Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Why Should I Keep Reading.......?

Over the past couple of weeks I have been making my way through the novel Lolita. The first time around I just read it like I would read any other novel, and the second time I looked at it from a more scholarly approach. I guess you could say that the first time I got through the book, I was disgusted. Of course, I just read a book which entailed a ton of child malestation.....which is sick. That's all I got out of it. But that was the first time......and the second time I read it, I saw beauty. I fell in love with the words on the page. This book is beautifully written, and every time I turn the page there is something that takes me back a little.
Now....I want you all to know that I am by no means 'smart' when it comes to connecting novels and art and songs together. For those of you that don't know, I write for the Exponent in the sports section, talk on a Sports radio show, and dance on the MSU dance team. Think about it, this book should by no means entertain me because it has nothing to do with my interests in life. But it does do one thing, and why I continued to read this book was because of the way that I made connections, in my own world. Vladimir Nabokov has so many different attributes to his story that even this cheerleader can find enthrawling things to talk about....to learn....and to definitely think about.
One of the passages that inspired me the most to keep reading was the passage beginning on page 57. Actually, the whole section (13) is moving to me. I think it is so moving because at first Humbert Humbert was a sick and perverted man. NOW I see that he is anything but (well okay, still a little weird), but he is in love. He had lost his first true love in Annabel and has never been able to recover from that. Humbert says things like, "She was musical and apple sweet. Her legs twitched a little as they lay across my live lap; there she lolled in the right hand corner, almost asprawl, Lola the bobby-soxer, devouring her immemorial fruit, singing through its juice, losing her slipper, rubbing the heel of her slipperless foot in its sloppy anklet, against the pile of old magazines heaped on my left on the sofa". What a child Lolita is......just a child who has captivated a man. I think the reason for this captivation is because of the connection Lolita and Annabel have. To Humbert, Lolita is the Dopplegangar to Annabel.....the love he lost and has suddenly found in a new life.
I found this clip of the exact scene I just noted up above and it is a pretty good visual as to what was going on in the book. I hope you like it....
This is a love story, and an amazing read.......and I will still continue to read....

Sunday, November 19, 2006

The Invisible Girl.....


It is that awkward stage a young person goes through. A 'bildungsroman' is something that is not uncommon in the life of most adolescents. In particularly, the story that most youngsters go through pertaining to multiple encounters which untimatley contribute to the development of this person. This story is exactly what the Invisible Man is about. However, not only is it about just the Invisible Man, it is about me. I am the Invisible girl, going through this crazy thing called life. But wait, not only is this story about the Invisible Man, and about me, it is about every person who takes the plunge into adulthood, and not knowing any idea as to what direction they are going. We see this crazy style a lot as the 'awkward' boy is growing up. Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, Earnest Hemmingway's Nick Adams stories, and William Faulkner's Intruder in the Dust are just to name a few stories featuring young people trying to find themselves in life.
Everything that happens in this novel is central in the IM's development, just like everything that happens in my life is important in my growth. I think that most of these problems that the IM faces, ordinary everyday people face as well....and I believe that is why this book hits close to home with many. For the most part, this novel's main idea is the narrator's attempt to discover his true identity. One of the most important ideas to remember is that through his journey he makes connections between his nature and his society, his own self and his relationships with others, and the actual importance of invisibility. All of these factors contribute greatly in the attempt for the IM to find out who he is, what he is, and where he is going.
I guess my point is that this is a novel that I can see myself.....even though I am NOTHING like the IM himself, and I think that this is the importance of the story. Where there are 'road movies', there are 'growth books'. It is some what dumb, so many stories take place within the self, just like life. Life takes place within the self.
So until next time, I will continue to discover myself.....then again do we ever stop discovering?!?!

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Class Notes....11/16


Let's be creative for a minute.......who would you think that I look like here? I actually came across this picture yesterday and when I first saw it I said, Lolita! And I did not think that it was me. I believe I am Lolita in this picture because it is a gothic picture that shows hardly any emotion at all on the outside.....but if you look further there is much more there.....
I was extremely interested in today's class lecture, and I hope everyone took careful note of the beautiful butterfly that I drew on the board! Here are some notes to reminise on before we meet again....
--The Beautiful name LOLITA has come to mean a very sexual girl...and young girl at that...
--Mac McCullough was a man who Dr. Sexon worked with who first introduced him to the novel Lolita, and Dr. Sexon addmitted that he read the book because he thought it was 'dirty'....
--The 7 Aspects of a novel according to Nabokov:
-Parody
-Coincidence
-Patterning
-Allusion
-Work within a Work
-Staging of a Novel
-Authorial Voice
--A Nymphete is an immature but sexually attractive girl
--Pupa is the Latin word for Doll. and one of Lolita's names is Dolly.....
--One of the themes found in Lolita is the chaning into something beautiful....like a caterpillar metamorphing into a butterfly...
--Our psyche is something withing our sould or mind...
--On page 314 of the novel Lolita, Nabokov reminds us of the use or art and how aesthetic bliss is connected with art.....it's curiosity, tenderness, kindness, and ecstacy...
I thought that these were some of the more memorable points from the lecture today....
If any of you read my blog I wrote yesterday, I talked about a passage by Northrop Frye that really made me think of the way I read into things. Well after a discussion in my other class, I have found that I am no longer confused. We talked about the story Alice in Wonderland, and how if we questioned every little thing that happened in the story literally, then we would get no where in literature. According to Dr. Sexon, in order to take things literally you MUST buy into the story and accept it on it's own imagionative terms....
Interpretation can often lead to false ideas and that is why it is important to accept what is written on the page and appriciate it as well as experience it.....

How Far is too Far....

I also take Dr. Sexon's Biblical Foundations for those of you who do not already know and I am beginning to see how much they parallel one another. It is crazy because I just got done reading a chapter in my Northrop Frye book talking about reading things literally. He states that, 'The only time you can take the word 'literal' seriously is when you read something in the same way that you read a poem, where you accept every word that is given to you without question but do not make any premature association between every word and something in the world outside. That is, your whole attention is directed toward putting the words together.

I guess part of me agrees with him that you can't take the term literal very seriously, but part of me is a little confused and thinks that he is contradicting. When I was reading some of the Wallace Stevens poem in the anthology, I looked up almost every word. I took every word out of context to try and find some specific meaning that i thought that I was over looking, but is Frye saying that we should not look that far into something to find the meaning. I have mentioned this idea on my blog before, but this caught my eye and I thought it could be something interesting to talk about.

I had the understanding that poets were to look into things, that is how good poetry is written. OR is it? Is good poetry the stuff that we can physically see written, without having to grab a dictionary to find out what is the REAL meaning? I hope that people read this passage and clear me up, because I am not sure how far we need to read into things to find the real idea....

I wanted to comment on Marilyn's blog....I think that she does an exceptional job of keeping track with the notes as well as some of her own ideas in class. We were told to pick out a blog for the 211 class that I am in, and I thought that I would do the same for this class. Good job Marilyn! Keep it up, and I'll keep readin'......

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Based vs. Inspired

I have always been one to try and look into things, and try to find some underlying meaning...whether it is there or not. Recently I wrote on whether people read way too far into things or not. I think that I show the balance between reading into material because I can really dig far, or I can just look at the surface to find the idea. I have been studying the structuralist critics as well as the deconscructionalist critics.....especially Jacques Derrida. I thought that I would share my insights on 'reading into things'......I really think this piece can be applied to this class.
Is There a Difference on the Movie Screen?
When the credits roll at the beginning of the motion picture Remember the Titans, it tells the audience that the following movie is ‘based’ on a true story. The theatrical trailer for the movie, Dreamer, states that it is ‘inspired’ by a true story. To most people, the two words, based and inspired, seem extremely similar. To others, the two words could not have a more different significance. The dictionary definition of based is, that it means to establish as a fact or conclusion. The meaning of the word inspired is, to give rise to, to bring about, or to cause (Dictionary 1). They are two different words, which happen to have similar meaning. Or do they have a similar meaning? The words could quite possibly arouse an interesting discussion between an everyday average person, a poststructuralist like Jacques Derrida, and one English major.
When asked what she thought the difference in meaning of the words inspired and based, my college roommate looked at me as though I had gone off the deep end. For in her eyes, there hardly seemed to be a difference at all. They both are relaying a message of a true story to an audience, though some aspects of that story may have been left out or added. When she made her main argument, she stated that the only idea that might lead her to believe that there was a difference was that ‘based’ might show a slight bit more truth in the word. To an everyday person, who has no connection to an English class or to a critic, the two words only differ slightly. In her closing statement, she said that she honestly would not think anything of the difference if she heard one or the other. They are two words that share a similar meaning, therefore making it hard, or unimportant, for one to eek out all of the reasons why or why they are not parallel.
Now if a poststructuralist, such as Jacques Derrida, were to be asked this same notion, there is no question that he would answer in a different way. Because of Derrida’s idea of freeplay, that everything can be broken up and rearranged, the words could not possibly mean the same thing or remotely close to the same thing. If Derrida were to begin to deconstruct the word ‘based’, he would have to start at the center, also known as the Bricolage. Where this word came from and how is it used in the context would be an ideal central place. Derrida says, “This field is in fact that of freeplay, that is to say, a field of many substitutions in the closure of a finite ensemble” (Derrida 886). He would break down the word and see the many patterns or ideas that come from the word’s core, as well as its history and function, and then put it back together in bits and pieces to create an extremely fine definition. This means that once he got this definition, it is safe to say that he would look at the language that surrounds the word. When Derrida can understand the relationship the word has to the surrounding language, he will put it back together in a way that makes total sense to him with information to back up his analysis.
The only way that ‘based’ and ‘inspired’ were to be the same to Derrida is if they were able to be broken down and put back together similarly based on their center, which is next to impossible. This is impracticable because if the words have slightly different definitions to begin with, affirming their freeplay as like terms is not possible. The word ‘based’ comes from the thought of factual information, and ‘inspired’ comes from bringing about an idea. Two words would allow Derrida to say that these movies were not in the same category, and these words are factual and idea. They are the root of the word, and once it is broken down there is a huge difference. A poststructuralist would say that there is an extreme variation in a movie that is based on a true story and one that is inspired by a true story.
The English Major writing this paper would also have a more poststructuralist view to the two words. I believe that when looking at the roots of the words and breaking them down, the differences are obvious. I do not know how far I would take the matter, but I would say that though they do share similar definitions, the similar is too different to put the two movies in the same category. I would have to classify the movie based on a true story as very accurate with a few hits and misses here and there. On the other hand, a movie inspired by a true story would simply be a vague telling of something that was found to be affirmative. Similar does not make the words the same, and that is why the movies are unlike one another.
There are many arguments that arise when depicting two words such as the ones discussed above. As mentioned before, poststructuralists would have a hay-day deciphering the definitions of the words, and everyday people might see a few differences here and there. Reader-response critics would state that people can make what they want of the words, for it is what their background and knowledge comprise of that make up their thoughts. Others might merely state that the two words are the same and we are reading way too far into these simple letters thrown together. Whether we are or not, one thing is for sure, and that is that these words do not look the same on a page, so making the statement that they mean the same thing would make no sense. ‘Based’ on the things that I have been ‘inspired’ by, I believe that there is a huge difference between movies that are based on true stories, and ones that are simply an inspiration.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

How Far is TOO Far.....

There are a lot of days that I leave class (219, 211, and my English 300 class) thinking the words "What in the heck just happened?" This creates a problem for this simple mind I have because I often don't read into things. It was mentioned on Tuesday that sometimes people take things way to far out of context and the real meaning becomes extremely far removed from the truth. But is that really the case? I noticed this when I was reading some of the Wallace Stevens poems for the Pod-Cast today.

My Poem is titled "The House was Quite and the World was Calm", and I find it to be very simple. OR is it? I think that it is saying that not matter what happens in the world, reading a book always brings you back down to reality. It calms you and creates a sense of inner peace. Reading a book before one goes to sleep creates calmness, like the words your mother wispers in your ear before bedtime. When you open a book, it is only you and the book.....or you IN the book....or you being the book! By doing this, you are untouchable for that instant, and nothing can break the silence and calmness created.

So! Is that really it....or did i not read enough into it? Does the word book mean something else like war? Or does the line 'The access of perfection to the page" relate to something other than the fact that it is talking of a group of beautiful words? I guess we won't know because it is how I interpret it.

Bottom line, I do not think that there is no right or wrong in poetry, whether we read into it or not!

Notes in class:

Music is something where you never have to ask about referentiality.

Three things that Luke must leave in THE BEAR:
-Rifle, Compas and Watch (notice they are all devises of technology)

Imagination is integrated an promotes forces of the mind.

Two Forms of Imagination:
-Creative and Decreative

Have a great day....hope ya'll don't read too far into your day!