Flannery O’Connors novel, Wise Blood, has one of the strangest collection of characters that I’ve ever seen.  A preacher of the “Church without Christ Crucified”, a fake blind man, and a perverted park guard are all part of this crazy bunch.  O’Connor’s biography claims she liked to create bizarre characters that eventually ended up being somewhat relatable– it also said she likes to shock her readers.  Perhaps this is an effective technique, showing a fearsome figure that inspires disgust, but who eventually turns out to have relatable elements.  By taking the negative aspects of our personalities to the extreme, perhaps O’Connor gets us to be revolted by characters who we do not yet know to be projections of ourselves.  This of course relies on the characters teaching us a lesson, and although this has not yet happened, I believe it will.

No tags

After reading Walker Percy’s The Moviegoer I have decided what is, to me, the most intriguing feature of the book.  It is the grand theme of settling down and suppressing one’s desires for something more.

At the beginning of the book, Binx has two essential parts found in most everyone, though their ratios vary.   The first is a burning desire to do great things, make your mark upon the world and live forever through your achievements.  The second is to settle down and enjoy the simple pleasures of life.  The Moviegoer details Binx’s transition from favoring one to the other– a transition which most everyone undergoes.  Through most of the book, Binx is on a “search” for something, what I believe to be a search for meaning and importance.  This is Binx’s desire to achieve greatness– he wishes to ascend to some sort of higher reality in which he routinely experiences the scenes he sees in movies and is constantly enjoying “repetitions” and “rotations”.  Yet Binx finds this search tiring and often takes to submitting to malaise.

Then Kate comes in.  Kate is the “distraction” from a grand search, someone about whom Binx genuinely cares.  As Binx realizes that he loves Kate more and more, he begins caring less about his search.  He is tied down to more “everyday” things, and he ends up marrying Kate.  In the end, Binx does not really care about his search– he is content in his new life as a husband and uncle.  His “settling” half has prevailed, and he is happily stuck in “everydayness”.

No tags

As I have been weaving my way through Binx’s various terms for and thoughts about his “search”, I, too, have felt some meaning distinctly present yet far enough away– though it is of the literary variety.  What confused me was Binx’s distinction between “repetitions”, “rotations”, and “everydayness”.  Binx wakes up in a childhood summer home, listening to the peaceful bayou, and instead of savoring the time passed as if a great sheet of brittle (no peanuts), Binx chooses to lie straight as a stick on the floor, locked into a mental battle with his mortal enemy: everydayness.  What is the difference?  Why are some situations seemingly happy yet full of “malaise”, some full of great discoveries, and some full of the ever-approaching cloud of “everydayness”?  Is Binx insane?  Surely not, and I definitely feel that “though this be madness, yet there is method in it” (Shakespeare), if only in the fact that it is simply a choice of Binx’s to enjoy some situations and not others.  Binx is an analyzer of life, one who attempts to find the central point to which all his feelings, hopes, and dreams lead.  I currently cannot differentiate between Binx’s experiences, but perhaps it is an organic thing, and only he who experiences the event may classify it.  Perhaps Binx’s journey is only a personal one– a journey we each have to our own– to find meaning and happiness in life.  Binx envies those who can live life carefree, but he also seems to look down upon them as unenlightened.  Can it be that even Binx does not see the truth?  We are all on a “search” to find meaning in life; Binx’s search just may be a little more complex and “meta” due to his unique and intelligent mind.

No tags

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not leave the stage until the end of the second act, and even then it is during a blackout.  And they have a strange sort of awareness of their confinement, too; they see things off-stage, talk about going towards them, but they always end up staying in full view of the audience.  This plays in well with the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is a view “off-stage” of Hamlet.  In fact, Ros and Guil often see and comment upon the scenes of Hamlet that are taking place “off-stage”.  Why does Stoppard do this?

For one thing, it solidly sets the emphasis on the characters of Ros and Guil; the play, I sense, is much more about the two-man “soliloquy” than it is about plot.  It is also convenient, but Stoppard manages to play it off with a joke.  Most importantly however, I think it lends a sense of proximity to the play.  Ros and Guil are trapped with the audience, both unable to control what happens next, and both wishing that it might be something exciting.  Ros and Guil actually joke about how terrible it would be to be waiting to see what happens, “The only thing that makes it bearable is the irrational belief that somebody interesting  will come on in a minute”, says Ros.  This proximity allows the audience to feel themselves experiencing events along with Ros and Guil.  Ros and Guil serve as muses to the audiences intellectual discovery.  In Hamlet, the audience is concerned with the plot and is offered limited insight into Hamlet’s point of view.  In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, however, the main plot is known (Ros and Guil die) and there is simply the question of analyzing sub-plots and metaphors.  This leads to a focus on the main characters which is  complemented by the audiences constant contact with them.  There is no wondering what the characters do offstage, nor before or after the play.  Ros and Guil are “born” seemingly from nothing, remembering nothing, and they end up in graves.  The characters are complete, and the audience gets to see their entire life.

No tags

Wouldn’t you agree that one of the most confusing parts of Rosencrantz and Guildentern are Dead is when they play at questions?  And yet I sense that this scene, combined with their attempt to find information out from Hamlet, points to an important theme in the book– that of identity.  The only way in which we can find out about others is to ask them questions about themselves and base our knowledge off their answers.  This is summed up in Guil’s quote: “Words, words. They’re all we have to go on.”  Life is all about asking questions and attempting to find answers, and I believe Ros and Guil know this.  Their meta-cognition (another theme– add this scene to Evan’s list) is revealed in the lines: “What’s the game?”/ “What are the rules?”.  Note the fact that these lines, are themselves questions– the very questions which the audience is asking.  Ros and Guil also show the fact that the  “question game” is simply a part of life in the line, “Where’s it going to end?”.  Another interesting thing to note about the “question game” scene is an isolated aside from the main plot, but it is all the more important because of it.  The scene is started after the  “hiatus” called for in the stage directions by a studying of the footlights of the stage.  Ros muses that being a spectator must be awful– to be waiting for something important and yet be in boredom.  Then Ros and Guil comment that they cannot see anyone– this, of course, ironically plays off the presence of the audience.  Then, before beginning the “game of questions” Guil mirrors Ros’ thought that being a spectator must be terrible.  All of this serves to:

1) Stop the action and have a short joke about the fact that it is stopped (the audience expects an appearance from Hamlet, surely a moment of great import)

2) Counter this by assuring the audience that the fourth wall is not entirely broken; more likely Ros and Guil have only a vague sense of a “one way mirror” if you will

3) Set up a thematic aside, in which Stoppard  can focus on Ros and Guil’s lack of individual identity and their penchant for asking questions to determine facts.

This seems to be a recurring set-up in the play.  Stoppard brings in some minor characters to talk and create talking points, then has them leave.  Ros and Guil then partake in a series of “soliloquys” one separate subjects.  We’ll see if this trend continues.

No tags

Why do we read fiction seriously?  How could anything that is not real have value other than for pure entertainment?  Philosophy is for speaking truth — and yet philosophers are the most prolific users of fictional allegory.  This idea of fictional metaphor in literature is prominent in the field of science fiction, and this paper will narrow its focus to one book (perhaps the most well known of that genre) in order to investigate literature’s relation to fiction.  Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, is that book, and this paper will first look at one allegorical interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 and then use it to muse about fictional literature in general.

Bradbury uses myth and fantasy in his description of mankind in order to give the mind a new place in which to contemplate philosophy.  A setting such as our natural world brings with it prejudices and already-cast ways of thinking; a new, futuristic setting lets the mind run free.  The reader of Fahrenheit 451 is free to create this world from the ground up, populating it and creating rules.  Bradbury has created a new world, so he makes the rules, free of the world’s present state.

            Secondly, a story allows the reader to teach himself the philosophy, as opposed to being told it.  This is why philosophers often use allegory to convey ideas.  An allegory, or story, lets the reader work out the conclusion from a set of natural beginning assumptions; in other words, the reader proves the idea himself.  This works much better than simply telling a reader that an idea is right.

No tags

I find the relationship between Rosencrantz and Guildernstern in Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead a very interesting one.  The opening scene is especially revealing about their relationship.  Guil is an over-analyzer – he has been trained to think in very specific and logical ways.  Ros is simple-minded, yet not stupid.  He takes everything as it comes, and he enjoys drama (see his description of their travels in the first scene).  Why are they together?  Why has Stoppard put them together (besides the fact that they were in Hamlet)?  I believe it is because they represent two very different, yet both valid, means of analyzing the unknown.  They represent the extremes of pure logic and amiable acceptance of events beyond one’s control.   It is perhaps an ironic commentary on ways in which the reader may be analyzing the book while he or she is reading it.

They also each find amusement in the other’s seemingly crazy attitude.  Guil looks at his simple-minded friend and laughs at his failure to comprehend the impossibility of the situation (the impossible run of heads).  Ros sees his friend musing about meta-physical forces and wonders if Guil has finally snapped.  Each has such a different way of interpreting the situation that the other’s is laughable, perhaps crazy.  The reader is simply left to decide which side they choose.

No tags

As I am reading Mrs. Dalloway (by Virginia Woolf), I’m struck by the repetition of several themes throughout the book– namely, personal identity, time, and social interactions.  And it also seems to me that all these themes fit together into a big meta-theme.  Unfortunately, I cannot grasp the meta-theme, or even begin to articulate its meaning.  In my opinion, Mrs. Dalloway has transcended the author’s intentions and sheds light on a portion of life itself.

But enough of philosophical musings; you want to here my expression of Mrs. Dalloway’s theme, right?  Well it goes something like this. . .

Virginia Woolf uses multiple perspectives, plot, and the characters’ musings to convey the fact that one’s identity is a grand sum of everything which they have done, but one’s identity is evident even in the smallest moment.  First, let me address the multiple perspectives that Woolf uses.  Through the interaction of characters, it becomes clear that every one of our actions has an impact of another person.  The story of Mrs. Dalloway includes an almost (I say: “almost” intentionally) separate story about Septimus Heap’s path to suicide.  Along the way however, it can be seen that characters from each different story influence the other.  Septimus mistakes Peter Walsh for his dead friend, this continues him on his psychotic path.  Later, Septimus’ suicide necessitates an abulence to take him to the hospital, and the sound of the ambulence changes Peter Walsh’s train of thought.  Small interactions such as this all add up to a meaningful amount of interaction between the stories.  The use of multiple perspectives generally leads to an articulation of identity as a macroscopic object.

Next, let me address the plot’s importance in Woolf’s theme.   The most obvious example of identity is in Peter Walsh’s relationship with Clarissa.  On one hand, Peter and Clarissa have remained connected over many years of not seeing one another, and they both affect each others’ lives.  Each of them cites, independantly, that small moments make them recall the other.  This ties into both the macro- and microscopic theories of identity.  The microscopic theory is supported when Peter and Clarrissa are mentally battling to see who has had a more “successful” life.  Each of them is forced to call up all of themselves in order to convey their accomplishments and deeds to the other.  In this way, our whole identity, all of our social interactions, can be crammed into a single moment.

Finally, the characters state outright that they believe in these theories of identity.  Macroscopically, Peter Walsh says, “So that to know her, or any one, one must seek out the people who completed them; even the places.”  Microscopically, Clarissa tries to call her whole self to mind in a momen, “It was to give . . .    . . .Now, where was her dress?”.  The portrayal of these two seemingly contrasting ideas is, I believe, Woolf showing that they are not conflicting at all.  Our identities are affected by everyone, but they reside within us, and are present in every moment, every train of thought that we experience.

No tags

I must admit that I have conflicting views on Faulkner’s use of multiple perspectives and little to no exposition.  It’s very disorienting and makes the story more difficult to follow.  On the other hand, I find myself asking if Faulkner’s style is an attempt to contribute to a theme of the novel.  Then I ask myself whether I actually care about what Faulkner may or may not have to say about different perspectives, and I begin to wish he wrote an entertaining novel and a companion thesis paper on multiple perspectives.  I then counter myself by claiming that perhaps I simply don’t understand the message, and I reprimand myself for simply wanting easy literature that can be consumed as easily as (and with the equivalent nutritional value of) a cookie.

This same train of argument has been staged in my brain several times today until I finally decided that I would put it all to rest by simply writing my blog about it.

If you’re confused about my multiple-personality rant above, think of it as an experience somewhat akin to reading Faulkner.  Thrust into a world with fully-formed characters, a plot that has already progressed, and an unknown setting, I was forced to find out where I was while still keeping track of what was happening.  As I Lay Dying is certainly not an easy read, but does this difficulty lead to any particular insight?  I sense that Faulkner is conveying the fact that there is no absolute truth in the world, at least not universally.  We can only hold onto our personal information, prejudices, and flaws and attempt to create our own truths about the world around us.  For example, Dewey Dell is preganant, but only Darl knows about it.  This leads to a secret (which must even be inferred by the reader) which some of the characters do not know.  The truth for Dewey Dell is different than the truth for Anse.

Perhaps Faulkner is showing us that multiple narrators lead to more truth than only one narrator does.  Instead of black and white (the absolute perspective of a single, perhaps flawed narrator), we can see a beautiful gray that is closer to what the truth actually is.   I am interested to see how Faulkner continues to use multiple perspectives to tell his story and show us something about his perception of truth.

No tags

Of the many strange and unexplicable symbols that appear in Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon, one in particular caught my eye in this night’s reading.  The White Peacock appears suddenly, is mentioned briefly and then fades away.  Its only three mentionable characteristics are that it is white, male, and that it can’t fly.  The White Peacock symbolizes the wealth that the boys are chasing.  It is white and male, showing that only those like it can achieve true wealth in the world of Song of Solomon.  But the most important aspect is that it can’t fly, which Guitar attributes to the fact that its tail is so heavy.

You see, the White Peacock symbolizes wealth, or at least the dreams that one might achieve wealth.  It appears while the boys are plotting to steal Pilate’s gold and it makes them fantasize what they could do with the money they will steal.  The only other appearance of the Peacock (to this point) is a one sentence statement that the peacock spread its tail after Milkman decided to go through with the heist.  This shows that Milkman dreams of escaping his situation by using wealth, which is impossible.  The peacock cannot fly, cannot escape its situation, because it is weighed down by the worldly concerns of wealth and beauty.  To truly fly and be free, says Morrison, one must let everything else go in order to achieve total and utter freedom.  The White Peacock shows us the opposite of this, an animal who is so obsessed with its own self and its image that it cannot fly.

No tags