What a sad tragic story this is for all the characters. I felt empathetic for each of them through out the story, the dying father, oblivious mother, forgotten son, frustrated Maggie, drunken son, dead Skipper, and desperate mother of six. This story also made me think of Maurice and how Clive struggled with homosexuality for himself and his friend Maurice. I felt that same conflict in Cat on the Hot Tin Roof.
There were several interesting lines from this story that also brought me back to some of our other readings. On page 40 Margaret “Maggie” called Brick “superior creature!-you godlike being!” This reminded me of our discussions of Eros and some of the arguments brought forth by the attendants of the Symposium, of how Eros was the better of all the gods so beautiful and perfect. Almost untouchable if you would like to say and this is how Brick made me feel, like he was untouchable. He was numb to human feeling.
Skipper was a very interesting part of the story. Even though he is not physically present, he presences is felt through out the story. Skipper reminded me of Maurice. He was a little more honest about his feelings and a little more willing to pursue them. This struggle between characters over the true nature of their “friendship” is what seems to torment Brick. I really wonder what Bricks true feelings about Skipper were. Did he feel more romantic feelings for Skipper? Is he angry because he feels like Skipper was friends with him under false pretenses? Or is he bitter that everyone is taking their friendship and trying to classify it as something other than what it was just because it didn’t fit the typical male friendship? Part of me thinks it is more of the latter that is eating at Brick. I don’t think Brick was necessary in love in a sexual way with Skipper, because he does confuse that Maggie was great in bed he in fact says the greatest. But it also seemed that even though he liked Maggie sexually, he gave his love more to Skipper and their friendship.
It’s a tough call to explain the relationship between Skipper and Brick. It doesn’t help that we can hear Skippers side of the story and Brick would never really come clean with the whole story. I was at the edge of my seat waiting for him to confess everything, the truth, when he was talking with his dad, but I didn’t get the satisfaction. I still feel like he is holding something back. If only the dead could talk.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Silver-Screen Sexism?!?!
Isn’t it strange, You think you are innocently chowing down on butter popcorn and taking pleasure in watching a flick unfold on the silver screen, but in reality you are being told how to view yourself and others!? According to Mulvey, Hollywood movies are just an extension of patriarchy in which female characters appear flat and unimportant. Although this may be the case in some films, I don’t believe it is a constant that always applies.Yes, those shots she speaks of in which close-ups of women’s faces and legs are splashed across the screen do border on sexual objectification.
However, look at all the films made today that focus on women who are empowering, strong, and more than just one-dimensional.( Recently Jennifer Connelly played a headstrong journalist in Blood Diamond, a film which depicted the diamond infused civil wars that rocked Sierra Leone in the 90’s). Of course there are still the high school-teen movies that dish out nothing put cheesy jokes and inappropriately clock-stopping long shots of female curves. You know the scenes: in which the hot chick is prancing down the hall in slow-motion, some unknown wind source is blowing delicately through her mane of perfection, all while some corny music plays in the background. Even though these phony scenes project an unnatural image of beauty to teens, I feel as though these vignettes of unreal life have become a big joke and now are only done to make a mockery of the film itself. It is sort of like the film is saying to the viewer, “Yeah, here we have inserted the typical, expected scene in which a girl is praised for her body, not brains…deal with it…savor it…you knew it was coming!”
While this does bother me to a certain extent, I feel the best way to deal with it all is to have a sense of humor. Ironically today there are girls/women lining up to be admired simply for their beauty and/or sexuality. Look at Girls Gone Wild, Top Model, and any pseudo reality show! Okay, so I know these two examples I mentioned differ in regards to their nature, but when you get down to it, aren't they both about women making themselves a commodity? ! Now, is it years and years of patriarchy and sexist media that has pushed these women to want to willingly behave in such a way ? You decide.
After watching Spielberg’s “Minority Report” and Reading Mulvey I see a connection when it comes to females being the “victim” in need of a “rescue” in films. The female precog, the most talented/intelligent of the three, needs help from Cruise’s character. Although she is responsible for almost controlling the fate of Cruise’s future, she is still weak, at risk of dying, and fits right into the “damsel in distress” role. It was refreshing to see that she was not sexualized and played up with make-up for the role, but her helplessness and vulnerability were still there in full force. I guess some may say that my argument lacks validity because the other 2 male precogs were just as pathetic. Yes, this is true. But, I wonder why did she have to be the one "couch-jumping Tom" was dragging around like an old dust mop to help him not commit a murder. Is it positive or negative that she was the one that held the most power of the 3? I mean essentially hasn’t he used and abused her all these years through Precrime and now isn’t he just using her again so his ass will be saved? Hmmm, was this movie really about gender-power struggles…male/female relationships…equality (or lack of)…After all?
However, look at all the films made today that focus on women who are empowering, strong, and more than just one-dimensional.( Recently Jennifer Connelly played a headstrong journalist in Blood Diamond, a film which depicted the diamond infused civil wars that rocked Sierra Leone in the 90’s). Of course there are still the high school-teen movies that dish out nothing put cheesy jokes and inappropriately clock-stopping long shots of female curves. You know the scenes: in which the hot chick is prancing down the hall in slow-motion, some unknown wind source is blowing delicately through her mane of perfection, all while some corny music plays in the background. Even though these phony scenes project an unnatural image of beauty to teens, I feel as though these vignettes of unreal life have become a big joke and now are only done to make a mockery of the film itself. It is sort of like the film is saying to the viewer, “Yeah, here we have inserted the typical, expected scene in which a girl is praised for her body, not brains…deal with it…savor it…you knew it was coming!”
While this does bother me to a certain extent, I feel the best way to deal with it all is to have a sense of humor. Ironically today there are girls/women lining up to be admired simply for their beauty and/or sexuality. Look at Girls Gone Wild, Top Model, and any pseudo reality show! Okay, so I know these two examples I mentioned differ in regards to their nature, but when you get down to it, aren't they both about women making themselves a commodity? ! Now, is it years and years of patriarchy and sexist media that has pushed these women to want to willingly behave in such a way ? You decide.
After watching Spielberg’s “Minority Report” and Reading Mulvey I see a connection when it comes to females being the “victim” in need of a “rescue” in films. The female precog, the most talented/intelligent of the three, needs help from Cruise’s character. Although she is responsible for almost controlling the fate of Cruise’s future, she is still weak, at risk of dying, and fits right into the “damsel in distress” role. It was refreshing to see that she was not sexualized and played up with make-up for the role, but her helplessness and vulnerability were still there in full force. I guess some may say that my argument lacks validity because the other 2 male precogs were just as pathetic. Yes, this is true. But, I wonder why did she have to be the one "couch-jumping Tom" was dragging around like an old dust mop to help him not commit a murder. Is it positive or negative that she was the one that held the most power of the 3? I mean essentially hasn’t he used and abused her all these years through Precrime and now isn’t he just using her again so his ass will be saved? Hmmm, was this movie really about gender-power struggles…male/female relationships…equality (or lack of)…After all?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Majority of the Minority Report
Steven Spielberg's, Minority Report is such an amazingly creative movie. Although it was a book before a movie I truly believe only Steven Spielberg could have brought it to life as he did. The movie made me think of Tiptree's, The Girl Who Was Plugged In in a way because in a sense, Agatha was "plugged in" cognitively to the rest of the world. Although it wasn't a choice as it was for the girl who was plugged in. I loved how of all three pre-cogs, they made the female, Agatha the most intuitive, intelligent and important one. It was fun to watch Tom Cruise as well in the days before he was a total freak. It's hard to fathom what exactly the future is going to be like, some of the aspects of the movie seem as though they may come true in the future but I'm not so sure if we will ever have cars like that. It would be cool though because it would really cut down on traffic. Anyway the majority of The Minority Report would be a really good idea, pre-crime and all however we will never have pre-cogs so maybe Spielberg could work with the government to compose a new idea on how to fight crime before it ever happens???
The Real Minority Report
Phillip K. Dick’s 1956 short story, Minority Report, and the 2002 Steven Spielberg film of the same name have few commonalities (aside from the name) but do exemplify the preoccupation of cinema with the objectification of the human form as described in Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. While Dick’s science fiction story explores the concepts of destiny, fate, multiple futures, and free will, the film uses the basic concepts as a showcase for the latest special effects, product placements (the Lexus factory), and of course objectifying the human body.
The film made over $300 million at the box office. The short story was virtually unknown until the film came out. Why did the film do so well? To summarize Mulvey—SEX SELLS. Take for instance the precog, Agatha, from the film. She is lithe and has a nubile look. All the better for pleasurable looking; not too threatening to the female viewer, but appealing to the voyeuristic male tendency to objectify the female form. Throw in a couple having sex as the camera follows the “spiders” searching for Anderton (hmm, missed that in the story) and Tom Cruise for the guys to project their persona into, and what do you get? BOX OFFICE SMASH!
This is why I just do not like the movies. Excuse me, films. The film took a science fiction story with a great concept and an okay plot and regurgitated it into a couple hours of crap that would appeal to most moviegoers: mystery, suspense, action, love story, crime drama, a lost child, et cetera. Stories allow us to form mental images of scenes, persons, and things, based on our own imagination and the quality of the writing. Mulvey gives me a sense that I am not alone in my distaste for the objectification of the human body not just in film, but television and print as well.
Mulvey hits the mark with her essay. Dick’s short story is a descent read. Spielberg’s film is a waste. However, judging by the fact that the film sold a zillion copies on DVD, I guess my opinion is the real minority report.
PKD-Tease
Forgive the pun. Couldn't resist.
Anyway, it's more of a utopian tease, what Spielberg did to Philip K.'s Minority Report. Isn't it?
Retinal scans posted throughout the city--a technological ante-upping of Foucault's cries of 'inspection functions ceaselessly" and "the gaze is alert everywhere"--equates utopia, you ask?
(And what kind of scary government's in place to implement such a practice? Seems more dystopic, methinks.)
Don't forget what the scans do in department stores--identifying you, acknowledging you, tapping into your shopping trends, letting you know of recommendations: a technological ante-upping of logging on to amazon.com and seeing the greeting "Welcome, ____, we have recommendations for you."
For a society hopelessly wrapped up in the seemingly inescapable python's-hug of consumerism, yeah, alright, this might seem like some kind of a utopia. an Eden with a magnetic strip.
And this brings things to: IDENTITY.
What happens to identity in a society where identity no longer belongs to you, but to corporate interests? (A timely headscratcher, perhaps, what with radio-frequency ID chips embedded in your Barnes & Noble card and your dog's flea-and-tick collar. What? Me? Paranoid?)
Walk into a store--it knows what you want.
Walk into a restaurant--it knows what you might order.
Walk into a cineplex--it knows your film preferences.
Does an identity remain genuine after rounds and rounds of "identity-broadcasting," wherein the corporate bogeymen know you almost precognitively.
And this brings things to: THE PRECOGS.
Agatha and the two nameless males in the film--who, in Philip K.'s original story, are the "vegetable-like," "deformed and retarded" "Jerry,' "Mike," and "Donna," attached to "metal bands" and "bundles of wiring," a description worthy of "Delphi" Burke in Tiptree's tale--are each rendered physically genderless--shaved heads, identical dress--as they predict futures in a big serene, eerily-lit pool like watery Delphic oracles--ah, another potential link to "Delphi."
Rendered genderless, predicting the future, the mere appearance of the Precogs, I believe, predicts the future.
A future where identity and gender are simplified to the point where everyone, from a corporate angle, wants the same things.
A realist pic of the future, you ask?
Utopias are only as possible as their marketability.
'Tis no tease.
Anyway, it's more of a utopian tease, what Spielberg did to Philip K.'s Minority Report. Isn't it?
Retinal scans posted throughout the city--a technological ante-upping of Foucault's cries of 'inspection functions ceaselessly" and "the gaze is alert everywhere"--equates utopia, you ask?
(And what kind of scary government's in place to implement such a practice? Seems more dystopic, methinks.)
Don't forget what the scans do in department stores--identifying you, acknowledging you, tapping into your shopping trends, letting you know of recommendations: a technological ante-upping of logging on to amazon.com and seeing the greeting "Welcome, ____, we have recommendations for you."
For a society hopelessly wrapped up in the seemingly inescapable python's-hug of consumerism, yeah, alright, this might seem like some kind of a utopia. an Eden with a magnetic strip.
And this brings things to: IDENTITY.
What happens to identity in a society where identity no longer belongs to you, but to corporate interests? (A timely headscratcher, perhaps, what with radio-frequency ID chips embedded in your Barnes & Noble card and your dog's flea-and-tick collar. What? Me? Paranoid?)
Walk into a store--it knows what you want.
Walk into a restaurant--it knows what you might order.
Walk into a cineplex--it knows your film preferences.
Does an identity remain genuine after rounds and rounds of "identity-broadcasting," wherein the corporate bogeymen know you almost precognitively.
And this brings things to: THE PRECOGS.
Agatha and the two nameless males in the film--who, in Philip K.'s original story, are the "vegetable-like," "deformed and retarded" "Jerry,' "Mike," and "Donna," attached to "metal bands" and "bundles of wiring," a description worthy of "Delphi" Burke in Tiptree's tale--are each rendered physically genderless--shaved heads, identical dress--as they predict futures in a big serene, eerily-lit pool like watery Delphic oracles--ah, another potential link to "Delphi."
Rendered genderless, predicting the future, the mere appearance of the Precogs, I believe, predicts the future.
A future where identity and gender are simplified to the point where everyone, from a corporate angle, wants the same things.
A realist pic of the future, you ask?
Utopias are only as possible as their marketability.
'Tis no tease.
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Price of Disgust or Desire $5.00
Bid Daddy refers to the term mendacity, “as one of them five-dollar words that cheap politicians throw back and forth to one another.” It is also a five-dollar word that many of this semester’s characters have broken the bank with. First, Maurice and Clive, then the two Earnests, who could forget the girl plugged in, and now Brick and Maggie. The expense of five dollars? Is it an expense that you have found yourself indebted to? How many of us, like these characters, spent $5 to get what we wanted or to temporarily rid ourselves from disgust? Maggie spent her loot for the hopes of a child, an heir to the cotton fields of Big Daddy. Brick spent his on disgust- disgust for what his heart may desire and not being bold enough to experience. The girl plugged in, was more than happy to pay up for a new physicality- even if it was one of temporary virtuality. Maurice and Clive, reluctant in their spending, still paid up. So, who else? Me? You? How many of us? How many will there be? In reality, haven’t we all expensed five-dollars, here and there, to evade or achieve? For as Brick states: “Mendacity is a system that we live in.” It is a system that may or may not bring us to a duality, such described by Maggie in the last scene. For Maggie states to Brick: “Oh, you weak, beautiful people who give up with such grace. What you need is someone to take hold of you-gently, with love, and hand your life back to you, like something gold you let go of-and I can!” If you had the opportunity, would you take the gold; would you take your spent five-dollar bill back?
Bid Daddy refers to the term mendacity, “as one of them five-dollar words that cheap politicians throw back and forth to one another.” It is also a five-dollar word that many of this semester’s characters have broken the bank with. First, Maurice and Clive, then the two Earnests, who could forget the girl plugged in, and now Brick and Maggie. The expense of five dollars? Is it an expense that you have found yourself indebted to? How many of us, like these characters, spent $5 to get what we wanted or to temporarily rid ourselves from disgust? Maggie spent her loot for the hopes of a child, an heir to the cotton fields of Big Daddy. Brick spent his on disgust- disgust for what his heart may desire and not being bold enough to experience. The girl plugged in, was more than happy to pay up for a new physicality- even if it was one of temporary virtuality. Maurice and Clive, reluctant in their spending, still paid up. So, who else? Me? You? How many of us? How many will there be? In reality, haven’t we all expensed five-dollars, here and there, to evade or achieve? For as Brick states: “Mendacity is a system that we live in.” It is a system that may or may not bring us to a duality, such described by Maggie in the last scene. For Maggie states to Brick: “Oh, you weak, beautiful people who give up with such grace. What you need is someone to take hold of you-gently, with love, and hand your life back to you, like something gold you let go of-and I can!” If you had the opportunity, would you take the gold; would you take your spent five-dollar bill back?
Peer Pressure Sucks...Even in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
What a tangled web Brick is in, albeit not one that he weaved, but that his wife Maggie created for him. I’m still not quite sure myself whether or not Brick is actually homosexual or if it is just his friend Skipper, but either way, their relationship is obviously stronger than the bond that Brick has with his wife. He could possibly be similar to Clive in the fact that he wants to uphold a physical distance with Skipper due to social pressures, or perhaps he really does find homosexuality “dirty” as he refers to it. Either way, it is apparent that his wife is jealous and took it upon herself to mess things up for him and Skipper. Poor Skipper is so distraught over the realization that he is a homosexual, a truth forced upon him by Maggie, that he feels obligated to try to prove his manhood by sleeping with her. (I’m sure this is at her suggestion, demonstrating the influence of peer pressure on sexual orientation…and of course the power of persuasion that women possess!) What a mess!!
Still, the character of Brick raises some interesting questions about the pressures of sexual orientation on an individual. If he is a homosexual, than why would he rather deny it, reject and distance himself from Skipper, blame himself for his death, and commit to a life of guilt driven drinking, all as opposed to admitting that he loves his friend. Why would anyone torment himself in such a way just to avoid the truth? Perhaps the peer pressures in Brick’s society are too great for him to ignore. Brick openly admits that he doesn’t love his wife and that their relationship “never got any closer together than two people just get in bed,” yet he married her and continues to be with her, suggesting that he is merely following suit in his life to what is expected of him by society. He is obviously very easily influenced if this is the case, or powerless against the “big brother” of society.
Or perhaps social standards of the “family” are influencing his decisions. After all, his father is a high society, wealthy, hardworking man who has been married 40+ years, leaving huge footprints for Brick to follow in. In some ways he is following suit with the life his father leads; I’m sure it’s no coincidence that his father is unhappy in his marriage too. Just like Maurice, the pressures to uphold a position in society and in the family may be driving Brick to reject his current place in life. He blames his drunken state on “mendacity,” the lies upon which his life, and the lives of the ones around him are based. Still, following suit with social construction and instead of being honest with himself and his sexuality, he just abides by and conforms to the heterosexual life that is laid out for him. (It’s a good thing that it’s socially acceptable to drink!!)
Still, the character of Brick raises some interesting questions about the pressures of sexual orientation on an individual. If he is a homosexual, than why would he rather deny it, reject and distance himself from Skipper, blame himself for his death, and commit to a life of guilt driven drinking, all as opposed to admitting that he loves his friend. Why would anyone torment himself in such a way just to avoid the truth? Perhaps the peer pressures in Brick’s society are too great for him to ignore. Brick openly admits that he doesn’t love his wife and that their relationship “never got any closer together than two people just get in bed,” yet he married her and continues to be with her, suggesting that he is merely following suit in his life to what is expected of him by society. He is obviously very easily influenced if this is the case, or powerless against the “big brother” of society.
Or perhaps social standards of the “family” are influencing his decisions. After all, his father is a high society, wealthy, hardworking man who has been married 40+ years, leaving huge footprints for Brick to follow in. In some ways he is following suit with the life his father leads; I’m sure it’s no coincidence that his father is unhappy in his marriage too. Just like Maurice, the pressures to uphold a position in society and in the family may be driving Brick to reject his current place in life. He blames his drunken state on “mendacity,” the lies upon which his life, and the lives of the ones around him are based. Still, following suit with social construction and instead of being honest with himself and his sexuality, he just abides by and conforms to the heterosexual life that is laid out for him. (It’s a good thing that it’s socially acceptable to drink!!)
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Is perfect really perfect?
Who would have thought that Minority Report was actually a book before it was a movie? I never did! I remembered loving the action packed movie and really enjoying the far fetched ideas that were presented in it, like how everyone had scanners in their eyes. Now that I’ve read the book I see where they have a similar idea, but yet a different story. In the book they portrayed the main character, John Anderton, as an aged insecure man who’s fighting for his job and to, at any cost, save precrime. Then comes the movie starring a handsome Tom Cruise who has lost his son and who wants to restore right. The question in my mind that keeps coming up in readings like this and The Girl Who Was Plugged In is, why is it that as a society we are never happy with ourselves? Do we really have such a low self-esteem as a whole that we feel that we constantly have to keep perfecting ourselves?
P. Burke, as explained by the book, was a young, unhappy, and suicidal girl. So unhappy with her non-perfect image that she was willing to make her body a vegetable so her mind could be somewhere else in a more perfect human image. Unfortunately, as we read on we saw that this was not the perfect answer. Everything that at first seemed so wonderful ended up crashing down all around her. Both these stories once again show the downsides to socially constructed norms. To me socially constructed norms are ways to tell us if we are the perfect human being or not, do we follow the rules, do we behave the way we should, and do we look the part? Poor P. Burke didn’t fit the perfect image and suicide was definitely not following the rules, so her only ultimatum was to become a pretty puppet for society to help reinforce society’s “perfect image” for a female.
P. Burke, as explained by the book, was a young, unhappy, and suicidal girl. So unhappy with her non-perfect image that she was willing to make her body a vegetable so her mind could be somewhere else in a more perfect human image. Unfortunately, as we read on we saw that this was not the perfect answer. Everything that at first seemed so wonderful ended up crashing down all around her. Both these stories once again show the downsides to socially constructed norms. To me socially constructed norms are ways to tell us if we are the perfect human being or not, do we follow the rules, do we behave the way we should, and do we look the part? Poor P. Burke didn’t fit the perfect image and suicide was definitely not following the rules, so her only ultimatum was to become a pretty puppet for society to help reinforce society’s “perfect image” for a female.
Desire--The Majority Flaw
Ok—This may be a stretch, but it’s the best I can do regarding my reading of the Minority Report, including watching the movie.
I’m paraphrasing, but in the movie, John Anderton defends the Precrime system by saying that it is perfect and flawless. The agent investigating the system says that there is always flaws in the system—that of the “human” element. In comparing this story to “The Girl Who Was Plugged In” from last week I can find one common thread—that of human desire. We posses this desire because of the things in our life that we lack, our flaws, and it seems almost as if our sole pursuit in life is to make up for the things that we lack.
In TGWWPI, the human desire that P. Burke sought after was for love, for Eros, and for beauty. In the Minority Report, the desire that Anderton has is for control, and for perfection in the area of his work. In both readings, the characters desired that which they lacked, but the greediness of human nature seems to get in the way. This is probably more pronounced in the movie than in the reading because we find out that Anderton has lost control of his life since the death of his son, and the man that started up Precrime wanted to achieve a level of perfection in his system so bad that had to kill the mother of one of the precogs in order to be able to use her to predict the future murders. (Talk about being hypocritical!)
I think that what this shows, though, is the great lengths that humans will go through to obtain what ever it is that they desire, no matter what the costs. Although love and Eros seem to be the downfall of a lot of great people, I think that perhaps it is simply their desire that is their flaw---not that what they specifically sought was love. Maybe desire wouldn’t even be that bad if we just weren’t so greedy as humans. Desire fueled by greed…doesn’t sound like a good combination to me. (At least its comforting to know that we all have the same issues!!)
I’m paraphrasing, but in the movie, John Anderton defends the Precrime system by saying that it is perfect and flawless. The agent investigating the system says that there is always flaws in the system—that of the “human” element. In comparing this story to “The Girl Who Was Plugged In” from last week I can find one common thread—that of human desire. We posses this desire because of the things in our life that we lack, our flaws, and it seems almost as if our sole pursuit in life is to make up for the things that we lack.
In TGWWPI, the human desire that P. Burke sought after was for love, for Eros, and for beauty. In the Minority Report, the desire that Anderton has is for control, and for perfection in the area of his work. In both readings, the characters desired that which they lacked, but the greediness of human nature seems to get in the way. This is probably more pronounced in the movie than in the reading because we find out that Anderton has lost control of his life since the death of his son, and the man that started up Precrime wanted to achieve a level of perfection in his system so bad that had to kill the mother of one of the precogs in order to be able to use her to predict the future murders. (Talk about being hypocritical!)
I think that what this shows, though, is the great lengths that humans will go through to obtain what ever it is that they desire, no matter what the costs. Although love and Eros seem to be the downfall of a lot of great people, I think that perhaps it is simply their desire that is their flaw---not that what they specifically sought was love. Maybe desire wouldn’t even be that bad if we just weren’t so greedy as humans. Desire fueled by greed…doesn’t sound like a good combination to me. (At least its comforting to know that we all have the same issues!!)
In the Name of the Father and Then Some
Clive in E. M. Forster's Maurice, emerges theoretically as Brick in Tennessee Williams Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. When Maggie tries to tell Brick the truth as he insists his is the special platonic love, the highest spiritual love that he had with Skipper, yet he chose to forgo occupations that did not include Skippers presence.
So, Maggie makes hay (well it wasn't love) with Skipper, who is drunk with longing and liquor for Brick. But, who is Brick really angry with Skipper or Maggie/ "Well i married you, didn't I"
Just doesn't quite answer the query being illegal to marry Skipper.
Moreover, Maggie calls Brick a "...superior creature...a god-like being...." Reminiscent of Phaedra and Eros's errant arrows. Furthermore, by making love to to Skipper Maggie attempts to complete the circle, to share or shatter and chaos ensues with Skipper's solution to kill himself.
Meanwhile, Brick continues denying his true feelings for Skipper in a Gothic atmosphere of greed and the pending death of Brick's father appropriately named Big Daddy with Mommy inappropriately titled Big Mama and treated as insignificantly as a chair Big Daddy might have reclined on years ago and left broken and rotting, yet still uttering nothings amounting to creaks and rattling.
Finally, akin to "Queer Tutelage", "...the Name of the Father..." becomes "...The name of the Father ..."becomes the "...name of the of the family- that is, the name family."
Finally, who better to position himself in his father's place than Brick, the true son, to give the family heirs, whether by choice or influence, he will become "the father'.
So, Maggie makes hay (well it wasn't love) with Skipper, who is drunk with longing and liquor for Brick. But, who is Brick really angry with Skipper or Maggie/ "Well i married you, didn't I"
Just doesn't quite answer the query being illegal to marry Skipper.
Moreover, Maggie calls Brick a "...superior creature...a god-like being...." Reminiscent of Phaedra and Eros's errant arrows. Furthermore, by making love to to Skipper Maggie attempts to complete the circle, to share or shatter and chaos ensues with Skipper's solution to kill himself.
Meanwhile, Brick continues denying his true feelings for Skipper in a Gothic atmosphere of greed and the pending death of Brick's father appropriately named Big Daddy with Mommy inappropriately titled Big Mama and treated as insignificantly as a chair Big Daddy might have reclined on years ago and left broken and rotting, yet still uttering nothings amounting to creaks and rattling.
Finally, akin to "Queer Tutelage", "...the Name of the Father..." becomes "...The name of the Father ..."becomes the "...name of the of the family- that is, the name family."
Finally, who better to position himself in his father's place than Brick, the true son, to give the family heirs, whether by choice or influence, he will become "the father'.
Power to the Precogs!!!!
I have got to say, I am really starting to enjoy all these Sci-Fi futuristic works we are reading. They seem to get my brain thinking about all types of hypothetical issues we may run into in the future. “Minority Report”, if read from a certain angle, could be viewed as a political piece about capital punishment. I know you are probably thinking, “That is such a stretch!”. But, it makes sense, in MR the poor Precogs are exploited in order to prevent criminal activity. However, they are flawed to a certain degree. They are not a perfect 100% accurate SYSTEM that can determine the innocent from the guilty. Although DNA doesn’t lie, there can still be the slight chance that those falsely accused may end up on death row in today’s world. It just makes one question the exactness (or lack of exactness) within our current justice system. Maybe MR was written in order for us to look around and recognize that bureaucratic institutions really do NOT have the interest of the PERSON in mind.
This idea of not being concerned with the welfare of the individual is made SO CLEAR when we examine the Precogs. These talented individuals, who are blessed with a powerful psychic ability, are simply used by Precrime! It is so so so hypocritical! Precrime claims that they have saved lives for years, yet what about all the lives that they have annihilated in the name of JUSTICE?! The Precogs are not even viewed as people. All of their basic rights are taken away just so they can be used as a vegetative tool to “fight crime”. Precrime is basically killing Precogs so others can live. They want to come off as a company that values human life, but they are the ones responsible for torturing those blessed with a sixth-sense. Isn’t this trading crime for crime?
I also wonder, “Couldn’t there be a more humanitarian way of obtaining info from the Precogs?”. I mean why do they have to be these inanimate objects that suffer day in and day out? Couldn’t the Precogs be part of society and work with police to prevent atrocities from occurring? Maybe the Precogs are hooked up to machines and forced to spit out important knowledge because this method is viewed as the “most efficient” technique. Perhaps it would cost Precrime, or taxpayers, more money to have the Precogs be kept in their natural human form. After all, if this was the case, the Precogs would have to be paid a salary, because they would be EMPLOYEES, not damaged machinery. The whole situation is very sad indeed. It puts me in mind of certain psychics that work with cops now-a-days to solve murders/crimes that have already been committed. Goodness, I hope that we never see this crazy ill-treatment in our world.
This idea of not being concerned with the welfare of the individual is made SO CLEAR when we examine the Precogs. These talented individuals, who are blessed with a powerful psychic ability, are simply used by Precrime! It is so so so hypocritical! Precrime claims that they have saved lives for years, yet what about all the lives that they have annihilated in the name of JUSTICE?! The Precogs are not even viewed as people. All of their basic rights are taken away just so they can be used as a vegetative tool to “fight crime”. Precrime is basically killing Precogs so others can live. They want to come off as a company that values human life, but they are the ones responsible for torturing those blessed with a sixth-sense. Isn’t this trading crime for crime?
I also wonder, “Couldn’t there be a more humanitarian way of obtaining info from the Precogs?”. I mean why do they have to be these inanimate objects that suffer day in and day out? Couldn’t the Precogs be part of society and work with police to prevent atrocities from occurring? Maybe the Precogs are hooked up to machines and forced to spit out important knowledge because this method is viewed as the “most efficient” technique. Perhaps it would cost Precrime, or taxpayers, more money to have the Precogs be kept in their natural human form. After all, if this was the case, the Precogs would have to be paid a salary, because they would be EMPLOYEES, not damaged machinery. The whole situation is very sad indeed. It puts me in mind of certain psychics that work with cops now-a-days to solve murders/crimes that have already been committed. Goodness, I hope that we never see this crazy ill-treatment in our world.
Loving the Alien? Your iPod?
Another day. (Another sex?) Another Tiptree story.
This one's called "And I Awoke and Found Me Here on the Cold Hill's Side."
No, it's not assigned reading--I know nothing you don't, syllabus-wise--and it's nowhere near the proto-cyberpunk whirlwind of the tale of the errant GTX-puppet "Delphi" Burke, but there are some passages I can't help spilling here.
And You Awoke and Found Them Here:
". . . all our history is one long drive to find and impregnate the stranger. Or get impregnated by him . . . anything different-colored, different, nose, ass, anything, man has to f*#k it or die trying. That's a drive, y'know, it's built in . . . now we've met aliens we can't screw, and we're about to die trying . . . "
Oh yeah, it's an alien sex story--not unfamiliar territory for Tiptree, y'know.
Is there truth here? No, we don't need to make contact with some intergalactic "stranger" to find an answer. Yes, there's truth here.
"Strangers." In TGWWPI, they were called "gods." We worship them as "gods" in the real world, more or less.
"Gods," they're the "aliens we can't screw," aren't they, removed from the real world as they are, even as they infiltrate the real world to the point an artificial environment results, an environment of tabloid rags and E!, documenting, mythologizing, eroticizing the adventures of the "gods," the stories of the "strangers," those who we can't physically impregnate, but who mentally impregnate us with image-repetition--celebrities.
Nothing really original here, is there? Celebrities--or "stars," a term relating distance, unattainability, perhaps even "otherworldiness?"--the so-called "beautiful people," engender a False Eros, a Cult of Sexuality, something that looks great up in lights, but is forever untouchable.
Eros evolves, though. Eros can adapt. Eros has a Darwinian stripe.
And if celebrities represent a False Eros, the Sexuality of the Repeated Image--repeated to the point where the original is forever lost, forever false--if a proliferation of "aliens we can't screw" results, in terms of evolutionary processes a line is created.
An Eros of the Sexualized Inanimate, maybe?
Eros applied to something that just doesn't respond, something incapable of responding (although we'll "die trying" to make it respond), something "alien?"
Architecture ?
Automobile design?
Furniture?
Technology?
Aren't iPods sleek and sexy?
(EXTRAPOLATION: the iSex, a future microdevice capable of producing what Tiptree calls "supernormal stimulus"--iSex; is there something conjuring Aristophanes in this moniker? A longing for a lost half? Something narcissistic, too.)
Another sex, indeed!
A sex equating the comfort of a cold hillside.
Wake up!
This one's called "And I Awoke and Found Me Here on the Cold Hill's Side."
No, it's not assigned reading--I know nothing you don't, syllabus-wise--and it's nowhere near the proto-cyberpunk whirlwind of the tale of the errant GTX-puppet "Delphi" Burke, but there are some passages I can't help spilling here.
And You Awoke and Found Them Here:
". . . all our history is one long drive to find and impregnate the stranger. Or get impregnated by him . . . anything different-colored, different, nose, ass, anything, man has to f*#k it or die trying. That's a drive, y'know, it's built in . . . now we've met aliens we can't screw, and we're about to die trying . . . "
Oh yeah, it's an alien sex story--not unfamiliar territory for Tiptree, y'know.
Is there truth here? No, we don't need to make contact with some intergalactic "stranger" to find an answer. Yes, there's truth here.
"Strangers." In TGWWPI, they were called "gods." We worship them as "gods" in the real world, more or less.
"Gods," they're the "aliens we can't screw," aren't they, removed from the real world as they are, even as they infiltrate the real world to the point an artificial environment results, an environment of tabloid rags and E!, documenting, mythologizing, eroticizing the adventures of the "gods," the stories of the "strangers," those who we can't physically impregnate, but who mentally impregnate us with image-repetition--celebrities.
Nothing really original here, is there? Celebrities--or "stars," a term relating distance, unattainability, perhaps even "otherworldiness?"--the so-called "beautiful people," engender a False Eros, a Cult of Sexuality, something that looks great up in lights, but is forever untouchable.
Eros evolves, though. Eros can adapt. Eros has a Darwinian stripe.
And if celebrities represent a False Eros, the Sexuality of the Repeated Image--repeated to the point where the original is forever lost, forever false--if a proliferation of "aliens we can't screw" results, in terms of evolutionary processes a line is created.
An Eros of the Sexualized Inanimate, maybe?
Eros applied to something that just doesn't respond, something incapable of responding (although we'll "die trying" to make it respond), something "alien?"
Architecture ?
Automobile design?
Furniture?
Technology?
Aren't iPods sleek and sexy?
(EXTRAPOLATION: the iSex, a future microdevice capable of producing what Tiptree calls "supernormal stimulus"--iSex; is there something conjuring Aristophanes in this moniker? A longing for a lost half? Something narcissistic, too.)
Another sex, indeed!
A sex equating the comfort of a cold hillside.
Wake up!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Pianola, the Pathetique, and the Honky-Tonk
Deeper research into the pianola and the music that Durham chose to play on the pianola in Maurice reveals some interesting facts that deepens my appreciation for Forster.
The Pathetique by Tchaikovsky was chosen not by chance, but by careful and cunning design. Tchaikovsky was homosexual. Given the homophobic era that Forster writes, it is one more subtle clue that foreshadows the relationship that is to come between Maurice and Clive. This "easter egg", if you will, rewards the reader who has a broad knowledge of the arts, music specifically. The word Pathetique relates to "Pathique" or "pathic": a "passive homosexual" and is defined "as a man or a boy upon whom sodomy is practised." 1 Talk about depth!
The pianola, a player piano that required the operator to control the tempo changes, played rolls hand-cut from sheet music. Many companies jumped on the player piano bandwagon in the early 20th century, including a man named Tonk and his self-named company and machine. No coincidence that there is a character in the novel Maurice with the name of . . .yes, you guessed it: Tonk. We get the term honky-tonk form this machine's name.
Forster was brilliant. Maurice is a treasure hunt for hidden meanings and messages. The reward is a literary bounty for the student of this art.
1<"No trace of presence": Tchaikovsky and the sixth in Forster's novel Maurice. By Bret L. Keeling. < http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001513608&er=deny >
The Pathetique by Tchaikovsky was chosen not by chance, but by careful and cunning design. Tchaikovsky was homosexual. Given the homophobic era that Forster writes, it is one more subtle clue that foreshadows the relationship that is to come between Maurice and Clive. This "easter egg", if you will, rewards the reader who has a broad knowledge of the arts, music specifically. The word Pathetique relates to "Pathique" or "pathic": a "passive homosexual" and is defined "as a man or a boy upon whom sodomy is practised." 1 Talk about depth!
The pianola, a player piano that required the operator to control the tempo changes, played rolls hand-cut from sheet music. Many companies jumped on the player piano bandwagon in the early 20th century, including a man named Tonk and his self-named company and machine. No coincidence that there is a character in the novel Maurice with the name of . . .yes, you guessed it: Tonk. We get the term honky-tonk form this machine's name.
Forster was brilliant. Maurice is a treasure hunt for hidden meanings and messages. The reward is a literary bounty for the student of this art.
1<"No trace of presence": Tchaikovsky and the sixth in Forster's novel Maurice. By Bret L. Keeling. < http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001513608&er=deny >
I noticed a common thread between Minority Report and The Girl Who Was Plugged In. Both of these stories are set in the future where social institutions have changed. This change is directly of the result of technology and its advancements. Naturally, this has a substantial affect of culture.
After reading these stories, I began asking myself questions like: What is the future of gender? Are the advancements of technology going to blur our gender lines? When the future is depicted through film and literature, we start to imagine less definitions of what is it to be a man and what is it to be a woman. There becomes a homogenizing trend of humanity. Basically, the line between what is male and what is female becomes hazy.
The point of the male is becoming less distinguished. Specifically the physical aspect of it. In the past, the man used his physical capabilities and was to provide for its family. Like hunting, farming and house building. But, due to the advancements of technology, males no longer have to do so much of that. The industrial revolution was the main cause of this change in gender. This is why some men are starting to show more feminine qualities, and women are more equal to men these days. Women no longer are looked at to stay in the house all day and clean and cook. We are beginning to become more of the same. All have the same job. In the future, I'm talkin like thousands of years from now, as a species what will we be. We are one of a couple of mammals on this planet to have pleasure in sex, but once we are the same and there is no difference between male and female, what will we become. Will we lose this pleasure in reproducing and will it be the ending of our species?
At what point should we start revolting this transition of genders and regain what is ours. We need to retain the differences between us because there is value, purpose and reason in that.
After reading these stories, I began asking myself questions like: What is the future of gender? Are the advancements of technology going to blur our gender lines? When the future is depicted through film and literature, we start to imagine less definitions of what is it to be a man and what is it to be a woman. There becomes a homogenizing trend of humanity. Basically, the line between what is male and what is female becomes hazy.
The point of the male is becoming less distinguished. Specifically the physical aspect of it. In the past, the man used his physical capabilities and was to provide for its family. Like hunting, farming and house building. But, due to the advancements of technology, males no longer have to do so much of that. The industrial revolution was the main cause of this change in gender. This is why some men are starting to show more feminine qualities, and women are more equal to men these days. Women no longer are looked at to stay in the house all day and clean and cook. We are beginning to become more of the same. All have the same job. In the future, I'm talkin like thousands of years from now, as a species what will we be. We are one of a couple of mammals on this planet to have pleasure in sex, but once we are the same and there is no difference between male and female, what will we become. Will we lose this pleasure in reproducing and will it be the ending of our species?
At what point should we start revolting this transition of genders and regain what is ours. We need to retain the differences between us because there is value, purpose and reason in that.
Look Around...See the Delphis!?
I just finished reading “The Girl Who Was Plugged In” and I have to say the goose bumps this riveting short story caused me to have, have not subsided. Okay, so it is definitely in the genre of Sci-Fi…but so many aspects of this innovative piece reflect our current culture. Sadly, we are SO into the superficial lives of celebrities that often times I feel like people forget that there is a WAR in Iraq! There is so much star-worship going on now that is completely unnecessary, not to mention unhealthy. Perhaps this piece was written in order to Wake us up, before our planet is infested with smiling Delphis. But wait! In a sense, aren’t we already starting to see this trend of physical perfect barely legal honeys selling idiotic garbage that no one really needs!? I feel a piece of Delphi lives in ever young sexually appealing/yet virginal/corporate baby whore who is used to sell a product. Let’s face it, these girls that live in our society today sacrifice their true identity to fit the mold of someone, or SOMETHING that will be marketable, much like how deformed P. Burke traded in her life for some blonde hair, minibreasts, and fame.
I really don’t blame P. Burke for making this drastic choice. She was “the ugly of the world” who saw an opportunity to be like the ‘gods’ she praised and jumped on it. In this hypothetical future culture, that is so beauty conscious, what other option did she really have? I though it was very interesting that she was “young” but “who would care”. This just goes to show that if good looks aren’t attached to youth, youth isn’t even cherished and valued. Our culture TODAY is so obsessed with outward appearances. I mean look at how plastic surgery has become common place! In some circles it is accepted, even encouraged that a noise job or breast implants be given as a sweet 16 presents! People right now as I am typing this are mutilating their bodies in the name of beauty. Now, I ask you, is this not so far off from the society depicted in Tiptree’s story?
I found the conclusion to be painstakingly heart-breaking. Paul seemed like a genuine guy, but when he faced the “monster” P. Burke, who animated the body he called Delphi, his good-man status plummeted. He actual killed the woman he loved without even fully realizing it. This whole idea represents the importance of inner-beauty that is overlooked now-a-days. It’s like it doesn’t even matter who you are on the inside because by surrounding yourself with the right name brands and looking hot will make up for whatever ugliness you possess on the inside! The similarities between this chilling story and the media frenzied world we live in today really hit home. Are we paving the insane road to artificial-ville….or are we already there??
I really don’t blame P. Burke for making this drastic choice. She was “the ugly of the world” who saw an opportunity to be like the ‘gods’ she praised and jumped on it. In this hypothetical future culture, that is so beauty conscious, what other option did she really have? I though it was very interesting that she was “young” but “who would care”. This just goes to show that if good looks aren’t attached to youth, youth isn’t even cherished and valued. Our culture TODAY is so obsessed with outward appearances. I mean look at how plastic surgery has become common place! In some circles it is accepted, even encouraged that a noise job or breast implants be given as a sweet 16 presents! People right now as I am typing this are mutilating their bodies in the name of beauty. Now, I ask you, is this not so far off from the society depicted in Tiptree’s story?
I found the conclusion to be painstakingly heart-breaking. Paul seemed like a genuine guy, but when he faced the “monster” P. Burke, who animated the body he called Delphi, his good-man status plummeted. He actual killed the woman he loved without even fully realizing it. This whole idea represents the importance of inner-beauty that is overlooked now-a-days. It’s like it doesn’t even matter who you are on the inside because by surrounding yourself with the right name brands and looking hot will make up for whatever ugliness you possess on the inside! The similarities between this chilling story and the media frenzied world we live in today really hit home. Are we paving the insane road to artificial-ville….or are we already there??
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A capitalist and a Toaster:A Love Story
Tiptree is a science fiction poet. And the moral of the story is check the warranty or the small print before squandering your soul. Add God is a doll. A doll that sells, sells and sells some more as the P. Burkes of the world consume, consume and the consequences? Self consumption.
Moreover, turn off your Martha Stewarts, Oprah Winfreys and the conspicuously consumptive Home Shopping Network as Big Brother's code name is Candle Aka. Paul, Non de plume, another victim turned vulture, again, enter Paul.
Likewise, the dreamers as we learn, it is not that Tiptree's dreams aren't for sale. It is just the price: one's life is stretching the budget and tilting the equator a mite when consumerism not only buys it's Gods, but in addition, purchases it's king or rather prince, or Infante ,if you prefer.
Moreover, enter Paul, enter P. Burke, with burn out versus greed we lose the idealist,the seeker, the hopeful and the unique. There is also Delphi not every utterance was Burkes. So, if not Burke's then whose?
Ultimately, gluttony is more of an epidemic than a panacea for boredom or depression. Oddly, even Candle's ordered world had it's defects, enter Davy, who is akin to a Cocker Spaniel to Delphi.
Finally, there is a great deal of Pathos in Tiptrees's creative universe, immersed in "winged" bait and body bags.
Moreover, turn off your Martha Stewarts, Oprah Winfreys and the conspicuously consumptive Home Shopping Network as Big Brother's code name is Candle Aka. Paul, Non de plume, another victim turned vulture, again, enter Paul.
Likewise, the dreamers as we learn, it is not that Tiptree's dreams aren't for sale. It is just the price: one's life is stretching the budget and tilting the equator a mite when consumerism not only buys it's Gods, but in addition, purchases it's king or rather prince, or Infante ,if you prefer.
Moreover, enter Paul, enter P. Burke, with burn out versus greed we lose the idealist,the seeker, the hopeful and the unique. There is also Delphi not every utterance was Burkes. So, if not Burke's then whose?
Ultimately, gluttony is more of an epidemic than a panacea for boredom or depression. Oddly, even Candle's ordered world had it's defects, enter Davy, who is akin to a Cocker Spaniel to Delphi.
Finally, there is a great deal of Pathos in Tiptrees's creative universe, immersed in "winged" bait and body bags.
Out of Body Experience
The Girl Who Was Plugged In was a crazy story. It brought back vague memories I had of Minority Report but it was still really different so I can't wait to see the movie again actually. I can relate a lot to P. Burke and her obsession with wanting to be perfect. Although I try not to be materialistic it is really hard in todays world. What is that stupid saying, keeping up with the Jones'? Anyways I can only imagine how the future is going to be if only in the last decade our celebrities have become our gods and more people can identify P. Diddy than can identify Colon Powell. In the short story however, P. Burke lived her life superficially inhabiting mentally another person's body, Delphi. The only down side of it all is that eventhough her mind believes and kind of feels like she is really living as Delphi, she has lost her senses for the most part. I thought it was sad that she hated life so much as herself that she wanted to give it all up to seek happiness as someone else. I would never do that, even if it did become possible one day for me to live the rest of my days as Giselle Bunchen. Might be nice but nothing is worth giving up your own identity, it is one of the only things that no one else will ever have, its just for you!
Monday, February 12, 2007
Plugged In Is Whacked Out!!
Ok—once you get past the fact that the author is referring to us as a “Zombie” and “dead dad,” which is more than a little weird, this story is actually really intriguing!
The basic concept of the story, that one’s brain can “control” the lifeless body of another person, really reiterates what may be possible in the future.
Beyond the sci-fi aspect, though, this story really emphasized the torment and ultimate destruction that “desire,” or “Eros,” can bring into one’s life. P. Burke, a lonely and desperate girl, lives a life full of physical and material desires. She idolizes people who are both beautiful and happy, and even sees them as her “gods.” When given the opportunity, she abandons her life in order to fulfill those desires and become someone who is desired herself. Just as Socrates described “Eros” in terms of desire, P. Burke loves what is beautiful and desires a life of happiness because that is what she lacks.
The body she takes over, Delphi, is a sort of “god” in her own right. She is the epitome of beauty, and the “poster child” for all that is desired within her society. She is literally a walking “ad” campaign for happiness, except for the fact that she doesn’t even really exist (much like the life of perfect happiness which P. Burke desires). Delphi is an outlet for P. Burke to achieve what she desires, and the cost of losing her own life seems unimportant to her…until her ultimate desire of love and “Eros” is fulfilled by Paul.
Just as in any great story, the downfall of P. Burke, aka Delphi, is the desire for love. Once Paul comes into the picture Delphi can’t get him out of her head! (Boy it must be really crowded up there!!) Anyways, P. Burke is happy sharing a life with Delphi up until that point, and then the physical distance between the love that she feels for Paul in her brain, and the love that she cannot feel for him with Delphi’s body, becomes too much. Although P. Burke knows that she will jeopardize her life as Delphi by continuing to see Paul, she cannot bring herself to separate Delphi from him. Ultimately, she sacrifices herself for her love of him, and once again the result of desire and “Eros” is that the lover dies for the beloved.
Bummer!
The basic concept of the story, that one’s brain can “control” the lifeless body of another person, really reiterates what may be possible in the future.
Beyond the sci-fi aspect, though, this story really emphasized the torment and ultimate destruction that “desire,” or “Eros,” can bring into one’s life. P. Burke, a lonely and desperate girl, lives a life full of physical and material desires. She idolizes people who are both beautiful and happy, and even sees them as her “gods.” When given the opportunity, she abandons her life in order to fulfill those desires and become someone who is desired herself. Just as Socrates described “Eros” in terms of desire, P. Burke loves what is beautiful and desires a life of happiness because that is what she lacks.
The body she takes over, Delphi, is a sort of “god” in her own right. She is the epitome of beauty, and the “poster child” for all that is desired within her society. She is literally a walking “ad” campaign for happiness, except for the fact that she doesn’t even really exist (much like the life of perfect happiness which P. Burke desires). Delphi is an outlet for P. Burke to achieve what she desires, and the cost of losing her own life seems unimportant to her…until her ultimate desire of love and “Eros” is fulfilled by Paul.
Just as in any great story, the downfall of P. Burke, aka Delphi, is the desire for love. Once Paul comes into the picture Delphi can’t get him out of her head! (Boy it must be really crowded up there!!) Anyways, P. Burke is happy sharing a life with Delphi up until that point, and then the physical distance between the love that she feels for Paul in her brain, and the love that she cannot feel for him with Delphi’s body, becomes too much. Although P. Burke knows that she will jeopardize her life as Delphi by continuing to see Paul, she cannot bring herself to separate Delphi from him. Ultimately, she sacrifices herself for her love of him, and once again the result of desire and “Eros” is that the lover dies for the beloved.
Bummer!
Eros Plugs In
Listen up, zombie!
Dont't argue with the fact--you're a zombie, I'm a zombie, a confined galaxy of electrical impulses and organic blanketing dead long before a coffin-shaped black hole slams shut on top of us, it's true. But we shouldn't be, not anymore!
Remember what Plato said Apollodorus said Socrates said?
PARAPHRASE: Eros--God of Love, and, for our purposes here, representative of godhood in general; after all, don't the Christians like to proselytize "God is Love?" Jews, too? Muslims?--is the longing for immortality.
Alright, follow this up with a six-word Tiptree-ism:
CITATION: "And what gods have, mortals desire."
Add 'em up.
Gods long for immortality.
Mortals want what gods want.
Mortals long for immortality.
A syllogism for the ages, is it not?
Yes, it is. Mortals, you and I, zombie, we long for immortality, we long for Eros, the Eros of the Wired World, the Eros of MySpace and the Camera-Phone, the Eros of American Idol and 1 vs. 100, the Eros of Instant Celebrity.
An Instant Celebrity of the kind the gendered lump of "Delphi" Burke jacks into in 'The Girl Who Was Plugged In."
For "Delphi," it's the immortality of product placement, product recognition, YOUR mug is THEIR logo. She's Pepsi-Cola's Michael Jackson, Taco Bell's chihuahua, T-Mobil's Catherine Zeta-Jones.
And, zombie, here is our escape hatch, our big chance to beat biology, This Immortality Brought To You By Newscorp.
We shouldn't be zombies anymore, we needn't be, not with YouTube and the windfall of affordable technology. Immortality's easy these days. Baudrillard 101.
So, zombie, do we really long anymore? Do we really need to if our Aristophanesic other half runs on AAs?
Are we all, as Tiptree writes, "controllable gods," gods under our own self-control?
Are we at an end to longing, zombie, if the gods are zombies, if the gods are us? A Wagnerian Longingdammerung?
Surpassing the gods? Do we dare?
No, we still long. Longing doesn't change, only the thing longed for. So, zombie, I ask you, what lies beyond immortality worth longing for?
We'll see only when the idea of immortality achieves the dullness of doorknobs.
A post-deity, post-celebrity future.
Zombie, there's a great future there!
Dont't argue with the fact--you're a zombie, I'm a zombie, a confined galaxy of electrical impulses and organic blanketing dead long before a coffin-shaped black hole slams shut on top of us, it's true. But we shouldn't be, not anymore!
Remember what Plato said Apollodorus said Socrates said?
PARAPHRASE: Eros--God of Love, and, for our purposes here, representative of godhood in general; after all, don't the Christians like to proselytize "God is Love?" Jews, too? Muslims?--is the longing for immortality.
Alright, follow this up with a six-word Tiptree-ism:
CITATION: "And what gods have, mortals desire."
Add 'em up.
Gods long for immortality.
Mortals want what gods want.
Mortals long for immortality.
A syllogism for the ages, is it not?
Yes, it is. Mortals, you and I, zombie, we long for immortality, we long for Eros, the Eros of the Wired World, the Eros of MySpace and the Camera-Phone, the Eros of American Idol and 1 vs. 100, the Eros of Instant Celebrity.
An Instant Celebrity of the kind the gendered lump of "Delphi" Burke jacks into in 'The Girl Who Was Plugged In."
For "Delphi," it's the immortality of product placement, product recognition, YOUR mug is THEIR logo. She's Pepsi-Cola's Michael Jackson, Taco Bell's chihuahua, T-Mobil's Catherine Zeta-Jones.
And, zombie, here is our escape hatch, our big chance to beat biology, This Immortality Brought To You By Newscorp.
We shouldn't be zombies anymore, we needn't be, not with YouTube and the windfall of affordable technology. Immortality's easy these days. Baudrillard 101.
So, zombie, do we really long anymore? Do we really need to if our Aristophanesic other half runs on AAs?
Are we all, as Tiptree writes, "controllable gods," gods under our own self-control?
Are we at an end to longing, zombie, if the gods are zombies, if the gods are us? A Wagnerian Longingdammerung?
Surpassing the gods? Do we dare?
No, we still long. Longing doesn't change, only the thing longed for. So, zombie, I ask you, what lies beyond immortality worth longing for?
We'll see only when the idea of immortality achieves the dullness of doorknobs.
A post-deity, post-celebrity future.
Zombie, there's a great future there!
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
another week, another title
Well, I personally enjoyed reading the play "the importance of being earnest." Far better than any other play I have read. I like that humor was present all throughout the entire way of the play. It kept me wanting more and more and I coulnd't turn the pages fast enough. I found it funny after reading the play that given its title the play was about two guys who wern't earnest at all.
Once again we see how much impact society has on the decisions of others. It seems present that the social status of Algy and Jack vs. Gwendolen and Cecily had everything to do with them getting together and being married. Lady Bracknell cares the most in this respect. Even though Jack had the right credentials for Lady Bracknell to marry Gwendolen, he still couldn't simply because he was found in a bag at the train station and didn't have the proper background. How dumb is that!?
It was obvious that in both situations true love wasn't there at all in the start of things. Both women were in love with a name instead of the man himself. Gwendolen was in love with Jack because she had fallen in love with his name being Ernest and Cecily had loved because of the name Ernest even before she had met the man behind the name. But, like we talked about last week in class, nobody really likes to see a perfect story all the way through. We want to see the troubles and hardships first before we get to the perfect ending and so was the case for me in this play. I was happy to see a happy ending.
And I can't wait for class to discuss the second half of Plato because i'm a little lost in respect to exactly what they were trying to say. A lot was said in what seem to me the hardest way to say it so i'm looking forward to clearing that up.
Once again we see how much impact society has on the decisions of others. It seems present that the social status of Algy and Jack vs. Gwendolen and Cecily had everything to do with them getting together and being married. Lady Bracknell cares the most in this respect. Even though Jack had the right credentials for Lady Bracknell to marry Gwendolen, he still couldn't simply because he was found in a bag at the train station and didn't have the proper background. How dumb is that!?
It was obvious that in both situations true love wasn't there at all in the start of things. Both women were in love with a name instead of the man himself. Gwendolen was in love with Jack because she had fallen in love with his name being Ernest and Cecily had loved because of the name Ernest even before she had met the man behind the name. But, like we talked about last week in class, nobody really likes to see a perfect story all the way through. We want to see the troubles and hardships first before we get to the perfect ending and so was the case for me in this play. I was happy to see a happy ending.
And I can't wait for class to discuss the second half of Plato because i'm a little lost in respect to exactly what they were trying to say. A lot was said in what seem to me the hardest way to say it so i'm looking forward to clearing that up.
Earnesty?
This play was extremely intriguing. It was a simple, but yet intricate story of irony that worked out perfectly for "the earnest jack." I loved the ending because it was unexpected. I definitely did not expect everyone to be almost interrelated. The whole time during the course of the play Jack was living a life he felt like he should be living, and in return it worked in his favor. With in being true to himself and not really to anyone else, he was later rewarded with the answered question of his life. The way this piece flowed made it simple to stay connected to the characters and not get confused eventhough their relationships were somewhat complicated.
The title of the play really led me to think that the relations within it would have been of a more serious matter, but in reality it was just about being truthful and how a web of lies will eventually lead you and the others around you to the truth. In realtiy, Jack's fascination with Gwendolen led him to his other identity and to the truth about where he came from. It was most extraodinary to think that Jack was Algernon's brother and Lady Bracknell's nephew.
Most of the people affiliated with Jack always thought of him as an Ernest, therefore it is interesting to think that when he confessed about his name being Jack, that his appearance as an Ernest will automatically diminish. Gwendolen says how she could never really love a man with such a name as Jack, which is common for John, because it isn't eccentric or intriguing at the least. It makes me think how one's name can really change anothers perception of that person. Algernon and Gwendolen fell for Ernest, whereas Cecily Cardew new him as Jack.
When Jack admits to loving Gwendolen and wishes to propose, it seems that the result of this causes a subtle realization to Algernon. A realization that he too wants to marry. In thinking about what Jack has said about Cecily he takes the initiative to go to the country to meet her as in another identity. Algernon and Jack have the same characteristcs, they are both deceitful for their own benefit. It is interesting that they are so similar because that is even more realized when we discover that they are brothers.
This romanticized relationship that Cecily has developed with an unexistant character of Ernest is extremely interesting. She has married herself off to a man that really does not exist in name. These characters have embraced an identity that is purely sensualized. In either sense Jack, who began the identity of Ernest, comes out on top with the "Hollywood" ending. Yet, with all the intricacies of the relationships, it is possible that there are still some hidden truths; not necessarily about Ernest, but possibly about any other character.
By the way, the man on the cover of the book looks most sincerely EARNEST!
The title of the play really led me to think that the relations within it would have been of a more serious matter, but in reality it was just about being truthful and how a web of lies will eventually lead you and the others around you to the truth. In realtiy, Jack's fascination with Gwendolen led him to his other identity and to the truth about where he came from. It was most extraodinary to think that Jack was Algernon's brother and Lady Bracknell's nephew.
Most of the people affiliated with Jack always thought of him as an Ernest, therefore it is interesting to think that when he confessed about his name being Jack, that his appearance as an Ernest will automatically diminish. Gwendolen says how she could never really love a man with such a name as Jack, which is common for John, because it isn't eccentric or intriguing at the least. It makes me think how one's name can really change anothers perception of that person. Algernon and Gwendolen fell for Ernest, whereas Cecily Cardew new him as Jack.
When Jack admits to loving Gwendolen and wishes to propose, it seems that the result of this causes a subtle realization to Algernon. A realization that he too wants to marry. In thinking about what Jack has said about Cecily he takes the initiative to go to the country to meet her as in another identity. Algernon and Jack have the same characteristcs, they are both deceitful for their own benefit. It is interesting that they are so similar because that is even more realized when we discover that they are brothers.
This romanticized relationship that Cecily has developed with an unexistant character of Ernest is extremely interesting. She has married herself off to a man that really does not exist in name. These characters have embraced an identity that is purely sensualized. In either sense Jack, who began the identity of Ernest, comes out on top with the "Hollywood" ending. Yet, with all the intricacies of the relationships, it is possible that there are still some hidden truths; not necessarily about Ernest, but possibly about any other character.
By the way, the man on the cover of the book looks most sincerely EARNEST!
What's In A Name?
Wow, The Importance of Being Earnest certainly proved to be a “Wilde” ride. It prompts one to consider, “What’s in a name?”. I think Shakespeare had a point when he wrote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". I found it fascinating that both Gwendolen and Cecily, although quite different in personalities, both were enamored with the name “Ernest”. I suppose this could be Wilde’s way of expressing how important honesty is in a relationship, specifically to females. I mean I guess it is easy to see why a girl would be attracted to a man whose name conjured up other words like: sincere, heartfelt, and deep. You also have to think of the word earnest’s other connotation meaning “intensely serious”. Perhaps the two young ladies in the play believe someone possessing the name of Earnest will have no issues when it comes to fully committing to them.
The play humorously and honestly shows the competitive side of human nature. At their first encounter Gwendolen and Cecily seem to enjoy each others company. When the two are led to believe that they are in love with the same man, all the sweet chat goes right out the window. It is like one of those cheesy MTV dating shows where two girlies have to win over a dude. If those two hypothetical girls met in a bar they probably would be doing Jell-O shots and gossiping about Lindsey Lohan’s stint in rehab. Throw a guy into the mix and the claws will come out.
I felt that throughout the play there was an anti-marriage creeping overhead. Perhaps this is Wilde’s way of expressing the idea that the added stress that being in a legal union brings is just too much to handle. We see the idea that single life is superior to married life when Lane states that married households don’t carry first-rate champagne. Algernon then goes so far as to question, “Is marriage so demoralizing as that?”. This could also be the playwright’s attempt to show the screwed up priorities of the upper-crust. But, the marriage-bashing doesn’t just end there. Lady Bracknell tells of her friend Lady Harbury who has lost her husband, yet appears to look twenty years younger! This positive alteration in Harbury’s physical appearance implies that a great burden has been lifted from her shoulders, does it not?
The notion that marriages are not passion filled mergers comes through as well. Algernon says girls never marry the men they flirt with and he seems to be repulsed when he sees married couples exchanging suggestive glances. Could all this negative talk about marriage being rather boring and lacking “sparks” be Algernon’s fear of committing whole-heartedly to just one lady? Many men today share in Algernon’s idea that the “M” word takes something away from a romantic relationship. Does he have a point? When we attach a label and set of rules to a romantic endeavor does it taint and pollute it in some way?
Maybe Wilde wants for his readers to see that “Honesty is the Best Policy”. The ironic revelation at the end is funny. However, it also makes you ponder, is there some bit of truth within our lies? And if you embrace a fib long enough will it somehow become a part of you? How powerful are we when it comes to actually convincing ourselves of untruths? Are we really the person who we desire to be deep down? What is Reality…Do we create our own? I guess Algernon put it best when he said, “The Truth is rarely pure and never simple”.
The play humorously and honestly shows the competitive side of human nature. At their first encounter Gwendolen and Cecily seem to enjoy each others company. When the two are led to believe that they are in love with the same man, all the sweet chat goes right out the window. It is like one of those cheesy MTV dating shows where two girlies have to win over a dude. If those two hypothetical girls met in a bar they probably would be doing Jell-O shots and gossiping about Lindsey Lohan’s stint in rehab. Throw a guy into the mix and the claws will come out.
I felt that throughout the play there was an anti-marriage creeping overhead. Perhaps this is Wilde’s way of expressing the idea that the added stress that being in a legal union brings is just too much to handle. We see the idea that single life is superior to married life when Lane states that married households don’t carry first-rate champagne. Algernon then goes so far as to question, “Is marriage so demoralizing as that?”. This could also be the playwright’s attempt to show the screwed up priorities of the upper-crust. But, the marriage-bashing doesn’t just end there. Lady Bracknell tells of her friend Lady Harbury who has lost her husband, yet appears to look twenty years younger! This positive alteration in Harbury’s physical appearance implies that a great burden has been lifted from her shoulders, does it not?
The notion that marriages are not passion filled mergers comes through as well. Algernon says girls never marry the men they flirt with and he seems to be repulsed when he sees married couples exchanging suggestive glances. Could all this negative talk about marriage being rather boring and lacking “sparks” be Algernon’s fear of committing whole-heartedly to just one lady? Many men today share in Algernon’s idea that the “M” word takes something away from a romantic relationship. Does he have a point? When we attach a label and set of rules to a romantic endeavor does it taint and pollute it in some way?
Maybe Wilde wants for his readers to see that “Honesty is the Best Policy”. The ironic revelation at the end is funny. However, it also makes you ponder, is there some bit of truth within our lies? And if you embrace a fib long enough will it somehow become a part of you? How powerful are we when it comes to actually convincing ourselves of untruths? Are we really the person who we desire to be deep down? What is Reality…Do we create our own? I guess Algernon put it best when he said, “The Truth is rarely pure and never simple”.
Maurice/Halperin
The question of sex versus sexuality seems to be the differences and similarities between E.M. Forester's "Maurice" and Halperin's "Is There a History of Sexuality?" Halperin's first definition of sexuality suggests that it is a seperate domain of psychophysical nature. Sexuality in my eyes has been something deeper than the physical appetite. Sex on the other hand is something in which seems to be purely physical. When sexuality combines with either love, lust, passion, eroticism (such as Halperin suggests), affection, and desire, the relationship between two people can be extended into sex. This in turn can result in the act of sex.
Halperin's third point of defining sexuality states that sexuality generates sexual identity. This can definately be true, but to what extent does one's sexuality define who they are? Sexuality seen as to identify an individual, seems to only extend to the Athnenians. It in fact did show their status in society. The superordinate group had the advantage over the subordinate group. The superior was always considered the penetrator. The sexual adventures of the Athenians were considered a vaible form of living. Eventhough the athenian superordinate group had the advantage of being with whom they chose to, there were still social constraints in the sense that, if they desidered to be the pentrated, they would definately be looked down upon. Although the level of intimacy and the people did not matter, their position in a sexual act reflected their social status.
In "Maurice" the social contraint was not neccessarily a matter of status, but in fact a matter of labels and norms. Men are to be with women without any other exceptions. Their social status does not give them the liberty to have sexual relations with whom they choose. Halperin makes it seem that these sexual relations are purely for sexual gratification, in Maurice, the relationship between the two young men is more of a emotional connection. I perceived Maurice to have more of a sexual nature, because he is the one who seemed to have initiated a more physical contact. Clive and Maurice's relationship went beyond the physical, because they did not engage in a deeply intimate physical relationship.
Society seems to always get in the way of personal preference. It can be religious views, political affiliation, which most times reflect religious views, friends, family, pretty much your overall environment. We have devided society into classses and now we have divided society into sexual preferences. Now, not only do we not have a division of class, but also a division that is sepcifically integrated into our sexual preferences. At least in the case of the Athenians, they had the choice to be with whom they desired, for the most part. With homosexuality and every other sexual classification, we get a whole new set of discrimnation and "subordinate" group; that is looked at in this manner by some people.
What is the purpose for classification? I guess there are many different answers to that question, but with history in the mix of it all, it has only caused social restraints to those who are affected by the classification. In turn, some decide to lead the life that suits the society best and will be more accepting. Others, choose to lead the life that is most personally fullfilling. I believe that this is what happened between Clive and Maurice. Maurice chose Scudder and Clive chose Anne, a woman. This also shows that regardless of social contraints upon our personal life, some still choose to be against what some may call "normal".
Halperin's third point of defining sexuality states that sexuality generates sexual identity. This can definately be true, but to what extent does one's sexuality define who they are? Sexuality seen as to identify an individual, seems to only extend to the Athnenians. It in fact did show their status in society. The superordinate group had the advantage over the subordinate group. The superior was always considered the penetrator. The sexual adventures of the Athenians were considered a vaible form of living. Eventhough the athenian superordinate group had the advantage of being with whom they chose to, there were still social constraints in the sense that, if they desidered to be the pentrated, they would definately be looked down upon. Although the level of intimacy and the people did not matter, their position in a sexual act reflected their social status.
In "Maurice" the social contraint was not neccessarily a matter of status, but in fact a matter of labels and norms. Men are to be with women without any other exceptions. Their social status does not give them the liberty to have sexual relations with whom they choose. Halperin makes it seem that these sexual relations are purely for sexual gratification, in Maurice, the relationship between the two young men is more of a emotional connection. I perceived Maurice to have more of a sexual nature, because he is the one who seemed to have initiated a more physical contact. Clive and Maurice's relationship went beyond the physical, because they did not engage in a deeply intimate physical relationship.
Society seems to always get in the way of personal preference. It can be religious views, political affiliation, which most times reflect religious views, friends, family, pretty much your overall environment. We have devided society into classses and now we have divided society into sexual preferences. Now, not only do we not have a division of class, but also a division that is sepcifically integrated into our sexual preferences. At least in the case of the Athenians, they had the choice to be with whom they desired, for the most part. With homosexuality and every other sexual classification, we get a whole new set of discrimnation and "subordinate" group; that is looked at in this manner by some people.
What is the purpose for classification? I guess there are many different answers to that question, but with history in the mix of it all, it has only caused social restraints to those who are affected by the classification. In turn, some decide to lead the life that suits the society best and will be more accepting. Others, choose to lead the life that is most personally fullfilling. I believe that this is what happened between Clive and Maurice. Maurice chose Scudder and Clive chose Anne, a woman. This also shows that regardless of social contraints upon our personal life, some still choose to be against what some may call "normal".
Who through in the monkey wrench?
After reading The Importance of Being Earnest I didn’t want it to stop. I wish it could have been a little longer and more in depth. Now as to what I thought of the story itself, just simply that it was a mockery of love and laughs at society. If this story were true you would truly have to think that Eros was involved in this crazy scene. I couldn’t believe it when Cecily told Algernon “Ernest” that, even though she had never met him before, she was completely in love with him and willing to marry him. In fact, according to her they had already been engaged, split, and then got back together. Some how this all managed to happen before they had even met. I can completely envision Eros hiding in a cloud shooting multiple arrows at poor Cecily. How blind could love be? Algernon knows nothing of love, just pure selfishness. His Aunt Augusta is the same way.
Even though all of the relationships seem impossible it is as if something keeps them going. Take Miss Prism and Chasuble for instance. You can feel the struggle of emotions that is happening between them. Chasuble is held his religion and Miss Prism to her position, but there is this chemistry that seems to keep them connected. If it is how the characters in Plato’s Symposium say and we were split in two by the gods and it is Eros whom is trying to help us find our other half I’m now inclined to think that maybe he is a little blind. That or bringing together two separate parts is far more difficult than it seems.
It is laughable how Oscar Wilde portrays his crazy characters as they run around in their crazy schemes. Just like what Maurice had to go through in his story, society is constantly pressing the issue of marrying, but marrying within your kind. Never below or it would be seen as completely outrageous just as the Greeks felt about the same issue. Humans are so hard pressed to follow what society tells them is ok. It’s kind of nice to see Eros completely putting a wrench in the whole matter.
Even though all of the relationships seem impossible it is as if something keeps them going. Take Miss Prism and Chasuble for instance. You can feel the struggle of emotions that is happening between them. Chasuble is held his religion and Miss Prism to her position, but there is this chemistry that seems to keep them connected. If it is how the characters in Plato’s Symposium say and we were split in two by the gods and it is Eros whom is trying to help us find our other half I’m now inclined to think that maybe he is a little blind. That or bringing together two separate parts is far more difficult than it seems.
It is laughable how Oscar Wilde portrays his crazy characters as they run around in their crazy schemes. Just like what Maurice had to go through in his story, society is constantly pressing the issue of marrying, but marrying within your kind. Never below or it would be seen as completely outrageous just as the Greeks felt about the same issue. Humans are so hard pressed to follow what society tells them is ok. It’s kind of nice to see Eros completely putting a wrench in the whole matter.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Boys Gone Wilde
Wilde’s writing is humorous. It also shows the double life men of that era (or today for that matter and women as well) could lead if they were monetarily able. Wilde himself had to lead a double life: married but had a liking for young men (or boys) that he lived with on and off his throughout his adult life. I did some biographical readings of Wilde and he considered himself “Socratic” and agreed with Greek pederastic traditions.
So the life of the author is the common thread with his characters: secret identities and double lives. The sophomoric pun, “bunburying”, is witty, literary critic’s opinions notwithstanding. Mix Wilde’s personal life with that of his characters, add a dash of Plato and you get Maurice.
Have we come full circle? Wilde writes, “Life and Literature, life and the perfect expression of life.” These “perfect expressions of life” we examine give us pause to consider our own human experience. Plato writes in a time where much thought is openly given to such matters as the motives for relationships. Wilde writes in a period where he must cloak his personal life in the grand metaphors of his characters. Today we have first amendment rights to say what we think. Or do we? Why must a homosexual “come out of the closet” if our society is so open?
Yet we still look for the motives in the characters we study. In this we are on a pursuit of enlightenment. Regardless of motives, we see wonderful expressions of life through the author’s eyes. To examine these characters and authors is to turn the microscope upon ourselves. That is good literature. That is art.
So the life of the author is the common thread with his characters: secret identities and double lives. The sophomoric pun, “bunburying”, is witty, literary critic’s opinions notwithstanding. Mix Wilde’s personal life with that of his characters, add a dash of Plato and you get Maurice.
Have we come full circle? Wilde writes, “Life and Literature, life and the perfect expression of life.” These “perfect expressions of life” we examine give us pause to consider our own human experience. Plato writes in a time where much thought is openly given to such matters as the motives for relationships. Wilde writes in a period where he must cloak his personal life in the grand metaphors of his characters. Today we have first amendment rights to say what we think. Or do we? Why must a homosexual “come out of the closet” if our society is so open?
Yet we still look for the motives in the characters we study. In this we are on a pursuit of enlightenment. Regardless of motives, we see wonderful expressions of life through the author’s eyes. To examine these characters and authors is to turn the microscope upon ourselves. That is good literature. That is art.
The Importance of Being Bunbury
For Jack, Algernon, Cecily and Gwendolen, a name reveals love. I found it incredibly entertaining that these two women could fall for a man, merely as a result of his name. Along with how these men go to great lengths to own this name, for the sake of love. Eros has created pandemonium with that bow and arrow of his, for all these characters are running towards love and going to great lengths to evade shame. Shame of the common man; to be him and to love him. As Gwendolyn states, “And I pity any woman who is married to a man called Jack. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment’s solitude. The only really safe name is Earnest.” Then there is Cecily, who states, “There is something in that name that seems to inspire absolute confidence. I pity any poor married woman whose husband is not called Earnest.” All for the love of Earnest, for everyone could love a man named Earnest- even if his existence was based on that of false pretenses. For as long as the social classes were clearly defined and maintaining elite status- let love prevail for all, in a mere instant. Is this truly a Hollywood ending? Do the classes remain elite when the reality is that cousins are awaiting a married union- all for the sake of Earnest. Is there importance in being Earnest? Apparently if you are seeking love- there is. This man Earnest who by his name is viewed as a confident man, a man of stature, a man of many talents a man of elite status. While in the reality of this pursuit of Earnest, a revelation occurs, Earnest is the opposite of what his image adheres him to be. Jack and Algernon are not confident; do not truly hold elite social status and the only true talent which they exude is the importance of being Bunbury.
Earnestly Lieing...
Well I didn't even start reading the play, "The Importance of Being Earnest" until last night at like 1:30 and thought I'd just read a couple of pages, little did I know I would end up reading until 3:00 a.m. to finish it. I'm a little bit of a nerd, I know. Anyway, I loved how easy the play was to read, dispite it being a play with a bunch of different characters to get into while reading in my head. I have never read that sort of thing and it was a fun change.
The play was very quickly paced and just begged for me to turnthe next page. Everything came together so quickly and clearly too. I thought Algernon was funny and flighty and in the beginning he sort of reminded me of Clive for some reason. Not really so much in his actions as in the way he said things, if that makes any sense at all. I laughed out loud surprisingly a couple of times and then read to my boyfriend, the lines I was chuckling about and he said, "guess you had to read the first 35 pages." Whatever I still thought it was funny. I believe it was the part when Algernon and Jack are predicting Gwendolyn and Cecily to be al b.f.f. as soon as they meet and call one another "sister" and then one of them says like, "yes but that's after they call eachother many other things first.
The play was very quickly paced and just begged for me to turnthe next page. Everything came together so quickly and clearly too. I thought Algernon was funny and flighty and in the beginning he sort of reminded me of Clive for some reason. Not really so much in his actions as in the way he said things, if that makes any sense at all. I laughed out loud surprisingly a couple of times and then read to my boyfriend, the lines I was chuckling about and he said, "guess you had to read the first 35 pages." Whatever I still thought it was funny. I believe it was the part when Algernon and Jack are predicting Gwendolyn and Cecily to be al b.f.f. as soon as they meet and call one another "sister" and then one of them says like, "yes but that's after they call eachother many other things first.
T.I.O.B.E.
Wow—what a ride this play is! It read so fast that I hardly had time to even absorb what it was about, besides a full-blown mockery of true love and the importance of marriage. This is the first play by Oscar Wilde that I have read, but I really would like to read more—it was very witty and fun.
The title is of course a bit ironic given that the name Earnest implies a sense of seriousness and properness about someone---neither of which described either of the two main characters, Jack and Algy, both of whom live double lives under the name “Earnest”. On the contrary, they were both outrageously absurd, silly, and quite ignorant. Their behavior in the play resembled nothing of the sort of behavior you would expect from grown men during the time period the play was written, making it all the more alluring to read about their crazy lives.
Although the plot deals with the twists and turns of Jack and Algy’s living double lives, refereed to as “Bunburying,” for this class I think it is the distinct lightness in which Wilde approaches the subject of love and marriage, and its relation to social class that is important. What I believe that Wilde is emphasizing is the absurdity of what makes marriage and love acceptable vs. unacceptable in society, i.e. the interrogation of “Earnest” by Lady Bracknell for her blessing in the marriage of her daughter Gwendolen. Although Jack meets most of her “social status” qualifications, such as owning land and a house on the correct street, Jack is still an unacceptable partner because he was found in a handbag in a train station. Algy, on the other hand, receives Lady Bracknell’s blessing in marriage to Cecily even though the two have only known each other a couple hours and can’t possibly truly love each other! Wilde is definitely poking fun at society’s value system!
I also read a couple reviews on this play linking Wilde’s inclusion of double lives in this play as a reference to being homosexual…but I didn’t get that at all! What did I miss??
The title is of course a bit ironic given that the name Earnest implies a sense of seriousness and properness about someone---neither of which described either of the two main characters, Jack and Algy, both of whom live double lives under the name “Earnest”. On the contrary, they were both outrageously absurd, silly, and quite ignorant. Their behavior in the play resembled nothing of the sort of behavior you would expect from grown men during the time period the play was written, making it all the more alluring to read about their crazy lives.
Although the plot deals with the twists and turns of Jack and Algy’s living double lives, refereed to as “Bunburying,” for this class I think it is the distinct lightness in which Wilde approaches the subject of love and marriage, and its relation to social class that is important. What I believe that Wilde is emphasizing is the absurdity of what makes marriage and love acceptable vs. unacceptable in society, i.e. the interrogation of “Earnest” by Lady Bracknell for her blessing in the marriage of her daughter Gwendolen. Although Jack meets most of her “social status” qualifications, such as owning land and a house on the correct street, Jack is still an unacceptable partner because he was found in a handbag in a train station. Algy, on the other hand, receives Lady Bracknell’s blessing in marriage to Cecily even though the two have only known each other a couple hours and can’t possibly truly love each other! Wilde is definitely poking fun at society’s value system!
I also read a couple reviews on this play linking Wilde’s inclusion of double lives in this play as a reference to being homosexual…but I didn’t get that at all! What did I miss??
Monday, February 5, 2007
Good, It Worked.
I'm glad that worked. Sometimes I'm not as savvy as I think I am.
Its all cut + paste until somebody gets hurt.
So, if you watched that AMAZING video from Hedwig and the Angry Inch, you have probably sprinted to Blockbuster to rent and watch the entire movie. If not, well, what is wrong with you? Its one of my favorite movies.
Okay, so to get to my point about the clip...the song described the three sexes that were written about in The Symposium. And didn't you find it as interesting as I did that it was the story about how we learned to make love? It wasn't all just for procreation's sake...it was for the sake of LOVE! (Take that, you religious, right-wing nut!) I liked how it was all for the sake of going back to how we used to be, and how convenient it used to be like that. Those four-legged creatures weren't going Downtown every weekend looking for love...they knew it would always be with them, no matter what. I also think its interesting how the three sexes were broken down--male/male, female/female, and male/female.
We should watch this entire movie (I know, shut UP already!) because its all about gender-bending, gender roles, and a botched sex change! How much better could it get??
Its all cut + paste until somebody gets hurt.
So, if you watched that AMAZING video from Hedwig and the Angry Inch, you have probably sprinted to Blockbuster to rent and watch the entire movie. If not, well, what is wrong with you? Its one of my favorite movies.
Okay, so to get to my point about the clip...the song described the three sexes that were written about in The Symposium. And didn't you find it as interesting as I did that it was the story about how we learned to make love? It wasn't all just for procreation's sake...it was for the sake of LOVE! (Take that, you religious, right-wing nut!) I liked how it was all for the sake of going back to how we used to be, and how convenient it used to be like that. Those four-legged creatures weren't going Downtown every weekend looking for love...they knew it would always be with them, no matter what. I also think its interesting how the three sexes were broken down--male/male, female/female, and male/female.
We should watch this entire movie (I know, shut UP already!) because its all about gender-bending, gender roles, and a botched sex change! How much better could it get??
The Origin of Love (Hedwig)
Let's see if this works...if not, I'll just post the link.
This is the video for "The Origin of Love" from Hedwig and the Angry Inch.
Its spot on regarding our conversation last week.
This is the video for "The Origin of Love" from Hedwig and the Angry Inch.
Its spot on regarding our conversation last week.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Importance of Being Immortal?
From my understanding of Socrates' ideas regarding Love--Eros--in Plato's Symposium, ideas derived from the prophetess Diotima, Love is the importance of being immortal, as Love is simply a longing for immortality.
Surfacewise, this appears rather obvious. Procreation, the frequent result of a shot of Eros, is immortality as far as species continuity goes.
This is not good enough for Socrates, er Diotima, though.
According to the Symposium, human children, of man and woman, are far inferior to intellectual children, ideas, of man and man. As Socrates is told, "everyone would choose to have for himself children like these rather than the human kind."
(Is there really any need to point out the shimmering argumentative flaw here, that Socrates, Aristophanes, Phaedrus, etc., whose speeches are soooo informed, are the organic products of man and woman? And Diotima herself? Perhaps her role as a prophetess related in a third-generation-told tale relegates her as something a bit more than an average woman capable merely of assembly-lining flesh-and-blood copies of the Athenian populace.)
Alright, Love is a longing for intellectual immortality, something the beasts and baser human beings--i. e. women?--cannot aim for. I see this in Forster's Maurice, the title character, who is constantly referred to as not very intelligent, at least not academically, and his longing to join with Clive is in part fueled from a desire to produce intellectual offspring (echoes of the teacher/student pederastic relationship Pausanius attributes to Eros). Maurice's reading of the Symposium at Clive's insistence aided him greatly in understanding himself, something seen as an intimate academic leap, perhaps, and therefore Maurice probably sees a life with Clive filled with similar intelligent leaps, the offspring of which would help Maurice understand and make sense of his world--a world potentially filled with intellectual children for the two of them to enjoy.
And, throughout Forster's book, Maurice, and also Clive and Alec Scudder, reveal another of Eros's traits as revealed to Socrates--that of a "skilled hunter, always weaving devices" who "plots to trap the beautiful and the good."
Does not Maurice largely weave a deception in his environment, fronting heterosexuality, seeking an opportunity to reveal himself?
Does not Clive erotically ensnare Maurice, whom he sees as beautiful, "trapping the beautiful?'
And does not Scudder "weave devices" to lead Maurice his way, threatening blackmail in a "plot to trap the beautiful and the good?"
As to which carries the most Eros among them, I don't know. I'd like to say Scudder, merely due to his lowered social standing, one perhaps less adverse to go, in Diotima's description of Eros, "homeless, always lying on the ground without a blanket or a bed, sleeping in doorways and along waysides in the open air." A more immortal picture of what love must withstand I cannot see. I also cannot see Clive undergoing such for Maurice.
And Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest?
Eros's deceptive qualties as a "skilled hunter" come through in Algernon's character, although I cannot see them leading to a life of intellectual children, only biological ones--Algernon deceitfully copies the address of Jack Worthing's country home to meet up with Cecily, whom he decides to marry and seed with non-intellectual offspring.
I can say no more 'til I find out if Wilde ever read Plato's Symposium.
Chances seem good, but . . .
Surfacewise, this appears rather obvious. Procreation, the frequent result of a shot of Eros, is immortality as far as species continuity goes.
This is not good enough for Socrates, er Diotima, though.
According to the Symposium, human children, of man and woman, are far inferior to intellectual children, ideas, of man and man. As Socrates is told, "everyone would choose to have for himself children like these rather than the human kind."
(Is there really any need to point out the shimmering argumentative flaw here, that Socrates, Aristophanes, Phaedrus, etc., whose speeches are soooo informed, are the organic products of man and woman? And Diotima herself? Perhaps her role as a prophetess related in a third-generation-told tale relegates her as something a bit more than an average woman capable merely of assembly-lining flesh-and-blood copies of the Athenian populace.)
Alright, Love is a longing for intellectual immortality, something the beasts and baser human beings--i. e. women?--cannot aim for. I see this in Forster's Maurice, the title character, who is constantly referred to as not very intelligent, at least not academically, and his longing to join with Clive is in part fueled from a desire to produce intellectual offspring (echoes of the teacher/student pederastic relationship Pausanius attributes to Eros). Maurice's reading of the Symposium at Clive's insistence aided him greatly in understanding himself, something seen as an intimate academic leap, perhaps, and therefore Maurice probably sees a life with Clive filled with similar intelligent leaps, the offspring of which would help Maurice understand and make sense of his world--a world potentially filled with intellectual children for the two of them to enjoy.
And, throughout Forster's book, Maurice, and also Clive and Alec Scudder, reveal another of Eros's traits as revealed to Socrates--that of a "skilled hunter, always weaving devices" who "plots to trap the beautiful and the good."
Does not Maurice largely weave a deception in his environment, fronting heterosexuality, seeking an opportunity to reveal himself?
Does not Clive erotically ensnare Maurice, whom he sees as beautiful, "trapping the beautiful?'
And does not Scudder "weave devices" to lead Maurice his way, threatening blackmail in a "plot to trap the beautiful and the good?"
As to which carries the most Eros among them, I don't know. I'd like to say Scudder, merely due to his lowered social standing, one perhaps less adverse to go, in Diotima's description of Eros, "homeless, always lying on the ground without a blanket or a bed, sleeping in doorways and along waysides in the open air." A more immortal picture of what love must withstand I cannot see. I also cannot see Clive undergoing such for Maurice.
And Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest?
Eros's deceptive qualties as a "skilled hunter" come through in Algernon's character, although I cannot see them leading to a life of intellectual children, only biological ones--Algernon deceitfully copies the address of Jack Worthing's country home to meet up with Cecily, whom he decides to marry and seed with non-intellectual offspring.
I can say no more 'til I find out if Wilde ever read Plato's Symposium.
Chances seem good, but . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)