakespeare is nearly as intriguing to me as the modern, comprehensible dramatic movies and shows I've come to love, if not more so. For every play I've read, I've found that I'm initially reluctant to force my brain to think in Shakespearean language, but ultimately incredibly drawn in. The infinite secret alliances, forbidden passions, and of course murders in Lear have shown me once again that everyone else just wishes they could create as well as Shakespeare could. The language just makes it all the more impressive. Its no wonder so many contemporary movies are based on his plays.

Stamp Paid

For the first time, Sethe is seemingly happy, now that she has a constant man in her life.  Yet unfortuanetly Paul D. does not know the whole story about exactly why Sethe is a little removed from the community.  When Stamp Paid shows Paul D. the clipping from the paper, it immediately causes the end of Sethe and Paul D.  Was Stamp Paid justified in showing Paul or should Sethe be forgiven and the past should be forgotten?  Obviously Stamp Paid thought he did wrong, based on his inability to not go into 124 and more. 

Can Beloved (or any of the other characters) Love?

After reading part of Beloved, part of me wonders if these characters can truly love.

First, there is Beloved, who is clearly obsessed with Sethe. She says that she came back to see Sethe. Beloved wants her to herself. So I can understand the jealousy with Paul D. But, this is what I don't understand. She sleeps with Paul D and Sethe loves him. So I am wondering why she would do something that could a) hurt Sethe and b) get her kicked out the house. If she loves Sethe, then why is she doing something to hurt her? Do you think she was doing it to hurt her, or simply because she wanted to know what it is like.

Second, you have Paul D. He loves Sethe and is willing to fight for her. However, when Beloved comes to him, he only tells her to go away. Eventually, he gives in and sleeps with her. If he loves Sethe so much, than why didn't he simply just kick Beloved out? Also, the whole "let's have a baby" is very childish. I think it would just add to the problem. It just seems like a very desperate attempt, a quick fix to a bigger problem.

Do you think they truly love Sethe?

Paul D

Paul D. is a character to me that is very interesting.  One thing that i do not really understand is his choice to stay at 124.  For one, when he is being describe to us, he is said to be someone who is constantly travels and doesn't really stay in one place that often.  Also, when he is in bed with Sethe, he is very critical of Sethe and her appearance.  Yet, he ends up staying with her and at this point is trying to find workin town.

Time Lapse

Acebe goes on the offensive in his article in attacking Conrad.  He has an abundance of reasons as to why Conrads book is all wrong.  But one of his reasons I found invalid.  He mentions how when Conrad took his venture down the Congo, Achebe's father was still a baby.  He goes on to say, he cannot believe anything in the book, unless he sees it with his own eyes. Yet there surely is a vast difference of the Africa then and the Africa when Achebe wrote the book.  I'm not saying the what Conrad wrote is the way it was, but it is a possibility. 

Blinded by the Light of the Whited Sepulcher

So I tried to read and understand this article.  I really did.  In fact, I even re-read it.  But for some reason the point Brady was trying to make never really made itself clear to me.  Sure, I got the whole denial, hypocrisy, deception part of it.  I could follow his individual passages on the symbolism of the whited sepulcher.  In the end, however, it just didn't seem to connect for me.  Even in class today, we discovered that the thesis may not even be until the end of the article.  So I guess I would appreciate knowing how others would summarize the article, just to help me understand it more.

Why a Frame Tale?

Conrad's writing is one of the most difficult writing anyone will have to understand. It is very hard to understand, just by reading it once. With long, complex sentences, the novel is hard to comprehend. Conrad uses the style of a frame tale to get his story across to the reader. This also makes the novel difficult because even though Marlow is speaking most of the type, the unnamed narrator jumps in the story a few times (in the beginning, a little in Part 2, and at the end). My question is: Why did Conrad use this style of writing in this story? He could have easily just have had Marlow talk the entire story, but instead he had the unnamed narrator talk as well. Why is that?

What is the Heart of Darkness

Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is complex, there are many motifs and when Marlow tells the story he is never very clear on what is actually happening. I want to know what exactly is the heart of darkness? Marlow uses that phrase to describe many different settings and experiences. Is the heart of darkness the jungle, or is it Kurtz, is it the white people who go to the congo to "civilize" the natives, is it Marlow himself, or is it in every person? I'm confused because that phrase describes many vents in the book but it is never clear what exactly the heart of darkness is.

Why?

Now that we have reached the end of Marlow's tale, why did he even bother telling it?

At the very beginning, the ship is heading out of London. It is getting dark. The narrator says something very interesting, "Hunters for gold or pursuers of mame, the all had gone out gon that stream, bearing the sword, and often the torch, messengers of the might within the land, bearers of a spark from the sacred fire" (5). He's talking about imperialism, which just so happens to be one major issue in Marlow's story.

When Marlow finishes the story, even though there is only one paragraph from our narrator, we can tell that he is already changed. Instead of praising those who have gone out into the world to spread the British culture before them, he describes the scene in front of them, what they are heading towards, as, "leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed sombre under an overcast sky--it seemed to lead into the heart of immense darkness" (117). That sure didn't sound like his praising self before.

I think the point of Marlow's telling of his story is that it still haunts him. Also, he feels compelled to share the dark truth with the ones who are out to continue it. Perhaps that is Conrad's point of writing this book, too. Do you agree or do you have other ideas?

A Hazy Reading

When reading Heart of Darkness, I can't ever get past the reading that really stresses fogginess and light vs. dark.  I have yet to really figure it all out, but I think the darkness represents the unknown, covers up malicious acts yet also draws the Europeans nearer. So much is black and white, such as the girl on page 114-117, has a sharp contrast of pale skin with a black dress I remember in class when we discussed page 115, somebody (Nara I think) mentioned that the darkness of her head represented her ignorance and lack of knowledge and I have to agree.  I think the distinction of mentioning that her head was dark is important in the analysis of the description.

Throughout the novel, the Europeans constantly deal with darkness whether it means traveling through fog or dealing with dark vs light civilizations.  In the fog, the men hear screams but cannot determine where they are coming from, so the fear is there but cause is ultimately unknown.  Also, when the Manager says the scoundrel should be hanged, his uncle says that it would be definitely possible to do so because the Congo is so far away from any "light" civilization.  In this passage I think the light vs. dark comes from the savagery of the society, yet the men have not changed at all.  The Europeans are constantly fighting back darkness, yet they succumb to it and act similarly to it.

I still have a lot of figuring out to do but I think this is pretty good so far

Too Many Motifs

Once my group was assigned the motif of black and white, I began to only look for that particular motif as I read Heart of Darkness. When other groups showed examples of their motifs during class, I felt like I missed them while I read through the book. Since Heart of Darkness is an incredibly dense book, did anyone else feel like they missed out on some themes and motifs because they were stuck trying to find out the significance of their own motifs?

Lost in the Wilderness

I know that we sort of touched on this subject Tuesday in class, but I thought maybe the blog would be a good place to get some responses.  I was really wondering what the significance of the jungle and its personification in the Heart of Darkness is.  It may mean nothing, but it does seem to be one of the big motifs and seeing as this book is full of hidden meanings it may be helpful to figure out as much as is possible.

We Live, As We Dream-- Alone.....

On page 40, there is a passage that seems to scream, "Take Heart of Darkness with a grain of salt". Yet the incredible content of it, I think, made me pay attention to that book. It was that point where it stops being an assignment, and starts actually giving you satisfaction.

"It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream- making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt, that notion of being captured by the incredible which is of the very essence of dreams...."

If we read Heart of Darkness as the retelling of this dream like adventure, it accounts for all of the inconsistencies while giving strength the the real hard details in the story. While Marlow's narrative has been affected by the passing of time, as well as the components of the story that were so surreal he has had to question their existence, many observations he makes have the air of having already been analyzed. This seems to happen a lot in the retelling of dreams. I think the passage is equally as powerful when we relate it to our own lives. It articulates the frustration we tend to have with sharing what is ultimately an irreplaceable personal experience.

Great Parallels

I thought that the movie Apocalypse Now was a great adaptation of the novel Heart Of Darkness. There were several noticeable parallels between the two, such as: Futility(when the soldiers explain how everyday they build a bridge and every night it gets destroyed), Ivory(Squashing enemy activity), and Smoke Grenades(the fog). Besides these I thought the film conveyed the feel of the book.

Several of the night scenes you only see part of a characters face, shrouding their identity to a degree. In the book the narration does the same thing only giving you bits and pieces of information at a time, and keeping you in suspense. This also happened at the end when he met Kurtz he was covered in the dark so you couldn't see his face. I think this was done for the same reason.

The scene where they got ambushed on the river I felt was conveyed perfectly. In the book there is a sense of chaos and panic. Nobody aboard the ship knows what to do or how to stop the attack. This chaos and panic is shown in the film, you can feel how scared the characters are. Are there more parallels or similarities between the book and the film?

The Ending...

Reading The Heart Of Darkness and The Secret Sharer was not an easy task for me. Sometimes I would  re-read pages over and over to make any sense out of them. It was not until the end that I finally felt some connection to the book. When Kurtz died and people finally started to show emotion rather than confusion. My question is did everyone understand it with no problem or was there one part when you finally had that "Ah-Ha" moment?

Skeletal Ivory

While reading section two in the Heart of Darkness one description of Kurtz really stuck in my mind.  Marlow describes Kurtz as "an animated image of death carved out of old ivory had been shaking its hand with menaces at a motionless crowd of men of dark and glittering bronze" (90).  This is when I felt I had finally, for the first time, connected a meaning to information given in this book.  I interpret the above description as meaning that Kurtz is already dead, that due to his lust of ivory and his need to obtain it, his obsession was his destruction and all that was left was an image, an image of death carved out of old ivory.  No longer does a soul live in this man, just a mere body.  Does anyone else see this? or I am stretching it a bit?

Condrad = Dense

I think my  biggest problem with Heart of Darkness is just the sheer density of the book. This is not to say that I'm not enjoying it. So far I've found the book very interesting and quite engaging. Conrad's writing style, while sometimes difficult to understand, is very unique and leads to a reading experience that I have not encountered before. The amount of detail, imagery, and complex metaphors makes the visualization of what is happening fairly easy. Some of this, however, is offset by the abundance of archaic vocabulary, a fact that requires me to read in front of a browser opened to the OED website.
Overall though, I like Heart of Darkness, and for the most part am looking forward to discussing it in class, mostly because there are probably literally hundreds of details, themes, motifs, etc that I've missed. I agree with Heidkamp, in order to get anywhere near the full meaning of the text you're going to have to re-read the book, something I can't wait to do...(sarcasm)