Blogging

Lack of Gods, Antigone

2005-02-27T12:12:00.000-08:00

I always was under the impression the Greeks were very “aware” of their gods. There is hardly a time when I listen to a Greek tail, or rather “ancient” Greek tail with out hearing about their gods several times. The only gods that are mentioned in Antigone is Bacchus, Danae, and the god of death (but not by name). Bacchus, the god of wine and celebration is the only one of the three that mentioned repeatedly. (The other two were spoken of once when the Elders are giving Antigone wine and millet. Bacchus is actually not the name of a god in the Greek Patheon,. Bacchus is a Roman name. The Greek name is Dionysos.)

This lack of acknowledgement of the gods bothers me. I am wondering if the gods have been mostly ignored to make a point or they were forgotten. If they were ignored to make a point then perhaps it is to say that Keron or the city is rather godless. What are we to think of this “disrespect” to the gods? Certainly there were many times that they could have been mentioned. Antigone claims that burying her brother is a holy thing to do, but holy to whom? To which god? (This I am not sure about which god cares about how the dead are buried or not. I would think it would be Thanatos or Hades. Hades being the keeper of the underworld and Thanatos being the god of death.)

Claiming a Place, Cortez

2005-02-27T11:42:00.000-08:00

In class we stressed the idea of subjectivity for Cortez. There certainly seemed to be a strong emphasis on the idea of Mexicans and not Mexicans. Various groups of people were mentioned, and even Cortez himself owned up to particular roles. One role that seemed to be missed was the role Cortez claimed, but we did not seem to mention.
Cortez is betrayed to be something that people should live up to, or so was said in class. There were ideas of his saying that he was a “real man.” One thing that bothered me about the role Cortez played was that of a criminal. It says in the narrative that he “defended” his rights by the law and was put away for stealing a horse instead of killing men. Was Cortez really protecting his right? The storyteller would have his or her listeners believe so, but what about how Cortez ran from everyone? If Cortez was truly innocent and wanted to “be a man” would he not have owned up to the “law” in the first place? Isn’t Cortez seizing the role of criminal in running away? Oh yes, they say he gave himself up in the end because he did not want others to suffer. There must have been some part of Cortez that believed himself to be accountable or he would not have run away.

What's in a Name?

2005-02-12T08:36:00.000-08:00

With out much thinking about it, at point was made in class that the only character with any name was Leonardo. The other characters are named after the place that they hold in the story. (The whole “subject” thing.) The question I want to explore a little bit is why is the only character with a name called Leonardo? Each name that someone has holds a meaning, and of some sort power. Names do not have the power that they once did as we discussed in class, but they still hold power. The power of a name in Blood Wedding is brought to light when “Mother” gets all upset about the name of Felix.

Meaning of the name Leonardo and possible where it comes from.

- like a lion, Italian
- brave lion, Italian/Spanish/Portuguese
- as brave as a lion, English (but as Leonard)
- bold as a lion, French originating from an old German name (again as Leonard)

Most of the meaning that I find for this name somewhere is mentioned a loin and usually bravery/boldness. What comes to mind when thinking of a loin? Strength and a sense of someone who is kingly. The bravery or boldness need not be a mentioned trait, it seems odd to be that it should be expressed in the meaning of the name. In which case I believe that it draws attention to that particular aspect of the name.

How does Leonardo fit his namesake? I would have to say that he was very bold in taking steps to run away with Bride, if foolish. (Being bold does not necessarily mean that one is wise . . . ) Bold in thinking that he could just visit Bride in the midst of the night. Bold in his actions and his lying to his wife, or perhaps not so bold in that. Maybe telling the truth would have been even bolder. Where was his bravery? Where was his courage?

Strength? Not so sure about that one. If he did have powerful literal strength he would not have died in a fight. (IMHO) Strength of will? Strong enough to want to have his way, strong enough to fight for something, strong enough to see through his desires. But where? Pray tell was his this strength of will when he got married to Wife? Where was this strength of desire when things went astray between him and Bride?

Does he follow his name or go against it? Certainly his last name he holds to not. (Felix, happy and prosperous, Latin) I wonder at the intention of Lorca in giving Leonardo that name. I hold the meaning of names in high regard when I read a story, particularly works of fiction. When I myself write something and begin to choose names I look carefully at their meaning to see if they fit the character. I wonder in what Lorca meant by choosing Leonardo as the only name of any character.

Thoughts on Awakening

2005-01-30T10:17:00.000-08:00

A very strange piece indeed. First off I was very frustrated at how it seemed to go so slow. Second I did not like that by page 9 I was already thinking that Mrs. P. was going to be falling in “love” with Robert or having an affair with him. I am not overly fond of “soap operas.” Needless to say when the book was done I was very happy to be over with it. It takes so long to read these things when making comments in the margin. Why are we making these comments again???

Done with my rant there. The book itself once you get past the whole “love sick” thing going on with Mrs. P and Robert was rather good. It was interesting to watch Mrs. P character change from the beginning to the end. I also enjoyed some of the background symbolism going on. I.e. the sea for me, representing her mind and the constant pull of her thoughts. (p 13) And then again when she learns to swim it is she is learning how to go through her thoughts and feelings. (p27)

It was nice to see her become her own self. (“You have been a very foolish boy, wasting your time dreaming of impossible things things when you speak of Mr. Pontellier setting me free! I am no longer one of Mr. Pontellier’s possessions to dispose of or not. I give myself where I choose. If he were to say ‘Here, Robert, take her and be happy; she is yours,’ I should laugh at you both.” p108) It seems that many of the other female characters in the book do not belong to themselves but rather to others. This bothers me, mostly because I suppose I can not fathom belonging to someone else. Belonging in such a way that my being is dependent on someone else. It seems rather sad that this could actually be true. I suppose it was in that time in many ways true. I am glad that it is not so today.

I wonder at why Mrs. P kills herself in the end. At least it certainly seems like she does. It talks about her have no strength to get back to shore. I am sure that it was possible that someone could have “saved” her after the book ended, but it does not seem likely. Why would she die there? Is it because that is the place when she first began to discover herself? Why end her life? Doesn’t she have something to live for? Or is it that she has no desire to go back to how she was living? Is it because Robert left? ::shakes head:: Oh well, let wondering minds wonder . . .

Thoughts on Gilman

2005-01-23T11:59:00.000-08:00

The story of the Yellow Wallpaper in my opinion did not make a whole lot a sense, but I do not think that was the object of the writer. Being as the main character was suppose to be a woman going insane I think that sense would have taken away from the piece. Sometimes it was difficult to follow when the women (I do not recall ever being given the main character’s name) had stopped writing and began again. At first there are clear indications when she stops, but as the piece moves forward it becomes a bit less clear. There are clues that time has pasted from one sentence to the next but it can be difficult to tell. I like this in that it gives me the sense that the woman is losing sense of time. As if reality and the passage of time is slowly loosing hold on her. It also gives the piece a sense of pace, as if it were picking up speed. The first few “entries” are rather spaced out and far between, the last one is only night apart form each other. I wonder though, is the last part to be read as if she had written it? Or is it to be read that we are seeing what is happening and know of the woman thoughts. It seems odd to me that she would be writing as she walks around the room with her shoulder to the wall. All in all a very entertaining piece.

Thoughts on Douglass

2005-01-22T13:22:00.000-08:00

I feel uncertain as to what to make of Douglass’s essay. I’ve heard about slavery before or rather read. I have read about the struggles of breaking free and how some escaped. I’ve heard in history lectures about what people have thought about the times. Grant not everything I heard or read was in such detail, but for certain ages things like that could be well considered inappropriate. So my question to myself is what have I actually learned from this reading?
The class has been looking at the idea of author/ity. (If that is the word.) There are many pieces I am certain that we could have discussed and look at in detail other than Douglass. So why this piece of work? What is it about this particular author that makes the learning experience unique? He is a “black” man and for the time that he wrote in this would have been unusual. There are many “unusual” authors, so that can not be the reason. Is it personal experience? That could not be the reason either. For new ideas and looking at things we might take for granted? Again something that can have been found in other pieces. A combination of all these? Perhaps, but I am certain that there could have been something else.
Why Douglass? What is it that we are to learn from him? What about “author/ity” are we to learn? Of this I can not be entirely certain. Everyone gathers their own information and brings their own ideas into everything they read. This “book” can and will be interpreted by people differently. (I say “book” because we only actually read a part of it.) So I am back to my original question: What have I actually learned from this reading?
First I believe I have learned that what I consider puzzling, insightful, interesting, or worthy of attention can be different from other people. What I choose to focus on may be way off the target from which I was to be aiming for or far from targets that other people have chosen. Things that many people considered to be literature I may see them as something that is not worth a second glance. (It might just be that I am tired of hearing/reading such things on this topic.)
As to authorship, I personally believe that everyone is an author. Anything that someone has written or created is something that they have authored. Sure, not everything will be looked at by others, and not all of it will be studied in the distance future. It doesn’t matter. If you wrote it, if you created it, you authored it.