Here's a short excerpt from my independent study essay that I wrote on Snow Falling on Cedars. The whole essay applied to my big question, so I figured I'd just post from there.
"Snow Falling on Cedars is, in the end, an intricate love story. Whether between Hatsue and Kabuo, Carl Heine and his wife, Ishmael and Hatsue or Ishmael and his mother, love runs deep and true despite the overriding chaos. Storms of every sort bring disorder, but in understanding and accepting their inevitability something greater grows out of the destruction. The tragedies of circumstance ultimately afford us the greatest possibility of all—the chance to render a terrible world beautiful."
Monday, January 14, 2008
Ghosts/Summer Ind. Study Response
For my required book, I read Kite Runner, and trust me, I feel just as unoriginal as the rest of the class. It was worth the read, though. I recommend it just as much as everyone else. Furthermore, if you're one of the many Kite Runner fans in the class, I highly recommend The Power of One by Bryce Courtenay. It's a powerfully uplifting book that paints a vivid and eye-opening picture of South Africa. And it's a double plus because the story is brilliantly crafted and written.
Anyway, I was under the impression that we had to read two books of our choice until Emily Morgan informed me we had to read Ghosts. My second book was going to be Cold Mountain and I still plan to read it. Since intention is half of an action, I think that should count for something. But other than Ghosts, I didn't read any other books--not even Harry Potter. Shocking, I know. I did, however, read a collection of poems throughout the summer from Poem a Day: Volume 3. I got up to August 17 and then the book disappeared, which I'm still immensely upset about. I recently discovered for myself that poetry is soul food, and currently I am very hungry.
Anyway, I was under the impression that we had to read two books of our choice until Emily Morgan informed me we had to read Ghosts. My second book was going to be Cold Mountain and I still plan to read it. Since intention is half of an action, I think that should count for something. But other than Ghosts, I didn't read any other books--not even Harry Potter. Shocking, I know. I did, however, read a collection of poems throughout the summer from Poem a Day: Volume 3. I got up to August 17 and then the book disappeared, which I'm still immensely upset about. I recently discovered for myself that poetry is soul food, and currently I am very hungry.
Oedipus Rex Response
What role does emotion play in gaining wisdom through creative creation?
As for Oedipus Rex, here's a quote to ponder: "The greatest griefs are those we cause ourselves" (line 1186).
Trajedies, great and small, play a large role in shaping us. I know they effect me; at the very least they grab my attention. But trajedy is not all bad. For me, emotional pain is redeemed by the knowledge I gain from it. Perhaps the greatest trajedy is when we refuse to see what the world offers us, when we become blind as Oedipus did. What happens when we turn off emotion? When we turn a blind eye to the bad in hopes of seeing only the good?
As for Oedipus Rex, here's a quote to ponder: "The greatest griefs are those we cause ourselves" (line 1186).
Trajedies, great and small, play a large role in shaping us. I know they effect me; at the very least they grab my attention. But trajedy is not all bad. For me, emotional pain is redeemed by the knowledge I gain from it. Perhaps the greatest trajedy is when we refuse to see what the world offers us, when we become blind as Oedipus did. What happens when we turn off emotion? When we turn a blind eye to the bad in hopes of seeing only the good?
Friday, December 14, 2007
Crime and Punishment Response
I for one really enjoyed Crime and Punishment, which was a surprise because I usually avoid translations in literary pursuits. However, C & P related to a big part of my big question. My question hinges on emotion and emotion's role in shaping perception. We talked quite a bit about Rodya being a rationalist and other characters such as Razumikhin who rely more on their beliefs.
I noticed the interplay between emotion and religion versus rationalism and realism throughout the book and throughout Raskonlnikov's character development. I would have liked to have discussed this more in class, but unfortunately the day this idea took shape our discussion had to end and we never picked it back up again. If I recall correctly, though, we briefly talked about how rationalism goes out the window when emotion comes into play--like when Rodya commits the murders and suddenly, despite all his efforts, he makes ridiculous mistakes. For my polarity chart, I did believer/unbeliever, and in thinking about that I found that most of the characters I charted as believers were those who went by emotion--like Sonya, Katerina, Raz, etc.--whereas the unbelievers were rationalists rooted in reality, or their present state in the world--like Raskolnikov and Svidigrailov. But I had a problem with Sonya. Many of the characters who fell back on their beliefs determined those beliefs through their emotions rather than reality, and therefore fell away from reality and went crazy, like Katerina. Sonya follows religion, though, and really never gets carried away.
So I was thinking, perhaps Dostoevsky is saying that religion is the most stable of beliefs--it's rationalized emotion. In relation to my big question, I think creative impulse is the rationalization of emotion, at least to a certain degree. Religion is creative. Writing is creative. Living, if done right, is creative. Emotions happen and make everything chaotic, as in Raskolnikov's case, and it is up to human perception to take those emotions, incorporate them into something that makes sense, and develop a belief.
I noticed the interplay between emotion and religion versus rationalism and realism throughout the book and throughout Raskonlnikov's character development. I would have liked to have discussed this more in class, but unfortunately the day this idea took shape our discussion had to end and we never picked it back up again. If I recall correctly, though, we briefly talked about how rationalism goes out the window when emotion comes into play--like when Rodya commits the murders and suddenly, despite all his efforts, he makes ridiculous mistakes. For my polarity chart, I did believer/unbeliever, and in thinking about that I found that most of the characters I charted as believers were those who went by emotion--like Sonya, Katerina, Raz, etc.--whereas the unbelievers were rationalists rooted in reality, or their present state in the world--like Raskolnikov and Svidigrailov. But I had a problem with Sonya. Many of the characters who fell back on their beliefs determined those beliefs through their emotions rather than reality, and therefore fell away from reality and went crazy, like Katerina. Sonya follows religion, though, and really never gets carried away.
So I was thinking, perhaps Dostoevsky is saying that religion is the most stable of beliefs--it's rationalized emotion. In relation to my big question, I think creative impulse is the rationalization of emotion, at least to a certain degree. Religion is creative. Writing is creative. Living, if done right, is creative. Emotions happen and make everything chaotic, as in Raskolnikov's case, and it is up to human perception to take those emotions, incorporate them into something that makes sense, and develop a belief.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Henry IV Response
I was thinking during the discussion today about Hal's identity and identity in general in Henry IV. It was something I brainstormed about for the ticket, but today I realized that I couldn't think of one dynamic character in the whole play. For the most part, the way people are in the play is the way they stay and that either becomes their downfall or their ascent. In Hotspur's case, he's hot from the beginning and stays that way right up until he fights Hal and meets his end. As for Hal, he knows what he wants from the beginning and, while it may not seem so to his father or the court, he is princely both when in the company of drunkards and noblemen. Falstaff, I think it's fair to say, remains fat, witty, and pragmatic throughout.
So then, what does that say about the nature of these characters? That it's set? Unchanging? I think Hal reveals the most about this question. He appears to everyone at first as a goof-off, a black sheep of the nobility, but it is only a guise. He deliberately sets it up and puts on a mask for his own benefit. Underneath, however, he is a "true" prince, as Falstaff says. I think this sets a wall between identity and nature--they become seperate. Identity, unlike nature can be controlled, manipulated. At a certain point, it becomes little more than an illusion depending on how much manipulation goes on.
This can also play into the idea of second-hand information we talked about before. Depending on what one chooses to portray, identity becomes a filtered version of self. It's not the real thing, just the image crafted from bits and pieces of the real thing, or even outright lies. In a way, it's a second-hand projection of self. The line between true and false becomes invisible, because it's impossible to tell a person's nature from the identity they choose to project.
I think what Henry IV Part 1 laments most is that honor has been caught up in this manipulation of the truth. The honor that Hotspur portrays is a false one--it masks his greed for glory and attention. It's only a means by which he can advance, it's a convenient excuse for his behavior. There is true honor, though. I see it in Hal when he finally casts aside his guise and steps up. And maybe there is some in Falstaff, as well. I think they both, to some extent, marry their identity and their nature-- and that is when true "honor" comes out. It is not the codified excuse of men claiming to be noble; it is choosing to portray what one knows to be true and acting on that.
So then, what does that say about the nature of these characters? That it's set? Unchanging? I think Hal reveals the most about this question. He appears to everyone at first as a goof-off, a black sheep of the nobility, but it is only a guise. He deliberately sets it up and puts on a mask for his own benefit. Underneath, however, he is a "true" prince, as Falstaff says. I think this sets a wall between identity and nature--they become seperate. Identity, unlike nature can be controlled, manipulated. At a certain point, it becomes little more than an illusion depending on how much manipulation goes on.
This can also play into the idea of second-hand information we talked about before. Depending on what one chooses to portray, identity becomes a filtered version of self. It's not the real thing, just the image crafted from bits and pieces of the real thing, or even outright lies. In a way, it's a second-hand projection of self. The line between true and false becomes invisible, because it's impossible to tell a person's nature from the identity they choose to project.
I think what Henry IV Part 1 laments most is that honor has been caught up in this manipulation of the truth. The honor that Hotspur portrays is a false one--it masks his greed for glory and attention. It's only a means by which he can advance, it's a convenient excuse for his behavior. There is true honor, though. I see it in Hal when he finally casts aside his guise and steps up. And maybe there is some in Falstaff, as well. I think they both, to some extent, marry their identity and their nature-- and that is when true "honor" comes out. It is not the codified excuse of men claiming to be noble; it is choosing to portray what one knows to be true and acting on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)