French Literature 1900-1950

Modernism: What the period tells us

2008-12-07T16:21:00.001-07:00

The modernist period began in the 19^th century and ended in the early 20^th century. It is characterized as being a period where authors went outside of the normal boundaries of writing. Some of the characteristics that are known for the modernist writers are different kinds of subject matter and playing with the rules of language, making it much more difficult to understand. With what I have experienced thus far with modernist writers I have found that they all seem to be making statements about their ideas of life or critiquing the way that society is at the moment. They are using their voice to share with the readers what they feel about a certain subject, people or entire way of life. The way that they write makes finding their messages difficult, but challenging content is one of the characteristics. In Paris France by Gertrude Stein, Nightwood by Djuna Barnes, Querelle by Jean Genet and Swann’s Way by Marcel Proust I have found that each of these writers is trying to send a message about something that they felt strongly about.

In Paris France Stein comes up with an interesting way to get the reader to see things differently. With her strong use of rhetorical strategies she is able to persuade the reader to look at war-time differently. Instead of from the battlefield she shifts it to the homes of the people going through the war. She used repetition in her novel and this was the way that she was able to get the reader to think differently. At the end of the novel she uses metaphors for the 19^th and 20^th century. She explains to the reader the significance of each century but because that is a difficult thing to grasp she compares them to a life. From childhood to death and the readers are able to more clearly see this idea.

Djuna Barnes is perhaps the most difficult writers of the four that I am experienced with but what I have found within her novel is a questioning of love. Throughout the novel one character named Robin goes from person to person without seeming to feel any emotion, but what is more interesting is that she goes from man to woman. Djuna Barnes had once had a lover who she claimed to be in love with but not to have been a lesbian. She simply said that she was in love with a woman and that was that. It seems as though with the character Robin she is defending the ability to be able to just love someone without having to change your sexual preference.

Jean Genet makes a huge statement in his novel Querelle by critiquing the importance of beauty in society. Throughout the entire novel there is an obsession placed on one physically perfect character who happens to also be a murderer. While reading this novel I found that Genet was trying to show the reader that society was wrapped around the idea of what is beautiful and by also using the self obsessed character of Querelle to show them that being so focused on your looks is an affect of the societal pressures to look good in order to fit in.

Lastly Proust makes what seems like fun of society people and almost creates a large section in the book to feel like a scene in a play. While watching these characters you find them to be almost fake or acting a part. I find that Proust is trying to show the readers what society has constructed us to do in certain social situations. He is showing us how we are all just actors in the same world and playing a part to get something or somewhere in life.

What all four of these authors have in common is a message that they are trying to send to their audience. Like most modernist writers their writing is difficult to get through and it breaks many rules of the language. I found it very interesting that within each of these novels is the author trying to reach out and tell the reader their truth about life. They are trying to help the problem and do their part by giving the audience the opportunity to see their truth. Modernist authors created a new way of writing and it gave the opportunity to voice their ideas and views within their stories.

Swann's Way (222-333)

2008-11-29T11:48:00.002-07:00

In this section of the novel Swann attends the dinner parties held by Mme. Verdurin. Proust details the parties are we learn more about the budding relationship between Swann and Odette. At one point Odette insists on Swann coming to earlier to the dinner because he usually arrives after the meal. Swann declines and Odette suggests that they have dinner just the two of them. When Swann asks Odette what she will tell Mme. Verdurin if she does not attend Odette tells Swann that she can just lie. Right here is when Swann should have realized than Odette was not an honest person. When she showed him how swiftly she could make up a lie and say that she was or somewhere else or that she had other obligations. He should have realized sooner that all the times they were supposed to meet or she said she wasn’t home she could have, and probably did lie about it. This is an example of Swann’s ignorance. It seems so obvious to the reader that Odette is dishonest and is using Swann just for the salary that he gives her but he is unable to realize that.

Later on in the text when Odette is knocked over by a scared horse Swann helps her readjust her rumpled dress. She was wearing Cattleyas on her dress and he asked her if he could fix them for her. He had to touch her bodice to fix the flower but was so awkward about it. He kept asking her a million questions like: Is this okay, is it uncomfortable, is it bothering you, can I do this, am I annoying you? Odette handled this awkward moment well by just smiling and politely shrugging her shoulders. In this scene Swann makes himself look insane and acts as if he has never touched or spoken to a women before. For a character that is notorious for being a bit of a ladies man, he sure seems to go about it like he has never done it before. He is awkward and continues to be awkward throughout the relationship.

The rest of this section continues with dinner party conversation and then a private conversation about Swann, Forcheville and Odette that happens between Mme. Verdurin and her husband. M. Forcheville blatantly states that he thinks Swann is stupid. Mme. Verdurin chimes in that she thinks that Odette prefers Forcheville anyway and that he is a better choice for her. She says that Swann is not direct and is cunning. He is always between ideas and that is just the opposite of Forcheville, who is straightforward and tells you the truth.

What is interesting to me is that Mme. Verdurin picks up on the image that Swann tries to create for himself. She can tell that he is looking to keep a name and impress people with what he does and who he knows. She refers to him as a society man and I feel the exact same way about him that she does. I can see right through Swann and I don’t know why more characters can’t.

Swann's Way

2008-11-13T08:09:00.001-07:00

This book begins in a really interesting way; Proust starts out by introducing the character in bed and describing sleep. He describes the darkness and how when he is awake he isn’t sure he is asleep. The way that he obsesses over it makes him seem a little compulsive in his thoughts. He begins to imagine his pillow turning into a woman and then the character starts to talk about how he longs for his mothers kiss. You don’t know right away that he is really a young boy until he begins to go on about his mother.

For quite a while he describes his longing for his mothers kiss upon his cheek and how much he adores it. But because of his father and the way he frowns upon kissing his mother he is afraid of him. When reading I felt bad for the young boy and the fact that his father would not let him kiss his mother. It was really annoying and I didn’t see what the big deal was with him kissing her goodnight. What I did think was strange though was his obsession over it. The way he described his mothers kiss and his lips on his mother’s cheek totally crept me out. I felt like this little boy was obsessed with his mother in the way of Oedipus. I became clearer why the father had been so stern on him not kissing his mother because of this but he was only a little boy. Sometimes fathers try to make their boys grow up faster tot “protect” them from being too emotional but instead of protecting him he is straining their relationship.

I didn’t understand at all why the little boy could never join the family for dinner. The father would never let him join and purposely eat late so he had to miss out. I wasn’t sure if it was too late for him or not but I thought that this was odd. It reminded me again of the Oedipus story because they were competed for the attention. His father was shooing him off to bed, but the mother would sneak him kisses sometimes.

When Swann was introduced I was surprised by the way that he was described, not so fabulous in my opinion. I began reading the book thinking the young boy was Swann and was disappointed to find out he was not. It was an observation of Swann. I don’t feel very connected with Swann and feel like he is portrayed awkwardly. It may be just me but I don’t really like him at all and he kind makes me suspicious. I enjoy hearing more about the tales of the young boy than I do of Swann’s life. He seems like an odd sort of person. He is said to have money and seems well cultured and to have a very nice life. He is also very intelligent but they way I feel about him is he is one of those people that has things and does stuff to impress people, make “friends” and to preserve a status quo.

White Board

2008-09-23T02:00:00.005-06:00

A biography of Stein

2008-09-17T08:41:00.000-06:00

This is a good biography of Stein.

Irony

2008-09-17T07:46:00.001-06:00

This is a blog...in plain English!

2008-09-17T07:26:00.003-06:00

This is a movie about blogs from Youtube.

zizek

2008-09-17T07:26:00.001-06:00

Paris, France: Gertrude Stein

2008-09-17T07:25:00.014-06:00

Gertrude Stein was from a wealthy family; she was an art collector, an intellectual, hung around several extremely influential people such as Pablo Picasso and Victor Hugo and was also a huge literary figure in the modern era. She also happened to be a lesbian. Whether that affects a person’s writing or not she is classified as a modernist lesbian writer. There are very few well known female authors let alone homosexual female authors.

In Steins novel titled, Paris France there is a constant presence of frustration and confusion for the reader. Her constant stream of consciousness can become irritating when thoughts seem to be bouncing off the walls. Many people are guilty for speaking without thinking but I have yet to find an author who writes with what seams as a conscious thought. For example the introduction of the book speaks about Steins earliest memories of France she is describing her childhood and pulling you into the story when she breaks out of the description into a time when a cat jumped on her mothers back. This type of abstract thought seems to be what the entire book is made up of.

As the reader it is hard to find a pin point of what the book is really about. When asked by someone what how the book was I didn’t have a real answer, only a sense of confusion about how I felt about it. I am not entirely sure whether I loved it, like it, despised it or just didn’t care about it at all. Perhaps Steins purpose was to confuse the audience and to keep its meaning a mystery or maybe her writing is really that abstract.

As someone who is not too familiar with this style of writing I have nothing to compare it to but my own ideas of how I would write my own personal recollections, which would be very different from hers.

What kept me reading the book were the random and awkwardly placed lines that spoke to me that I found throughout the entire novel. While reading, there were several areas throughout the book that had pieces that I found meaningful, perhaps not to others but for me. The first time I read something meaningful was page two when Stein says that writers have two countries. The one where they belong to and the one in which they live. I felt that this was a very true statement. She continued with the second one is romantic, it is separate from themselves, it is not real. When reading this passage I thought wow how insightful is that statement. I have always felt this admiration for writers but could never figure out why and as I was feeling connected with Steins words she finishes the thought with “…It is not real, but it is really there.” The last part of the sentence really threw me off and didn’t feel as beautiful. It forced me to ask what she was trying to say about writers. This statement most likely reflected some of her own personal feelings about writers because she was one herself and that she drew this idea from her feelings about her own life in another country. When she says that one is romantic and separate from them selves it made sense to me. Though I am not a writer I can connect with the idea of having two countries. Like Stein I am an American born citizen who is living in France due to a love of the country. This life that I live here is separate from my life at home; it feels like a fantasy, it is without responsibility. It is not real to me but it is really there for me. I was able to connect to that statement after carefully reading into each word and thinking about what other ways it could be interpreted.
Soon after finding meaning I realized that within this particular book finding insight was like finding the needle in the haystack, nearly impossible, exasperating and for some, not worth trying. Having been given a clue to finding insight within this book I was determined to do so. I realized in order to find the meaningful ideas, it was necessary to have to root through all the other random things she had to say (i.e the hay).

While discussing the book with other classmates it was unclear to all of us what the tone or the main theme of the book was. Found throughout the entire text were references to war, logic, civilization, fashion, and her description of mainly Parisian’s but other times the French culture as a whole, peaceful and exciting. The constant war references gave you the correct assumption that there was a war going on at that time of her life, but you don’t know exactly what part of the war they were in. The book was published in 1940 and although Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939 France did not get involved until 1940 which was during or shortly after the book was published. On pages 89-92 war is referenced 14 times. Each time it is used in a sentence describing war time. The novel gives the impression that Stein was very well involved and educated on war times but she also seems to give the reader that same feeling about several other statements she makes. One in particular was about the French being the only true remaining Latinist country and because of that they are the logical ones. To be Latin is to be civilized and to be civilized is also to be logical; therefore because French people are the only Latinists they are the only logical ones making them the only civilized people around. Statements and sweeping generalizations like that confused me throughout the book.

Campaign Trail!

2008-09-17T07:25:00.008-06:00

A comedic view of the campaign trial

Cowboys

2008-09-17T07:25:00.004-06:00

Eiffel tower

2008-09-17T07:25:00.003-06:00

Eddie Izzard

2008-09-17T07:24:00.005-06:00

well...

2008-05-19T15:37:00.003-06:00

I wanted to thank everyone in the class for being so great! Sometimes I felt a little uninformed, but you were all patient and wonderful and I had such a good time. It's always good to learn about something new and our discussions (sometimes more like debates) were a blast.
I don't usually get to really explore things in depth in my classes because so much material was covered, and we did cover a lot, but it was nice having a small class and really getting to talk as a group and work through some ideas.
I appreciate all of you and what each of you added to my learning experience! I hope to see you all around from time to time.

La Tour Eiffel en rouge et blanc.

2008-05-08T15:46:00.004-06:00

For my cultural presentation in my Japanese class, I made a video on the construction of homosexuality in Japan from past to present. I was largely inspired by one of the discussions we had in class of what it means to be gay (during our section on Querelle de Brest). One of my primary sources was a great article called "Is there a Japanese 'gay identity'?" by Mark McLelland, which is short and concise (yet full of great information) and basically elaborates on everything I was trying to say about how there is really no such thing as gay or straight in Vietnamese culture (the philosophies and religions of ancient China having a profound effect on most of the east Asian countries, including Japan and Vietnam). I seem to remember reading somewhere that in all of recorded Japanese history, gay sex acts were only illegal for something like 11 years, and this was during the period that immediately followed Japan's opening up to (and rapid assimilation of) western values and technology after centuries of isolation. Anyway, I'd upload the video I made, but its terrible, weird, and in Japanese.

Instead, here's a link to the article:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3986702

My other primary source was a book called Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan by Gary Leupp. It's a great read too. Even though both deal specifically with Japan, I think they really help illustrate how sexuality is a social construct.

And if you wanna read a really fun book that picks up with French culture and history where we left off, I recommend Fast Cars, Clean Bodies: Decolonization and the Reordering of French Culture by Kristin Ross.

That's all! H.A.G.S. everybody!

Response to New Yorker Article

2008-04-29T09:12:00.001-06:00

The photo of Sabrina Harman is of an average looking woman. She is not dressed in her military, but civilian clothes. The caption under the photograph reads: “Specialist Sabrina Harman took hundreds of pictures, she says, to “just show what was going on, what was allowed to be done.” While I feel that this is true, I think that she also took the photos to force herself into believing what was happening before her eyes. To the world, she is just an average American citizen, fulfilling her duty in Iraq, but to Sabrina, she was living a nightmare. People are looking down on her actions, but to her it was a way of coping, a way of making sense of her immediate reality.
Self-preservation seems to be an important theme in both Suite Francaise and the New Yorker article. The first four lines of Suite Francaise give the impression that the Parisians do not feel threatened by the war going on in the distance. “Hot thought the Parisians. The warm spring air of spring. It was night, they were at war and there was an air raid. But dawn was near and the war was far away” (3). Though the war is ever-present, it is easier to focus on the hot night air than impending doom. It takes the Parisians being forced to flee their homes and their known world to make the war a reality. Likewise, it takes Sabrina Harman experiencing the worst in humanity in order to realize the brutality of war.
Sabrina Harman reminds me of one of the refugees despite being a soldier doing her job. Her living conditions and her work environment were the worst. She lived in constant fear of being shot at to the point that she didn’t shower. Her daily routine was disrupted, just like the Parisians lives were. The main difference between Sabrina and the Parisians was that she chose the life of a soldier and was not forced to flee in order to protect herself. However, her job was not the “glamorous” life of a soldier that she thought it would be. Just like the Parisians lives were motivated by the need to survive, Sabrina took pictures as a witness to herself. Suite Francaise demonstrates several ways that humans cope with crisis and Sabrina Harman’s story is another example of this. There are several ways of coping with disaster one is not better than the other.

(untitled)

2008-04-29T06:37:00.002-06:00

I would have sworn I had already made two posts last week, but now they aren't on here, so I will try to repost approxamately what it is I said (atleast in the first one for now).
And now, of course, I can't find the sorce for what troubled me, but I will try my hardest to have this all make sense.
There was a line in the very beginning of the book that has stuck with me while I have continued reading. I feel that it shows how the author really viewed what was happening. We discussed that is class. Everyone who is rich doesn't seem to understand what is going on and they end up fine (atleast to the point that we were discussing). How could the author write something like that when she herself was hiding from the nazis? Well, near the beginning she described a scene in which "you" are dreaming. You are walking around in Paris, but it is all a dream. Nothing is real, and then you wake up, and you are in Hell. To me, that's what is happening to a lot of the people in this story. Nothing seems real, it's all just some bizzar dream, but when they wake up to reality....
I can't help but look back on that line everytime I pick up this book and read more, because I almost feel that it is a mini map of what is going on. It's like the key.
For me, it sheds a lot of light on the discussion we had in class Tuesday because, the more I think about it, the more I see how it fits into every aspect of the story.
It was such a small thing that it would have been easy to read past, and I can't even go back and find it, but it was so startling when I read it. Things in the story seemed almost pleasant up until that point and then to hear HELL so loud in my ear, I had to stop and reread and consider it repeatedly when I continued to read.
Hopefully this one posts, eh?

2008-04-29T03:19:00.004-06:00

It is very interesting to me to see how well the author has managed to show so many different types of people and how they deal with such a tragic situation. The difference in thresholds of endurance that the different characters have (for instance Gabriel and Florence vs. the Pericands). One of the most interesting characters for me to follow is Hubert. One of the most amusing instances of Hubert was when during the church service for his brother and grandfather, he has this huge spiritual awakening and a new outlook on life. It's a very powerful moment for him and then after the funeral, on p. 154, the women only see his cheeks and baby fat and not that "he hasn't changed at all" (155). No one respects this guy at all but he seems to be the least selfless of all. Everyone does seem selfish though in their own way. It also seems the more selfish they are, the less they seem to be aware of it. The back to back war situation was put into perspective for me when men who had already fought in the first war in 1914 were seeing their sons go off and fight in the second war in 1940.

There seem to be a lot of war-like happenings within the setting of the larger war. The cat and its night hunt, Phillipe and his wards. The way they are written, the smaller battles seem almost more tragic than the larger war.

On page 160, Corte worries if his art will appeal to people now that their views of things may have changed since their experiences during wartime. This seems really funny to me since he seems to have no depth at all. How impacting could his work be to begin with? It reminds me of our shallow pop stars when they try to be political. Like Fergie who announced that to do her part for global warming she was going to sell (not keep it off the road) her Hummer and then donate the money to help global warming.

The women in this novel surprised me a couple of times. First, Mrs. Pericand with her traditional roles and the way she embraces those boundaries. It reminded me of my grandma and how she is always trying to get me to understand that men and women need to be married and follow the roles in place for them. She is really caught up in that but she always reminds me that some women don't mind and even embrace the idea of dedicating their lives to their husbands and children rather than finding their own talents and self. Mme. Madeleine another one. On page 133, she explains that she wants to be a nun unless a boy comes along. It's interesting that she sees these options as her only two.

Gendered Characters?

2008-04-20T08:42:00.000-06:00

In class on Thursday, we asked if this novel was gendered. On the surface it seems to be a pretty straight novel, there are no traces to homosexuality that I am aware of. However, there seems to be this weird role reversal in some characters.

Charles Langelet possesses this opposition to war that makes him girlish. If I am not mistaken, he is the one that packed up all of his precious statues and artistic pieces before leaving for Paris . His heart condition is what kept him from fighting in both wars. He is a creature of habit and therefore did not flee as early as he should have. Charles would not trade his “fragments of beauty” for a blood and death and incessant fighting. It seems to me that Charles Langelet runs from fighting in the way that a girl runs away in fear. He protects his statues by giving them the same attention a mother would give a child. Gabriel Corte is similar with his manuscript. He is a self-centered writer whose child is his manuscript. These two men bestow love and attention on inanimate objects.

Some of the orphans that Father Pericand takes to safety are described as having girlish features. They are small, which also implies a girlish physique.

Corbin’s dancer, despite being self-centered and a typical female gives what she has to Hubert at the motel. Her sacrifice is small, but she is transformed from this self-centered female character, to one that is able to give. (She retains her beauty despite the war going on with her American makeup. That is a bit farfetched, but perhaps in a perfect world.)

Madame Pericand takes on the saintly role of head of household as her family flees Paris. Since her husband is left behind, she is forced to take care of her father-in-law, her children, and her servants. You don’t see her breakdown until she has found out that she has lost two sons and her father-in-law to the war. It takes a multitude of disasters in order for her to let her emotions down—the news of three deaths.
The characters in Suite Francaise are gendered compared to characters in other books we have read this semester. The characters do not fall into this role reversal by their own choice, but rather by circumstances beyond their control. World War II had a way of changing people.

Too Perfect?

2008-04-18T14:20:00.001-06:00

I am really enjoying Suite Française. It is the perfect book to end the semester; an easy read. However, as I continue reading, I am wondering if this book is too perfect. It seems like most of our understanding of WWII is centered around concentration camps, namely Auschwitz. Nemirovsky has an unusual way of writing; she is able to capture various snapshots of the war without being bitter and full of resentment. This novel could have focused more on the negative aspects of war, death, Nazi invasion, walking from Paris to wherever in the June heat, etc. However, even though people die there is still a nice story underneath. Right before Father Pericand is killed by the orphans, he sees a world untouched by war.

“Philippe thought he had never heard so many vibrant, joyous songs nor seen so many swarms all around him. Hay, strawberries, blackcurrants, the little sweet-smelling flowers in the borders, each flower bed, each lawn, each blade of grass gave off a soft buzzing sound, like a spinning wheel. All these small plots had been tended with care; all of them had an archway covered with roses, a tunnel where you could still see the last lilacs of the season, two iron chairs, a bench in the sunshine” (138-139).

Even though Philippe is a man of God, he is still not free from the confines of war. Philippe is able to see the serene world around him, but he dies a death that is not noble by any means. In many regards, Philippe becomes a victim of war, the orphans representing the invasion that Philippe falls prey to.

I am most surprised with Irene Nemirovsky’s ability to see the world in such a serene way despite being Jewish. The fear that must have been felt trying to keep her family safe is not present in the novel. Rather than experiencing emotions that the general public felt during this terrifying time of invasion, Nemirovsky focuses on the most minute of details. For instance, the cat catching the bird and the feelings of the Michaud’s leaving their home with all of the memories still intact. No one seems to experience an extreme degree of emotion. Madame Pericand had placed her faith in God, Philippe is a man of God, Langlet is focused on himself and ignores the reality of the war. Every person has their own personal reasons for behaving the way that they do.

I can’t decide if I like that all of the characters become interwoven in the same fabric or if I think it is trite. It demonstrates that people experience the same threatening manner in similar ways although it may not be apparent to others at the time. However, it just seems to be kind of forced. I am beginning to think that Nemirovsky wrote this novel as a way of coping, I may not understand it, but it made sense to her. Suite Francaise is different from other WWII books, there is both triumph and tragedy.

And the people were like cattle. And the cats were like cats. And the rich were, like, jerks.

2008-04-17T01:03:00.001-06:00

Heheh, well. After reading something like Querelle, Suite Francaise is almost jarringly normal. The prose is simple without being oddly minimalistic or nebulous, but it's still descriptive.. more like something we'd expect from popular novels today? And it's about families during war, women thinking about their sons, young lads eager to fight for their country. The upper class bean mean. Cats catching birds. All that good stuff. I don't exactly hugely dislike this novel, but.... Well, part of it is I just tend to avoid war books/movies as I always expect just this sort of thing from them (in the case of stuff about civilians, anyway), and even if it IS well done I don't really want to hear it again (mind, really, that could be just an unjustified generalization based on insufficient information, as I've done well enough avoiding such stories that now that I think about it, my contact with them lies mostly in the form of history classes and movie previews). So it's partly just a matter of personal preference. And if it had been before Querelle, I would probably found it's normalcy a sort of blessing instead of a slight let down.

Still. I see “national bestseller” on the cover, and I wonder what the big deal is? The more compassionate/humane/moral poor, the more self centered/shallow/superficially kind rich. Boys wanting to fight. The good having to steal to survive. Don't we see this stuff a lot? Looking on imdb, it seems there's a movie in the works. Unsurprising. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was specifically made to be one. For a war story it's so...inoffensive? ...Mild? Nice for a dramatic but not-too-upsetting night at the movies. Oh, and the multiple stories that barely relate to each other? Gosh, people love those these days! Chapter from the point of view of a cat? Great! Nice change of pace!

Not everything has to be hard-hitting to be good or anything.. But I spent last semester in post-colonial lit, up to my back end in books about refugees. Not all those books were hard-hitters either, but they all did feel like they had something to add or say about this story. This one is just so tame and usual. The only really surprising thing, of course, was Huberts oddly homoerotic thoughts on men. I'm...wondering if these will be followed up by something or what...

(No, really, what the heck with the cat? Was that supposed to be funny? It felt kind of out of place to me. ...Maybe I just don't have the right sense of humor? ^_^;)

war novels

2008-04-15T21:01:00.004-06:00

Looking at other novels published about world war 2, The thin red line, the bridge over the river kawi, good Shepard, from here to eternity- you find a lack of both female writing and female perceptive. Authors wants to write about heroes, and the easiest to portray this is though soldiers.

SF is important because it inverts the male authorship, but also because it highlights the role of families. I believe that it is easier to handle war when all you think about is battle. But when you start thinking about families, children etc, war becomes human.

Howard Zinn gave a speech in 2004 about World War 2

: "World War II is not simply and purely a 'good war.' It was accompanied by too many atrocities on our side--too many bombings of civilian populations. There were too many betrayals of the principles for which the war was supposed to have been fought.
"Yes, World War II had a strong moral aspect to it--the defeat of fascism. But I deeply resent the way the so-called good war has been used to cast its glow over all the immoral wars we have fought in the past fifty years: in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan. I certainly don't want our government to use the triumphal excitement surrounding World War II to cover up the horrors now taking place in Iraq. : The Progressive

Does the American public like SF because of its sappy war time theme? In the book, Germans are really so bad, people can still go to spas, they can still have a loving relationship and the kindness of the human spirit perseveres . Does SF glorify World War 2 though its treatment of war? Is the novel helping making war.. permissible?

gay or not?

2008-04-13T11:39:00.002-06:00

Well, Is Querelle gay?
(Does it really matter?)
I like what Peele said in class one day when he described Querelle as a sexual opportunist. I think that is probably the most accurate description of his sexuality. I don't know that it matters to the story that much if he is gay or straight. He wants intimacy and he enjoys sex. Does it make a difference who he is going to to find these desires fulfilled?
I think most people watch Scrubs, so I will relay a portion of one episode to you all. Todd is a sleezy surgeon that hits on all the girls. A couple of the girls deside maybe he is doing this because he is gay and uncomfortable with it. There is much situational comedy throughout the rest of the episode, but it ends with him hitting on the girls, then them walking away discusted and the janitor walks up in time to see this followed by him checking out a male nurse. Janitor asks him what exactly he is (being that he is checking out male and female employees) and he simply says "I'm the Todd."
That's kinda like Querelle, in distant yet distinct ways. If sex feels good, why not get it from whereever you can? Don't limit yourself.
I guess the more I think about Querelle, I think that his preference doesn't matter as much as the fact that he seems to be trying to fill some void. We focus so much on labels and catagories that we miss the big picture, or what is really behind people's actions.
Is Querelle gay or not? I don't know. I have an opinion, but I don't know for sure. In fact, I don't think it really matters. A lot of people struggle with the question of whether they are gay or not, but it doesn't change who they are or what they want out of life. The sudden realisation that your sexuality is not what you assumed it was, does not instantaniously change the fundamentals of who a person is or what they want/represent.

presentation

2008-04-03T12:20:00.002-06:00

Not 10 mins coming from the archivist presentation.. and remembering all the b/w pictures of boys teams.. this was posted to my Facebook.

A very different take of what

consists men in sports.

I always have to start with stories...

2008-03-30T21:24:00.002-06:00

When I was younger I went hog wild with my hair, I've done so many things to it I couldn't begin to name them all, but I've done cute little pixie cuts and I've had 3 and 4 different non-natural hued colors in it at a time. The summer before my brother went into the military he dyed his hair bright pink. My mom never cared. She always said it was just hair, and it would grow out or grow back.
I also played soccer growing up. I'm sure you can imagine how much of a hassle long hair can be while playing. It keeps the heat in and it can get in your face. One season, I stopped to admire a player who had a buzz cut. My mom also noticed the player but had different feelings about it. I was so impressed at how brave this girl was to shave off all her hair. She must really not care what people thought. I wished I were so bold. My mom made a comment on how ashamed this girls mother must be and how horrible a thing that would be to do. When I started to question her and point out the benefits, she forbade me from ever doing that to myself. This, comming from the woman who said it was just hair and let my show up for school pictures with a blue and purple hair.
I never quite understood that. I never thought of hair as a symbol of much. I thought it looked cool in certain styles or colors, but more than anything, it was a burden.

I don't know if I think homosexuality is genetic or a choice. If it is genetic, then homophobia is kinda like racism, which I never understood either. Why get mad at someone for something that is out of their control? It's not like they can change because you don't like it.
I don't go around always being conscious of the fact that I am white or that I am straight. I am made up of so many other things that those two just kinda fall in the background.

I was playing soccer today and commented to my husband while on the side line how much I wish I could just shave my head like he does. He doesn't like girls to have short hair because then they look gay. This always reminds me of my previously told story. I don't know if that girl was gay or not. I don't care. I don't know what her hair has to do with it. I don't know why something as stupid as hair should be a symbol of some other part of us. People are always looking for a way to read or understand people. I think you should just get to know then, and if you have no interest in doing that, just ask then outright whatever it is you are questioning. Are you gay? Are you a hard worker? Are you a Christian? Are you a parent? You can't look at me and know any of that stuff. My hair doesn't tell you that I'm straight and my clothes don't tell you that I'm lazy.

Well, to bring this back to Querelle... (and I know I've strayed a bit, but I tend to rant and rave)
some things are just out of our control. Some things can't be determined by looking at someone or judging their mannerisms.
I keep being struck, while reading Querelle, by how it seems that his way of standing and dressing symbolize his criminal qualities. Also, he seems to be able to just look at someone and know if they are gay (which is always the case). I think I really hate this about the book. It is not real at all. I can't look at someone and know if they are gay. I can make a guess, and in my experience I'm not too far off in most cases, but there have been times when someone has seemed soooo gay, and they aren't. Or, the other way around where no one can tell, and it's not because they are hiding it, they just don't act "gay". And as far as looking at the way someone wears their clothes and knowing them in depth, that's just crap. So Querelle wears his berret to the back of his head and so what if he props up his collor. Oh, that must mean he is a murderer and a drug dealer. Or, he could just be more comfortable that way.

I guess when you are struggling with some of these things in yourself, like your sexuality or you desires to kill, yeah, it will be on the forefront of your brain, but is that normal for most people? I'm not always walking around thinking about how straight everyone around me is. I don't understand this about the book. Aside from my issues with "judging a book by it's cover" (which I actually do for my reading material) I find this constant thought and actions dealing with sexuality to be over done and unbelievable.

Well, that is my rant for the night. Sorry to go on so long, but there are just some things I don't understand and it helps to get them out.

Faggot, what's a faggot?

2008-03-21T02:49:00.002-06:00

Querelle ponders over the meaning of the word "faggot" after he calls the lieutenant one in his mind. "Faggot, what's a faggot? One who lets other guys screw him in the ass?" (88). He arrives at the conclusion that he is one himself. The word pops up more and more in these pages. We give the label of "homosexual" to all the characters who populate this fictive rendering of Brest, which is only natural for us because of how our particular culture chooses to define sexuality... the biological sex of the object(s) of our desire (or of the act itself, if you like). All these (mostly violent) masculine power struggles are overtly eroticized and then we have the men who participate in these struggles who are openly talking about s*cking and f*cking each other all the time. Yet at the same time they are all worried of being labeled a "faggot" or a "fairy" and sodomy even appears to be a punishable offense (another crime to add to our growing list: prostitution, drug trafficking, theft & murder). I admit I don't know if France still had sodomy laws at the time, or if they would apply in this fictive world even if she did... but given the lieutenant's fear of being discovered by Mario when he is being questioned about Vic's murder, and Robert's reaction to hearing his brother gave himself willingly to Nono or Momo or whatever his name is... I have a hard time believing some of the very frank, sexy stuff going on here... like Gil presenting his anus to the masons and then screaming at them to f*ck him even though he's got hemorrhoids. Crazy. I really have to give it to Genet. The image he puts in my head right there is one that probably won't quit me for a while.

I like how the woman, Paulette, enters into the story only in a fantasy of Gils... and then only because he is terrified of being penetrated by Theo. In revenge he shouts: "Me, I'm a man... ... I shove it up other guys! I'll screw you too!" (109). Theo then turns into Robert. I don't know what thats about... but what's interesting to me is that masculinity here is linked directly to sex with other men (as long as one is the giver and not the receiver). There is another good part on the bottom of page 116 where it talks about passive/active roles in sex, this time talking about fellatio (where the passive/active roles are reversed).

One last thing I will point out this morning: the text specifically says that the fight between Querelle and his brother is a "lovers' quarrel" and that "rather than trying to destroy one another they seemed to want to become united, to fuse into what would surely be, given these two specimens, an even rarer animal" (123). Aside from the suggestion of incest, we return here to this eroticization of male power struggles, but perhaps laced a bit with sadness, because the fusion of these two men can (probably) never be complete. Is that all men really need, to feel connected to other men? Les pauvres. *sniff*

yama nashi, ochi nashi, imi nashi

2008-03-21T02:45:00.001-06:00

Hehe. I have to admit I'm finding all the exclamations of how gay this book is a little surprising. I realized some of my lack of surprise may have come because I was expecting something of this nature since when I was researching books for the final essay, I came across another by this author that sounded just as...interesting. If not...more so. ^_^ (Actually I found the description rather amusing and was thinking about doing it till I realized we were already reading a book by this author and that might get a little tiring.) Still, even accounting for that, I still find myself a little...unsettled somehow? Certainly the book is more up front and...excessive in the area of anything relating to sex than we are used to in books we read in lit class (and for most of us anything we read out of class as well? ^_^). Surely that warrants a few utterances of surprise...

To some extent surely I'm just desensitized. (I read manga, so sometimes I trade manga with a friend of mine, but unfortunately most of what she has is yaoi and shoujo, which I, depending on my mood, am either taking just to read the same things as her so we have similar reading experiences to talk about, or, just to be polite. ^^ ...Currently I'm in possession of one apparently about a goldfish that turns into an effeminate man and then has sex with its male owner. *sigh* I just...haven't been able to bring myself to read it.) But I dunno. If this were a book about lesbians constantly having sex I'm sure I'd be more uncomfortable, but...

Glancing through posts again, I guess the main thing is the excessiveness and the unrealistic, er, ratio of gay men? (The connection to immorality, too, of course, but it seems like comments related to that have been...separate from the general, “Wow, this is gay!” remarks. Even if there was no murder in the book, you guys would still be saying that, right?) ...I think MAAAAYBE (I really, really don't know. Shot kind of in the dark here.) I'm getting a vibe that these exclamations of how gay it is and how many phallic symbols there are etc are being stated like the very fact they are there has some sort of inherent meaning. Like...for a random and not exactly equivalent example from another class...I read a transcript of an interview a professor did with a girl about 'dealing' with non native English speakers. The girl started one of her stories with something like, “My friend works at this hospital. It's like...the poor hospital in town.” And then just went on with her story not staying what she meant by that. Because what she meant, of course, is that 'the poor hospital is where the non-native English speakers go.' But she said 'poor hospital' unconsciously assuming people would make the connection. If you asked her she might have told you she was just giving background, but it was pretty clear. Saying 'this novel is really gay' ... I don't think it's anywhere near as extreme as the example, but I still get that feeling of 'poor hospital = non-native English speakers,' like 'really gay novel = ..???' I don't know what the “???” is, but I think it's something kind of negative. It seems...belittling?

I may be getting a little defensive since I read fantasy novels, and while I'll agree that most I've read are...sadly less than engaging/intellectually stimulating, being a fantasy novel does not make a novel inherently insubstantial. And a book being full of sex and sexual descriptions of men and buildings does not make it inherently insubstantial either. All of you acknowledge that in your posts I think (and the kind of person who would take this class would probably anyway, right? ^_^), but I also wanted to say that if a book that is in either of these categories IS 'literary'/substantial, it is also not necessarily 'substantial DESPITE being Xunrespectable thingX,' either. A book having lots of gay sex in it is a book with lots of gay sex in it. (By the way, how do you think everyone would react if it was straight sex?) While that might often come with empty/bad writing, that's just a correlation, and not something inherent in writing about gay sex as talking about it in that way might imply.

And maybe I'm just misunderstanding the cause of my uneasiness, or understanding your statements wrong. Seeing what is easiest for me to see, etc. ...But we DO do some interesting accidental things with our carefree, late night, spring-break-has-almost-started-and-I'm-not-in-the-mood-for-this-now language use. ^_^

To a certain extent, I really believe that the excessive sexual stuff is just for the author's own fun, but I think they're also doing something with it in a literary/meaningful way, helpless as I feel to figure out what that is at this point or possibly ever. ^_^ I mean, my friends and I for a time would pick up trashy romance novels from library giveaways or other such things and leave them in the cars so on long drives we could read them aloud to one another. (Count the times the word 'ivory' was used.) I know the writing style of the time period factors in, but... Pure trashy porn really, really doesn't sound like this, does it? Plus, hasn't this section we read for today been little more...uh...normal? ^_^;

And I suppose a quick bit on today's reading since I haven't mentioned that at all, but I'll keep it simple ~~since I read it half asleep and had to rush through so Brother could start~~:

Opinions of Gil? I'd certainly be wary of making friends with the guy, but I find him a sympathetic character. So we've got two gay murderers (but of course, everyone is gay ^_^), but Gil is portrayed differently than Querelle. Has it effected anyone's opinion of how they feel the book is portraying homosexuality?

Mario and the lieutenant feel rather...impotent people? ^_^; Mario's a cop, and the police force in general kind of seems to feel that way as well... and the Lt... at first I was thinking the more morally tied down people were the more 'impotent' ones, but... none of them are HORRIBLY moral. But...maybe by comparison to others, heheh?

Reading quickly was possibly part of the problem (Normally I read slower than.....I'm just too sleepy to be thinking of creative ends to sentences right now.) but there were some whole sections I just didn't get. The looong paragraph about the prisoners? Page 118 with the...I don't even know how to describe that. And while I get what literally happened with Querelle and his brother, obviously the author is trying to say something with all this talk of joining or whatever it was. Bah, I wish I wasn't reading this for school. Trying to understand that guy's sections is just cognitively overwhelming, and you still barely get anywhere. I kind of wish it was more predominantly the other characters, even if I do have difficulty understanding their motivations as well sometimes.

Not being in class...

2008-03-20T18:57:00.002-06:00

I have gone through and read what people have posted so far and I find it so interesting how there might be a slight reference to whatever post came previous to yours, they are all focused on different things. In class, one person starts the conversation and it can gradually change, but it isn't really like these very separate speaches. I think that is good in some ways because it can allow us to express our opinions without softening them for people who are looking right at us or to have to stay on a topic when we would much rather talk about something else. On the other hand, I can read Mike's post about how gay the book is and want to know other people's opinions, but no one else really brought it out into the open like that. It does give everyone the oportunity to tal about what interests tham and it is great that we can all notice different things and point them out to each other, but I also like the immediate response given in a class toward someone's opinion.

That said, I'm going to use my post to talk about what some of my classmates already said. Yes, holy cow, this is a gay book. I would be very interested to know how it was recieved durring the time. It is so blunt and really just puts everything out there. It is almost shocking. I don't even know that I would call it literature, more like verbal porn for people who have a murder fettish. BUT what we are studying in this class has some focus on French gay writing durring the time period it was written.
I find it very interesting that there are so many gay people. It seems like just about every main character is gay. I'm not sure if that is because of the area this takes place, because it works for the plotline or just because that's what the author wanted, but it seems almost unbelievable to me. Everywhere you turn, there is someone who is gay and most likely hiding it. I don't know the ratio of gay to straight in real life, but this seems far fetched.

Now, as for gays in the Navy. Um, a tiny bit overdone nowadays (think The Village People), but I'm sure at the time it wasn't quite such a stereotype. I think there is something to be said just for the fact that these men are on a boat in the middle of the ocean with no women around. I wouldn't say that maeks them turn gay, I wouldn't say that doesn't cause people to experiment, but it does seem like a likely time for something like that to come out in the open.
Now what happens on shore is a completely different story. I think that if I wre in that position I would avoid my boat mates while I was on shore. I'm sure you've all bonded while out together, but I'd need a break from the other guys I've seen 24/7. I am amazed that these sailors don' really seem to have lives outside of each other.
The barret I will wait to comment on until I have read more about it. RIght now I am just so confused that I couldn't even venture a guess. I get mixed and faint signals and can't seem to make sense of them.

WOW! Falic symbols! Um, I looked online and saw a poster fromt he 1980-something movie and there is a guy leaning up against a tower that is clearly shaped like a penis with balls and a head and everything! I wouldn't think they'd have been able to put a poster like that up in public. Um, wow, there are some words I never thought I was going to say in a literature class, but my God I think all of them will be said by the time we are done with this book.
Stiff collar, I didn't see as a symbal of anything sexual or man-part oriented, but now that it has been pointed out, um, well.... There is a real sense of power and manipulation in this book, which in some circles can hint at sex as well.

There has been so much to take in and sort through in that last 140-odd pages that I'm worried when we get to meet in class and actually talk about it we wont have enough time! I think even the quiet ones will have something to say about this!

a kiss is just a kiss

2008-03-20T16:26:00.004-06:00

The role of intimacy in Querelle

In Pretty Woman. Julia Roberts talks of the credo "No kissing" This is explained in the movie, that kissing equals intimacy. Sex is allowed but its not linked to intimacy.

I found the same strains of discorded intimacy in Querelle. "No kissing thats for sure" p 70. and later " Nor would it ever entered his head that a man could kiss another"
Kissing is intimate, its affection. At the heart of the sexual interaction in Querelle is a power struggle. The sex is a manifestation of a power struggle, not a symbol of intimacy.
So does Genet help perpetrate the stereotype that sex between men is about power, not intimacy, or by highlighitng this detial is he mocking the idea?

Another point I wanted to bring up was the idea of the amount of gay men in the book. While is disproportionate,.(I am deriving my information form the 1948 Kinsey report, which states 10% of the population is gay) think about your life for a moment. Who surrounds you? More than likely people of the same race, sexual orientation,and political leanings.

Genet could have been reflecting his world on to the pages of Querelle. I know if I were to write down the cast of characters in my life, they would not reflect the US Census Bureau, or the Kinsey Report.

2008-03-20T10:49:00.001-06:00

The first section of the book seemed to read better than the second section. I am still enjoying it but it seems to have sunk into an even darker state of being. I really feel like this book is condemning a man for being gay and correlating its negativity with that of murder. It seems like this book has more political commentary that I am aware of than past books we have read, then again, I could just be reading things into it.

I am not really sure what to say about this section…

I guess to start off, I will expand on what DJ said. I think it is important to note that Querelle wore his beret differently than you were supposed to and when he found another sailor wearing his beret in the same fashion, Querelle got really angry. Despite that fact that he is dressed the same as every other man, Querelle seems to have a sense of identity, and identity that is not meant to be copied in any way shape or form. I think from the beginning of the book, even before you get a physical description, a reader realizes that there is something about Querelle that sets him apart from everybody else. It is a sense you get that you realize more from his actions and demeanor than you do any descriptions of him.
What is most interesting to me is that despite Querelle’s supposed confidence, underneath his clothes he seems to be a very insecure man. Does he kill in order to define himself or does he kill as a way of making himself more confident?

One more thing, does the attention paid to clothes, like the stiff collar, correspond with the attention Querelle gives to killing someone. For Querelle, killing is a science that he puts a lot of thought into, and though he wears the same clothes every day, he places the same kind of attention into the position of his beret , and the placement of his collar.
I think the parts of the book I like the most are the incomplete thoughts—the shorter paragraphs that seem to have no connection to one another and yet they do.

“In French, the sinking of a ship is somberer. Somberly” (142).

“The Sailor is the one love of my life” (142).

2008-03-19T02:53:00.002-06:00

Okay, so when I started this book, I was really excited that it was set in the Navy. I was thinking "gays in the Navy...I know about that." But there is so much gay man sex, it is disturbing. Initially, I was thinking that Querelle was a sort of a Billy Budd character with all of his beauty and the LT being in obsessed with him. All of his talk about relieving his wad or whatever (excuse me while I vomit) along with the killing and the constant obsession with his penis pretty much takes that away.
The idea of Querelle "feeling safe in his uniform" (33) was really interesting to me. I was thinking back to my time in the Navy and I think I felt just the opposite. Whenever you are in uniform, you have to really watch what you are doing because of what you are representing. I take joy in things like walking on the wrong side of the street and cutting through grass because I wasn't allowed to for so long. The scene on page 34 with the other sailor wearing his hat like Querelle and Querelle telling him to "put it on straight" because it was his signature style was really interesting to me. The whole idea of a uniform is to unify people. The fact that Querelle has a lot of serious things he is trying to hide (murder, drugs, his sexuality) makes it even more ironic that he feels the need to separate himself by any means possible. I would expect him to not try to stand out so much. Genet even says that the sailor's outfit is a disguise. Maybe that's the whole point. By making an effort to seem almost rebellious or dangerous, perhaps is Querelle's way of seeming as if he has nothing to hide.
The whole relationship between Querelle and the Navy uniform is very interesting. Things like "the stiff collar of the pea coat, which he felt protected his neck like armor" (31) and the way "Vic had the collar of his pea coat turned up, the blood, instead of spurting over Querelle, rand down the inside of his coat and over his jersey"(61). The uniform is its own character, protecting Querelle, keeping his secrets.
The "couples" on the ship amused me. The older higher ranking men paired with young, new sailors. The way that Querelle and Lt. Seblon interact rang true to me that constant fogging of boundaries: the way an officer will sexually harass the hell out of you one minute and then check to make sure you maintain absolute respect for him the next.
There were a couple of things that struck me as probably significant but I didn't figure out yet why it is they might be: mouths and doors. The status of Querelle's mouth being half way open is mentioned a lot as well as opening and closing of doors. I am pretty sure this is eluding to more man sex stuff and well...yes I'm sure that it is. On that note, I found it interesting that each time Querelle witnesses his shipmates being flirtatious with each other (namely when he sees Gil and Roger together on page 13 and the un-named couple on page 15), he gets "an air of amused sarcasm." With the amount of obvious sexual tension among these men, I am surprised Querelle denies his homosexuality to the extent that he does.

Holy Homosexuality

2008-03-19T01:50:00.002-06:00

Geez, this book couldn't get any more gay could it? I mean just the imagery alone forces me to consider it in a homosexuality slant. We get so many phallic symbols. The knife, the boat, the opium. We get so many power trips too. The Captain, The Sailor, The cop. Through out this entire reading we are inundated with images that deal with dominate and submissive men and who put them on edge and who shames who. And that doesn't even count the pages dedicated to the description of COCK!

"He was free to leave his body, that audacious scaffolding for his balls. Their weight and beauty he knew" (P. 59) He we are getting literal description of someone's testicles in a fashion that is meant to turn them into a metaphor, and a naughty one at that. It makes me blush it does, and I can not lie. "WIth a light and calm touch he liberated his prick from hsi underpants and helf it for a moment, heavy and extended in his hand... ... resting his hand on his prick." (p73) I am disappointed on some level that I Am confined to only talking about the first 78 pages, and that leaves me unable to discuss the more erotic elements of this piece. But oh well, I will make due with this quote that gives us a rather vivid image of his cock and him man handling it. Very homo erotic imagery it would seem, and imagery of power as well. It goes to show that homosexuals view the cock as a symbol of power.

"He pushed in further, very carefully, the better to savor his pleasure and his strength" (P. 74) Here we get a clear notion that being on top and penetrating a bottom is a position of pleasure and of power. It gives the top control it seems, but for the bottom it seems to give a sense of shame. "At the first thrust, so strong it almost killed him, Querelle whimpered quietly, then more loudly, until he was moaning without restraint or shame" (P. 75) So we have this powerful character that murders, and when he murders he feels this sense of shame, he puts himself through trial in his mind. This act, as he mentions is his final judgement, a means of atoning. Isn't it odd that he needs to have sex to free himself from shame and restraint and to set him free from guilt as well. Odd, that is.

I get the feeling that the Lieutenant is kind of a dandy in this book. We get the notion that he has a rather romantic obsession with Querelle and writes about it in his journal. Through out his journal he is writing a literary sketch of Querelle, as it to draw a picture of someone he doesn't know, someone he can't know due to his situation. Even once he mentions how he envies the admiral who has a 20 year old marine following him around as a body guard. I don't remember the page exactly, but I remember that the lieutenant was mildly aroused at the notion of having such a strapping young around who would willingly go down on knees for you and perform fellatio. This man, while very prim and proper, seems to be very horny and repressed.

If one considers it carefully we are getting the sense that every character in this book is gay. I mean call me silly, but The Cop has Dede, The Hotel Keeper has Querelle, Gib and Theo are together, but Gib also loves someone else because he felt like he was bought off by Theo. Gasp, drama. We have the lieutenant who is obsessed with Querelle, and Querelle seems to know this is and is amused by this on some level. He remembers leaving his hankerchief in the lieutenants office and it disappeared. If he has searched further he would have found it encrusted with other bodily fluids. But thankfully the Lieutenant is a good man! He gave Querelle one of his monogrammed one. Nice!

Overall I find this book to be a great read, if overtly homo erotic. Definetely much more open and in the clear about this rather than having it as a subtle under tone as we are use to. It makes me wonder what the novels to come will be like, and if it gets even raunchier than that. I guess time will tell, but until then, I Shall return to my strapping seamen and sailors, pimps and cops who all love cock!

Wars, inverts, and a giant stone phallus...

2008-03-19T01:13:00.006-06:00

I think it's worth pointing out that the historic port city of Brest where Genet's novel is (possibly, maybe) set was pretty thoroughly wiped off the face of the planet during the Battle of Normandy (a mere three years before Querelle de Brest would be published). Of course many other French cities suffered a similar fate during WWII, but I think Brest is at least fairly unique in the awesome and total destruction it suffered. What I have a hard time deciphering is when the action of the story takes place. Perhaps I am missing some obvious clue, some revealing statement from the text like: "It was the summer of 1910, most definitely before the Battle of Normandy," but I just have no idea. The Brest in the novel came across to me as fairly detached somehow from history and the physical world. It might as well be sitting in the middle of an ocean of seamen.

(Maybe it isn't the town, but the characters that are giving me this impression?)

Still, it's interesting that Genet chose a city that was so heavily affected by the war. Somewhere around the time of the Franco-Prussian war saw the emergence in France and elsewhere the concept of sexual inversion, which became important to France in the wake of their humiliating defeat. Virility became a national obsession and this relates to male inverts as they were generally seen as not being very virile. Here we have a book written more than a half-century later, and the word pops up fairly often. These men do not appear to me to be your run-of-the-mill sexual inverts. If I'm remembering right from a class I took a long, long time ago, it was scandals that erupted after WWI that infused in our public consciousness what we think happens whenever you stick a bunch of men in close quarters for too long. Ironically, in trying to re-establish its virility as a nation, France helped introduce the possibility that all men, even the virile ones, could potentially be capable of the same actions as the non-virile, isolated inverts. Oh, and then there was WWII. Not exactly a high point for that country. I'm not sure where I'm going with this anymore, so let's come back to our sheep.

Lieutenant Seblon writes in his journal about "having been so overwhelmed by the loneliness to which [his] inversion condemns [him]" (8). He is, I believe, the only character to identify himself as an invert and I think the journal entries that break up the text highlight his loneliness and his separation from the other men. Seblon is the "pederast" of ancient greek tradition who wishes to posses the men he loves. Here we have Querelle going pee:

"It was a feeling of both power and the lack of it: of pride, in the first place, to know that such a tall tower could be the symbol of his own virility, to the extent that when he stood at the base of it, legs apart, taking a piss, he could think of it as his own prick... ...But when he was by himself, at night or during the day, opening or buttoning his fly, his fingers felt they were capturing, with the greatest care, the treasure- the very soul – of this giant prick; he imagined that his own virility emanated from the stone phallus, while feeling quietly humble in the presence of the unruffled and incomparable power of that unimaginably huge male" (40).

The statement "it was a feeling of both power and the lack of it" sums up perfectly, for me, masculine identity in our culture as it exists today, which is basically: realizing, and being proud of the fact that one belongs to a privileged group, being in awe of this masculine ideal, yet in constant struggle with other men to embody that ideal (which can only be obtained by conquering other men). There's also, and possibly most importantly, the constant threat of being conquered oneself, emasculated, and turned into a "fairy". Querelle comes across in this first part of the book as an extreme example of this struggle. On the one hand he worships this giant, erect penis (that he wishes were his), and on the other he murders a fellow sailor. A struggle that for most men eventually becomes a source of pain and isolation appears to be a real rush for Querelle. He seems to revel in his own manhood.

I win.

2008-03-18T22:17:00.000-06:00

(Look, I wrote my own novel!!! Probably not as fun to read as this book, though. Sorry. Also, crap, it looks like Mel posted while I was writing this and we say the same thing. ^__^ But....I WIN CAUSE I SAY IT A LOT WORDIER!!!! I almost wrote “What the hell!?” too, actually.)

With such interesting material in plot and characters I feel a little lame talking about pronouns, but why fight yourself? ^_^ So... The narrator's use of “we” confused me at first. I wasn't sure if this was the “I, the narrator and you, the reader/society” “we” or what, especially when he uses “you” as well, but looking back through it must be a reader-not-included “we” since it talks about “when we decided to write this story” on page 17. ...Only, wait, then later that paragraph I could swear the usage changes. No perceptible point, but “we want him to become the Hero” sounds to me like it's including the reader. Ah, and “we shall see how he lends himself to this.” The narrator/writer “we” can't be the one there, the writer can't “shall” see, they already know the story. (Haha, I wonder if there are writing teachers who would slash those pronouns to bits if they saw such a mobile “we” in just a single page, but a single paragraph ^_^)

Who the heck is this “we,” anyway? Maybe they'll be revealed later, maybe we'll never find out... They certainly have a voice... I wonder do they have a personality? I've actually been wondering similar things about Querelle as well (I'll get to that later, but to me some of the things that make a Character-with-a-capital-C are...MIGHT be absent in him). And then it talks in that paragraph about him being “already contained in our flesh,” “beginning to grow in our soul,” and about “our despair at not being in any way inside him, while having him inside of ourselves.” And then about “the event which revealed Querelle to us” on 18. I toyed for a moment (jokingly, jokingly! ^_^) with the idea that “we” was a person with multiple personalities, with this Querelle being one that surfaced after the others, heheh.

As for Querelle seeming un-character-esque to me... It may be just because I find such a ...being...so un-human that I can't see him as a, er...true character? (Mind, if you're wondering, I'm not even sure myself what I mean by “true character.” But...well, you (we? Heheh) might understand more what I mean from the rest of this...) Still, I think it's more than him being too inhuman/unfeeling to be human. He barely seems to have personality beyond the awful things he does and his sexual desires. Things like the imaginary trial...at first I think, “Well, that's...eccentric. If he can be eccentric...that must be personality, right?” But this trial he creates...has no, er, personality whatsoever. It's full of the obligatory steps of the courtroom drama, complete with a courtroom 'incident.' It's extremely trite. And I think it mentions him going through an imaginary cemetery after the first murder as well, right? There it explicitly called the thing 'trite.' Quirky though the activity of these...hallucinations of a sort may seem, they've got no quirk to them at all.

My thought was that thinking about the consequences is of murder is rather a...necessary/unavoidable step after the act. This trial is a way of him doing that while at the same time leaving character/personal stuff out of it. I mean a trial? If you murdered someone, you might think about the trial, but you'd also think about...I don't know, the family/friends/people's reactions (even if you were evil and didn't feel guilty about it, you'd probably still THINK about it more), getting arrested, jail? But Querelle does the trial, the part of the whole process that to me seems the most disconnected from personal character. It might come into play in them sometimes, but mostly they're about motivation (of which he has none) and facts, right?

It's a shame the multiple personality thing doesn't work (or is it? Wow, that would be a horrible ending ^_^), because Querelle could be the....personification (...if that's an appropriate use of that verb? ) of....immorality of man? Baseness? Not that he has to be a multiple personality to be such a thing, of course. Anyway, it makes sense kind of, because he is therefore in us but us not in him, he has no character because while you may or may not agree it's probably arguable that baseness has no character, while at the same time consequences is an un-detachable part of doing immoral things, so they must be dealt with (as in the trial), but our immorality isn't the part of us that feels shame or adds...our own personal quirks to the dealing with of these consequences. If Immorality-the-Person had to deal with it...It probably couldn't give a crap. ...And actually I'd forgotten this but looking at the “we” stuff again I saw this on page 18: “To become visible to you, to become a character in a novel, Querelle must be shown apart form ourselves.” I think the first time I saw that I read it as the narrator talking about Querelle as a real person (as he is in the narrator's world) and was talking about the process of taking a real person and turning them into a character in a novel.....The last part I just plum didn't understand, in that kind of reading. Makes sense this way, though....

....Much as it sounds like I'm building a case for some big theory I'm fixed on or something, though, really it's just been stuff I'm considering as I read... I wouldn't be horribly surprised if Querelle just needed more time to become a character to me than 70 pages (...This novel of course brings to mind Dostoevsky, which brings to mind The Brothers Karamazov, another novel you should probably not judge too much by its first 80 pages. Blech. ^_^; Gets better, honest). Then everything you just read goes out the window. Haha, what a waste of time you just spent reading that. I bet you're almost as annoyed as we will be when we get to the end and find out Querelle is a multiple personality of The Floating We.

I didn't want to hurt them, I only wanted to kill them

2008-03-18T22:03:00.003-06:00

My first concern is with the narrator. Page 17 reads, “Little by little we saw how Querelle-already contained in our flesh-was beginning to grow in our soul to feed on what is best in us, above all in our despair of not being in any way inside him, while having him inside ourselves.” The narrator continues on in this dramatic fashion. I suppose I am wondering first off if it's the royal “we” being used. Secondly, I wonder if the narrator will exist later then as a character, or if he already is. Thirdly, I am trying to avoid simply typing “what the hell?” But seriously, what the hell?!? I'm trying to figure out all the relationships because, really, the writing is so personal and in these little asides to the reader, we no longer have that perfect omniscient narrator. The writing just feels strange to me.

I had some confusion with the characters that, upon a second look, I think I'm starting to sort out. In my defense, it does seem all the characters are living multiple lives. Querelle in particular is described almost as two separate beings, Querelle and The Murderer. “No longer was any part of Querelle present within his body. It was empty. Facing Vic, there was no one.” It seems logical that he would disconnect himself from this deed, yet at the same time he seems to really accept what he has done. There doesn't appear to be any shame even knowing he is both himself and the murderer that resides within. In addition, there is Mario who, though a cop, seems to prefer the company of criminals. In fact, I would say every character thus far mentioned has contradicting personalities especially where their sexuality is concerned.

I've read many serial killer manifestos and the like in my youth, and Querelle seems very typical in his detached demeanor. He reminded me a lot of Denis Nilsen (a serial killer in the early 1980's) who, being highly sexually confused, would pick up younger men, engage in sexual activity with them, and then flush their skin down his toilet. While there are some obvious differences, denying one's self can have disastrous effects including depression, isolation, and increased aggression and defensiveness. Yikes!

In summation, this book is highly disturbing and Querelle's not nearly as charming as Dexter.

Clothing as safety for Querelle and the Narrator

2008-03-18T19:26:00.003-06:00

OK, I'm sure we've all noticed it... there is a lot of mention of clothing, and in quite detail as well.

The line that I thinks sums it all up goes something like, "He had on;y to give the slightest turn of the head, to the left or right, to feel his cheek rub against the stiff, upturned collar of his peacoat. This contact reassured him. By it, he knew himself to be clothed, marvelously clothed" (15).

I think this really gets at something about the clothes. They really sem to be a reasuring thing for both Querelle and the narrator. Querelle notices the clothes that people are wearing with great detail, and the narrator notices Querelle noticing and notices himslelf, atleast enough to comment onit.

Let's go on a quick trip... we wont go for the whole ride, just a short part of it to show you what I mean...

Pg 3- "the man who dons a sailor's outfit" (line 9)
"His disguise" (line 10)
Pg 4- "in the tight fit of his sweater, in the amplitude of his bell-bottoms." (lines 11-12)
Pg 7- "cotton clothes- open shirt and denims" (line 2)
"their wide collars, the pompoms on their hats" (lines 13-14)
Pg 12- "pair of gloves" (line 14 of section 2)
"the blue denim pants" (line 1 section 3)
"highly polished black shoes" (lines 3-4 section 3)
"turtleneck jersey of white" (line6 section 3)
Pg 13- "the other remaining in the pocket of his peacoat" (5th and 6th lines from the bottom)
Pg 14- "buttoning his peacoat, turning up the collar." (lines 11-12)
"train of a robe, adorned with lace, with crests" (lines23-24)
Pg 15- previously quoted end of first paragraph
"taking off his shoes" (line 14)
"his socks" (line 25)
"a slip, a bra, shoelaces, a hankerchief" (line 30)
Pg 16- "full-dress gaiters" (line 2)
"elegant but poorly tailored pants" (lines 3-4)
"a filthy handkerchief; socks with holes in them" (lines 4-5)
"his other sock" (line 16)

I'm going to say that is enough for now...
I hope you got the point. There hasn't been too much reference to clothing in the works we have read so far. There has been tiny bits here and there, but certainly not like this.

It is also stated clearly that Querelle feels safe knowing that his clothes are on, and not just any clothes, but good clothes that fit well, make him look nice and belonged to a sailor?
AND, I must point out that the momento he took after each murder was an item of clothing. It is listed that it was always something that the victim was wearing and could easily incriminate him.

Now, for my next topic (and you thought I was done, hah):
The narrator seems to switch back and forth the way he talks about Querelle. Sometimes he refers to him by his name, sometimes he says "the sailor" and sometimes he says the man.
What are we supposed to take from this change? I would like to have something insightful to insist this means, but I really have no idea. Maybe it is the translation and maybe it will become clear as we read further on, but if anyone has any ideas, please do share.

2008-03-18T19:10:00.001-06:00

The seventy-four pages went by amazingly fast. I would read this book in a non-academic setting. However, since this a setting, I found a couple of themes in it.

The first section (pages 1-22) dealt with the sea and sailor imagery in a unique way. It is odd to look back and glimpse the creation of a gay archetype. In Querelle Genet shed some light as to why gay men flocked to the seas.

" …it allows him to assume dark continents where the sun sets and rises , where the moon sanctions murder under roofs of bamboo… it gives him the opportunity to act within the illusion of a mirage,,," p4

Genet is discussing when the criminal wears a sailor suit, allowing him to pass as a sailor.

The idea of passing as someone else reoccurs. That even if you are gay you can pass as straight by subjugating women. The coupling of these two ideas is found is the interaction between Roger and Gilbert

"She gives you the hots eh?

-a couple lines later

Gil turned to face the boy and forced him to retreat into the recess in the stone wall.

This idea is repeated on pages 59 and 60. This is where the game is introduced, later it is explained as a sexual dice game.

That if you win you can have sex with the Madam, if you lose you have to have sex with Nono first.

Another theme or question that came to mind.. Is the link between Querelles sexuality and deviant behavior. He is smuggler, a thief , a murder. Does an audience lump in his homosexual behavior in with these traits?

We, as modern readers in a Gay French Lit class can easily separate his sexuality from his behavior, we do not see the causation effect, but did readers in 1948? Did they link homosexuality with drugs, theft and murder?

The logic is

If gay sailors are criminals, and being a sailor is not criminal in nature, there for being gay is.

Zotero info

2008-03-18T14:02:00.000-06:00

http://digitalhistory.concordia.ca/vertov/

this might help if you are using video/audio for your final!

Things that Stand Out

2008-03-18T08:44:00.001-06:00

So far, I am really enjoying Querelle.

There are several things that stand out to me in this first section of Querelle. The first few sentences on the opening page, struck me as…

“The notion of murder often brings to mind the notion of sea and sailors. Sea and sailors do not, at first, appear as a definite image—it is rather that “murder” starts up a feeling of waves. If one considers that seaports are the scene of frequent crimes, the association seems self-explanatory; but there are numerous stories from which we learn that the murderer was a man of the sea—either a real one, or a fake one—and if the latter is the case, the crime will be even more closely connected to the sea.”

It is such a startling statement. Furthermore, when I think of murder I don’t associate them with the sea and sailors. I think of war, school shootings, gang related crime, The Game of Clue, etc. I even think of Cindy Sherman’s self-portrait of a dead girl. I like this technique for beginning a story because readers usually have expectations and to begin with a statement seems to imply that although a reader will have his or her own ideas, this is my idea, the writer’s idea is the one that matters. From the first page, I was hooked.

“It is astonishing that turning criminals into sailors used to be regarded as a form of punishment” (8). Is this supposed to be a generalized statement towards all sailors and the irony of giving them a freedom of sorts when they ought to be behind bars or is it specific to Querelle who is able to continue on with his serial killer tendencies?

“Vic most probably wasn’t used to being murdered” (60). Although perhaps a bit forced, this statement is hilarious to me. There is a lot of dry humor in this book which makes it more entertaining to read than past books we have read. (That is not to say that they weren’t good, but this one has something that the others did not.)

On page 62, after Querelle has killed Vic (which is an interesting scene in and of itself) Querelle
seems to try and justify the crime he has just committed. “That the criminal at the instant of committing his crime believes that he’ll never be caught is a mistaken assumption. He refuses, no doubt, to see the terrible consequences of his act at all clearly, and yet he knows that the act does condemn him to death. We find the word “analysis” a little embarrassing.” The fact that the criminal is aware that he can be condemned to death seems to ease the reader’s mind. Now that I think it more, I think that Querelle and Vic can be related to Bebert and Emile. However, I do not think that Bebert is as exacting as Querelle. Bebert commits crimes of passions, while Querelle’s are more thought out. To say that the word analysis is embarrassing seems to show weakness on the part of the serial killer. For a man who has planned a crime like this he needs to appear strong as killing is a part of his identity.

peversity and identifying personal bias

2008-03-16T17:00:00.004-06:00

In class we agreed that the stabbing of Emile by Berbet had homoerotic 0ver tones. The overtones come from the actual physical stabbing but also from the dialogue.

"
There!” he declared all of a sudden showing his knife... “You'll see. What is a paltry little stroke of the
blade? I don't want to kill, you idiot! I'm simply going to prick you... prick you... you won't feel it... I assure you that you'll feel nothing at all... hardly.”" and
“Are you ready?” he questioned. “It'll be done quickly. Don't move.”
Bebert declared: “If you make that row I'll finish you... hein? Do you understand... I'll...”
He collapsed on the floor, screamed louder, quivered with pain. Bebert bent over his victim. He did not sink the blade deeply, but as soon as it touched Emile withdrew it rapidly to stab again...

So why and how did we come to this conclusion?
I think I came to the conclusion because I didnt sense that the men were fight over Irma, but fighting among themselves for a hierarchy.

Is my personal bias clouding my judgement?

Is a link between my minds between masculine violence and sex? Do I have such a limited view on male homosexuals that I attribute violence to sexual acts, not love?

Or that I am still stuck in a heteronormative dialectic mind- that in order for two men to have a relationships one has to be strong and manly (Berbert) the other weak and feminine(Emile)?

Or that I believe that all men fight for their placement in the masculine hierarchy?

Firs Reactions

2008-03-10T22:04:00.002-06:00

What to make of Perversity?

After finishing Andre Breton’s Manifestoes in Surrealism this could be considered light reading. I tried to find information about Francis Carco, but Wikipedia failed me. He was a poet that belonged to the fantaiste school of thought. (I’m sure some of you were more resourceful, and even persistent, in your searches.)
A couple of things strike me as odd.

I have noticed that Emile’s sister is referred to by different names. Sometimes she is Irma; most often she is called this by Emile. And sometimes she is called the Red One; most often by Bebert. And then sometimes she is referred to as La Rouque, the Red One, prior to translation; most often in narration of events. (Unless of course I have fallen asleep while reading.) Irma has three different identities to various people and situations whereas everyone else only has one identity. Irma seems to be able to shift in and out of her roles when everyone else is stuck, especially Emile.

Emile is stuck in his routine of going to the office and then coming home. He is a dull character that does not know how to take pleasure in the company of others nor does he know how to just let down. He is wound too tightly. His nervousness is irritating to me. Emile seems to be conscious of his actions towards others and the consequences that they will have on the events that have yet to come. He is a selfish, self-loathing character that wreaks havoc wherever he goes. Is Emile’s inability to love a direct consequence of his own self-loathing or is it the women that he chooses? Or are some people just incapable of intimacy? Does Emile provoke Bebert in such a way as to further the events of the novel or would Bebert prey on anyone in order to get what he wants?

Bebert. I am not sure how I feel about Bebert. Perhaps feel is the wrong word to use. I am not sure how to interpret him. “Bebert took money away from these feeble creatures, wasted it, hunted for a new victim” (29). He is so savage. Bebert is a predator preying on the women. The passage eludes me, but when Emile looks in on Bebert sleeping, Bebert loses his savageness and becomes human again. The scar is a pale rose color, very delicate. Bebert is asleep so the violent emotions that are present during waking hours are diminished. He is a tiger when awake and a kitten while asleep.

It seems to me that the downward slide of Emile, Irma, and Bebert is a conscious turn of events. Each character is aware of the role that they play and no one is willing to give up their own identity in order to compromise. Irma is stuck in between family and her means for survival and Bebert and Emile only look after themselves. The men are selfish; the women are property of the men. All are tied together.

Larry King

2008-03-04T18:46:00.000-07:00

Long live the revolution!

2008-03-03T23:15:00.007-07:00

It seems to me that there is a connection between the ideas of automatism and proletariat art. In discussing automatic writing, Breton states, “groups of words which follow one another, manifest among themselves the greatest solidarity. It is not up to me to favor one group over another” (33). It seems to me that denial of classical notions of art and poetry might favor those with more radical ideas as they lack the formal educational conditioning which can inhibit artists. Granted, I know he stated that proletariat art up to that point had been generally lackluster, but I suspect more as a result of strict Soviet conformity more so than absence of previous education. Also, it seems to me that Surrealists (or at least Breton) didn't feel materialism (by that I mean solid thought as it relates to actual objects and things) to be as valid as symbols, subconscious thought, dreams and the like. I might be wrong, though, because it also seemed to me that he contradicted himself frequently. Which I guess in itself could be a form of dialectic thought.

This leads me to wonder how Hegelian Dialectism relates to Surrealism. The idea of a theses and antitheses combining to create a new less reductionist theses seems very much like Surrealists use of juxtaposition. At this point I remembered why I should invest in a highlighter as I can't for the life of me recall where he mentioned Hegel or Dialectic reasoning. Any help or thoughts?

Also, in spite of Breton's denial, he and his contemporaries seem very guilty of “ivory tower” philosophizing (248). Which leads me to wonder, can art ever really belong to the proletariat? Some forms of art naturally fall well outside the reach of the worker. Film making, for instance requires raw materials too expensive for the working class. Even writing, which only should require a pencil and paper, requires a near impossible time investment for the countless individuals working 60+ weeks just to survive. Unfortunately, when something is created by a proletariat, generally, the canon is so ingrained that if it doesn't fit an already well-established definition of art, it will be ignored. (Although, our culture seems to love emphasizing a few token works that break the mold as proof to the contrary). Then again, can an artist even be a proletariat since by definition she would be controlling the means of production?

But as I like to say, I digress (as a hobby!) and I apologize for my tangent.

I wanna know what love is,, I want you to show me

2008-03-03T19:21:00.007-07:00

Reading about L'Age D'Or one review said:

"L'AGE D'OR is not only an attack on bourgeois life but also a doctrine that directs humanity to live as the surrealists believed they should: that is, by placing love before everything else in life, such as the church, status, and family." http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product_Id=4005877&JRSource=googlebase.datafeed.1000492_5

This lead to an investigation about the attitudes toward love in the readings.

Rereading Manifesto with an eye geared toward love I stumbled across the following quotes..

"The mind of the man who dreams is fully satisfied by what happens to him. The agonizing question of possibility is no longer pertinent. Kill, fly faster, love to your heart's content"

In Surrealism and its living works it states

.. "Surrealism has never been tempted to hide from itself the element of glittering fascination in man's love for woman.." pg300

And further on 301 it talks about "women is to be loved and honored as the great promise...."

Granted Im not fully immersed in all aspects of Surrealism nor love, but I couldn't find elements of this glittering fascination of love.

Andre Breton wrote Nadja in 1928, its quoted as " the best surreal romance novel."

Some quotes from Nadja

You are my master. I am only an atom respiring at the corner of your lips or expiring. I want to touch serenity with a finger wet with tears." Nadja 116

But I am judging a posteriori and I merely speculate when I say it could not be otherwise. Whatever desire or even illusion I may have had to the contrary,... Nadja 135

So this is the glittering fascination? This is the great promise?

An existence in which Nadja may or may not exist, where Paris may or may not exist, a place where Breton himself may or may not exist? Does glittering facination mean idolization?

Pat Dorman Women's Studies Scholarship

2008-03-03T14:53:00.001-07:00

Hi all -- this year's scholarship amount is $800, so please think about applying. Also, the President's Writing Awards deadline is coming up -- please consider applying!

2008-03-02T19:54:00.001-07:00

I feel relief after reading other people’s blog posts about Breton. I am not the only one that feels at a loss with this information.

As I strive to make sense of Andre Breton’s Manifestoes of Surrealism, I am beginning to realize how unaware of past events I truly am. Up to this point, I have been satisfied of my grade school knowledge of World War I and even World War II. The political movements of the early 1900s have no relevance in my realm of understanding today…or so I thought. If we were to shift the surrealist movement into events that I had experience with, I would readily find more meaning. However, I am not sure how to merge World War I with the ongoing war in Iraq. Nor do I know how to make September 11th fit into this schema either.

Just like my understanding of history is poor, so is my understanding of politics. I don’t understand United States politics let alone the politics surrounding the French and the Russians in the early 1900s. So, I will not even try to comment on the first few readings for Tuesday, March 4. Skipping ahead to On Surrealism in its Living Works, I will try to make sense out of something.

Breton makes surrealism sound as if it just came out of nowhere. “It is a matter of common knowledge today that Surrealism, as an organized movement, was born of a far-reaching operation having to do with language. […] What was it all about? Nothing less than the rediscovery of the secret of a language whose elements would then cease to float like jetsam on the surface of a dead sea” (297). Breton uses his theories regarding free writing to the best of his abilities. Can I assume that free writing would be not only conscious thought, but also writing done in metaphors?

Why is it that I am hung up on what I do not understand and what I can’t make sense out of?
“The world thereupon seems to be like a cryptogram which remains indecipherable only so long as one is not thoroughly familiar with the gymnastics that permit one to pass at will from one piece apparatus to another” (303). Is this how I should be thinking about surrealism?

And now for my final, rambling thought, I am interested in Breton’s leadership skills. It seems like many movements, although I cannot think of one off the top of my head, never take off, but surrealism was a big hit. The new way of modern thinking was adapted from writing to suit the needs of other medium. Was it strictly the events that happened prior to the surrealist movement and the branching off of the Dadaist group that made it so successful or were the people involved also beneficial in the progression of this movement?

In reference to poetic intuition: “This intuition, finally unleashed by Surrealism, seeks not only to assimilate all known forms but also boldly to create new forms—that is to say, to be in a position to embrace all the structures of the world, manifested or not” (304). I liked this final quote because it seemed to convey that surrealism was easier to understand than it appears. It makes surrealism sound so happy and light.

One more thing, I have noticed that in his writing Breton capitalizes the “s” on surrealism, whereas I have not been capitalizing it. Does this have to do with Breton’s ownership of the surrealist movement or have I been performing a faux pas?

At last I have completed this poor exercise in free writing.

a little less than a blog should be

2008-03-01T20:30:00.002-07:00

Are you kidding me? I just typed this whole thing up and then it said there was a error and now it is gone. Damn. Well, the point was I randomly came across a timeline that is way more detailed than necessary, so I thought I would post a link to it. It isn't really anything important, but it is here if you want/need it:
http://timelines.ws/countries/FRANCE1870_1920.HTML

This is not a pipe.

2008-02-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

Such that wholly or partially, it is to say that this preface, how shall I say, is nothing more than nonsense to me, or not me.

2008-02-28T02:53:00.000-07:00

I’m not sure that I completely agree with Breton’s ideas in some of the things he discusses. I do like his notion of the insane “being honest to a fault” (5). However, I don’t agree that M. Paul Valéry’s suggestion of creating an anthology made up entirely of first sentences from novels is an insane one. I personally look forward each year to the new edition of The Best American Non-Required Reading, which contains a small section, dedicated completely to some of the year’s best opening sentences. I think if someone did create such a compilation as Valéry proposes, I would probably buy it.

Surrealism, as I am trying to understand it, seems very similar to magnetic poetry. The poems on pages 41-43 strike me as being just that, the only difference is that these poems were found poems clipped from newspapers, rather than being packaged up, themed and mass-produced to be sold at your local store of whimsy.
This fashion of combining thoughts that seem, at least on the surface, to be completely unrelated, feels to me more like a conscious effort to sound random. The sense that I get is that people who write surrealism, try to portray it as an absolute freeing of the mind, allowing it to wander where it may. I think when you let your mind wander, it tends to link things up closer together than demonstrated in this writing style. Thoughts, to me, trigger other thoughts: something reminds you of something else and that something else leads to another something else, etc. The samples of surrealism given here don’t seem to be doing that though. They seem incredibly forced. For instance, the answers to the questions on page 34 are so unrelated to the questions, I’m having a hard time accepting it as anything more than a complete disregard to the actual questions being asked.

Writing is such a conscious effort. It’s all about choosing the most appropriate words to get your thoughts across. As far as surrealist writing, I’m not convinced this is even possible. Thoughts are more dimensional than mere sentences and paragraphs can possibly portray. I think in the act of choosing the words to describe your thoughts, you are not entirely in a state of liberating your mind. I liked that Breton mentioned surrealist artists such as Picasso. It further helped me to try to grasp the concept by giving me a concrete visual. I think that visual art is a more suitable medium for the abstract idea of surrealism. When put into written form, it is messy and often hard to follow. The subjects are constantly changing. Although I think Breton did not favor the use of titles as Soupault does (23-24), I find them quite helpful for this sort of thing. Rather than adjusting yourself constantly from thought to thought, trying to decipher what is going on, the text is qualified in a way that prepares you for the shift in ideas. I both understood and enjoyed reading the “Secrets of the Magical Surrealist Art” on pages 29-32, than most of the preceding pages. The reason for this: subtitles.

As per usual, my reaction is 'Huh?'

2008-02-25T22:58:00.001-07:00

Initially, I found myself nodding my head. Certainly, there must be something lost if one is attempting to write about man in an entirely logical fashion. The logical is only part of our experiences, a lot of what makes us what we are doesn't seem very logical at all. All of us, even in our adult lives I believe to some extent, stew in our imagination, if not in outright fantasies and dreams.

I enjoyed Brenton's poking fun of the “informative style,” the perhaps all too complete (-ly useless?) description of the room. Logically describing a room a character enters makes sense, but I've certainly never surveyed a room in such a manner upon entering it unless I was either for some reason making an attempt to memorize its contents, or was incredibly, incredibly bored and probably more awake and less easily distracted than I generally am. Remembering some creative non-fiction writing I read from other students, this interesting tendency to describe a setting entirely, or a new character completely upon meeting them was one that often rubbed me the wrong way, though I had difficulty verbalizing why. Something about it rings untrue.

A man cut in two by a window. It's an interesting piece of language, and I didn't blame him for perusing it, and it's strange materialization in his mind.

But this is where you lose me, whether it be because of my inability to understand or perhaps because I do and simply disagree? Some truth in the random firings of our minds, like the window phrase above? Hmmmm. Certainly there could be some truths about ourselves that might be uncovered by looking at the illusions we create or words that spew uncontrolled from our heads (if that's even possible, but I'm raising my skeptical eyebrow here). But it seems so abstract it becomes useless. He says our brains are dulled by trying to make the unknown known. Would that be, by his opinion, what I'm doing here, then? But if something is utterly, utterly senseless to you, why bother?

The waking mind is scarred to express itself, the dreaming mind satisfied and free. And I assume not scarred to express itself, so it reveals more truths? ...But the dreaming mind doesn't make sense to our waking minds. We're so incapable of grabbing hold of a dream. So how could it possibly inform our lives and our writing to such a great extent as he seems to imply it should? I feel like I'm being told to drink a cup of fog. There's water in there, so you can do it, right? But what use do I have for water that isn't in a form my throat muscles can work with?

And am I right that on page 21 he says he traced the outline of images from his head onto a paper? Like, literally, man?

I feel like I'm talking about nothing at all.

On a random note, just in general I do sometimes like a good unexpected juxtaposition, but...I had trouble connecting why these were important to him, how they connected with surrealism overall?

surealist post

2008-02-21T17:20:00.008-07:00

believe in the future resolution of these two states,, dream and reality. .. p 14
Also "For how long, sleeping logicians, philosophers? I would like to sleep in order to enable myself to surrender to sleepers, as I surrender to those who read me with their eyes open, in order to stop the conscious rhythm of my thought from prevailing over this material."

Leads me to the movie favored among college students- Waking Life.

"Could not the dreams as well be applied to the solution of life's fundamental problems? Are these problems the same in one case as in the other, and do they already exist in the dream? Is the dream less oppressed by sanctions than the rest? I am growing old and, perhaps more than this reality to which I believe myself confined, it is the dream, and the detachment that I owe to it, which is ageing me."

This alliance, dreams and reality becoming equvial is still a radical notion.
Surrealist pieces still strike us, the modern day viewers, as "out of sync", almost 85 years later. Why?

I always had a difficult time grasping surrealism as an art/literary movement. I can pop out flash card trivia like who was in the movement and when...etc but it’s something that I could never recreate. Anybody with bad eye site can recreate Impressionism, anyone with a hard jaw line and scissors and attempt to make deconstructivism, people with a grasp of metallurgy or graphic design can install huge constructist pieces, but surrealism takes something, someone removed.

This is because in order to be surrealist, you have to forsake all logical thought.

"We are still living under the reign of logic: this, of course, is what I have been driving at. But in this day and age logical methods are applicable only to solving problems of secondary interest."

The reason behind the abandonment of logic - that all logical thought is bourgeois- is an argument that doesnt make much sense to me.

In Memory of Lawrence King

2008-02-21T09:57:00.006-07:00

This incident didn't really make the national news. When I heard about it, I couldn't help but think of Paul and Dargelos. One possible reading of Dargelos behavior is that he was motivated by the same things that motivated Lawrence King's killer. According to some critics, it's the snowball that ultimately kills Paul.

Student is declared brain dead; Lawrence King, 15, was shot and wounded at an Oxnard campus Tuesday. A classmate faces murder charge.

An Oxnard junior high student who was shot in the head by a classmate earlier this week was declared brain dead Wednesday, and the 14-year-old male suspect now faces a first-degree murder charge, authorities said.

Lawrence King, 15, was declared brain dead by two neurosurgeons about 2 p.m. at St. John's Regional Medical Center in Oxnard, said Craig Stevens, senior deputy Ventura County medical examiner. King's body remains on a ventilator for possible organ donation, he said.

He was shot early Tuesday in a classroom at E.O. Green Junior High School.

Authorities initially believed that King was improving. But the boy's condition worsened early Wednesday, and he was placed on a ventilator a few hours later with his family nearby, said an official, who asked not to be named.

David Keith, an Oxnard police spokesman, said the family would have no comment and asked the media to respect their privacy.

Police said the suspect, whose identity was not disclosed because of his age, shot King at least twice at the beginning of the school day and then fled the campus. The boy was apprehended by police a few blocks away and is being held in Juvenile Hall. He is scheduled to appear in court today.

Ventura County Dist. Atty. Gregory Totten said prosecutors would decide whether the case should remain in Juvenile Court after reviewing the police investigation. Under state law, prosecutors can ask the court to try the suspect as an adult, he said. "In all probability he will be charged in adult court," Totten said.

Police have not determined a motive in the slaying but said it appeared to stem from a personal dispute between King and the suspect.

Keith and Totten declined to elaborate.

But several students at the south Oxnard campus said King and his alleged assailant had a falling out stemming from King's sexual orientation.

The teenager sometimes wore feminine clothing and makeup, and proclaimed he was gay, students said.

"He would come to school in high-heeled boots, makeup, jewelry and painted nails -- the whole thing," said Michael Sweeney, 13, an eighth-grader. "That was freaking the guys out."

Student Juan Sandoval, 14, said he shared a fourth-period algebra class with the suspect, whom he described as a calm, smart student who played on the basketball team.

"I didn't think he was that kind of kid," Sandoval said. "I guess you never know. He made a big mistake."

"Their lives are both destroyed now," said student Hansley Rivera, 12.

Several students said that a day before the shooting, King and several boys had some kind of altercation during the lunch period.

If the suspect targeted King because of his sexual orientation, the case could rise to the level of a hate crime, authorities said.

"We've heard that and a lot of other things," Keith said. "But I can't say what the motive is until we finish our interviews."

Totten said he could not comment on the specifics of the case until he reviewed the police investigation. But a hate-crime enhancement is something that prosecutors would consider as they move forward, he said.

"It's something we will look at," he said. "But the case is going to be reviewed as a murder involving the use of a firearm, and that carries a potential sentence of 50 years to life."

Jerry Dannenberg, the school district superintendent, said the school's staff was aware that King had butted heads with other students, including the suspect, and offered both students help.

"They had been doing a lot of counseling and a lot of work with [King] to help him deal with some of his concerns and issues," Dannenberg said. "But I can't go into specifics about what was going on."

Bullying in schools has long been a problem. But recent studies show that a student who comes "out" as gay or lesbian is far more likely to suffer abuse than others, said Kevin Jennings, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network based in New York.

A student thought to be gay was five times as likely to be threatened or injured by a weapon, a 2002 California Department of Education study said.

Jennings said other studies have found similar results. His group advocates more teacher training on how to handle bullying and harassment, specifically of gay students.

"This Oxnard shooting is very upsetting but not surprising," Jennings said. "The real issue is not the kid coming out, but the kid sitting next to him. Schools must teach that we may not like one another, but we must respect one another."

Teachers and counselors at E.O. Green Junior High, meanwhile, sought to calm fears about escalating violence at the south Oxnard campus.

About a quarter of the school's 1,000 students stayed home Wednesday due to fear of reprisals, Dannenberg said.

He said the school would have extra staff and police on campus for the next few days.

Counselors will be on hand as long as needed, Dannenberg said. The school district will hold a meeting for parents next week to discuss concerns.

This week's shooting was a first, not only for the school but for all of Ventura County, which has never before seen a classroom fatality.

Dannenberg said school administrators can take steps to keep guns out of schools but that nothing would ever work perfectly.

"It's not just the schools," he said. "We have a societal problem. Last week, it was gunfire at a City Council back east. And this week, unfortunately, it was us."

--

catherine.saillant @latimes.com

greg.griggs@latimes.com

Credit: Times Staff Writers
[Illustration]
Caption: PHOTO: VICTIM: Lawrence King was shot twice Tuesday morning at E.O. Green Junior High School.; PHOTOGRAPHER:Lawrence K. Ho Los Angeles Times

2008-02-20T22:28:00.002-07:00

In the beginning of the novel, it is the snowball thrown by Dargelos that plunges Paul deep into the fantasy world of the Game and the confines of the Room, both of which are manipulated in ways both physically real and apparently supernatural by his older sister. It is Dargelos, or rather Paul's attraction for that ideal, that gives Elisabeth the power she needs to keep Paul in her grasp. For Elisabeth, the fatal snowball is one of her miracles, as is the mysterious "poison", both gifts from Dargelos that draw Paul further into the Room and in the case of the latter gift, permanently. "She invested the poison with symbolic properties: it was the antidote to pettiness and parochialism; would, must-surely-lead to the final overthrow of Agatha" (164).

We know that Elisabeth is physically attracted to her brother (not necessarily the other way around). She is "melted, almost to tears, by the grace and beauty of his body" (36). I think that attraction as well as her fear of being left alone fuels her desire to possess him completely. On page 42, she attempts to get him to play the Game by submitting to being hypnotized by her. At this point in the story, it just sounds like an innocent child's game. I see a parallel here with her Shakesperean scheme that takes place later in the novel in regards to the letter. As she wanders through the mansion like a vampire or a spider (I think the text refers to her a few times as both) manipulating the others, she encounters zero resistance from any of them. Although it isn't explicitly stated, the absolutely ridiculous ease with which she succeeds suggests to me that she has literally hypnotized the other three enfants. Perhaps the Room interacts with the real world through Elisabeth and the Game. Paul, at this point, seems detached from all three due to his feelings for Agatha (whether or not they are genuine) and has just as little power as both Agatha and Gerard themselves. Elisabeth senses Paul's premier design for Agatha, subjecting her to his will (something he could have never done to Dargelos), and calls this "cheating" (94). Why? Is it because the physical resemblance of Agatha to Dargelos-Athelie threatens to upset Paul's fixation on the Dargelos already contained in the Room, the Dargelos in the photgraph and in Paul's various clippings?

In the end, it is Elisabeth and the Room that win. The final miracle, the "poison", leads to their deaths, but it also rejoins Paul and Elisabeth in the Room, "where incest lurks no more" (181). Paul is referred, I believe on the same page, as Elisabeth's prey. Agatha calls out to Paul as a way of pulling him back, but he is already gone and "to disturb a player once this third stage had been accomplished was considered unforgivable" (34). Agatha is finally abandoned by the Room, overthrown by Elisabeth.

***************************

This book, from beginning to end, reminded me so much of the movie Sunset Boulevard... both have to deal with a vampire or spider-like femme fatale that ensnares a man in her seedy fantasy world and go mad(der) in the process of trying to possess him completely, destroying them both. The fictional Norma Desmond, no doubt one of my favorite Hollywood personnages of all time, is a real piece of work. Even though Elisabeth shoots herself at the end of this book, I think the book ends on a happier note than that movie. I'm interested to see what sort of mood the ending of the film version of Les Enfants Terribles has.

Oh, and even though Cocteau approached the director to do the film and worked with him on it, I don't think they were able to agree on much... and the final product did not please Cocteau at all. I think I read that somewhere. Interesting to know for those interested in comparing the book to the film.

Tatiana

2008-02-19T10:23:00.000-07:00

What DID make her think she cold prevail by commonsense? Haha, that nut.

2008-02-18T02:28:00.003-07:00

It surprises me how no one has mentioned yet how this book is obviously a metaphor for WWI. Elizabeth is the Entente Powers, Paul is clearly the Central Powers, Gerard is Italy and the United States, Dargelos is the Ottoman Empire, the Room is Europe, and the Treaty of Versailles is represented by...

Ok, no. Though the talk of it earlier in class put me a little more at ease, I still can't help but struggle with what this book means/is about, if only because it feels like we're so trained to see allegory in everything we read at school. Ostensibly I can be cool with the fact that it's not one, but there's got to be something it's, er, 'about' besides some bizarre siblings, or the book wouldn't even be remembered, am I right? 'The human condition?' Or is it saying something about reality and our minds? But I still barely know what to make of what's being said here. Clearly Cocteau is trying to jar and unsettle us out of our comfort zone, but to what end?

I really don't remember much of anything I've learned about literary movements (who does? ....and anyone who's raising their hand right now, stop showing off), but glancing over wikipedia and enotes, my findings suggest this book is, I can say, pretty poster child surrealist. (My findings also suggest Cocteau wrote the book “in a week during a strenuous opium weaning.” ...It's really sad that's the thing that shed the most light on the book than anything else found in my search.) I always have trouble understanding this kind of thing, so forgive me if I'm skewing or leaving out something important here, but I guess surrealism is “a reaction against rational thought,” about letting go of things like conscious thought, self-censorship, self-control, and prized the meaning of dreams or unfiltered irrational thought over them? Or on enotes I see not dumping rational thought but trying to expand the potential of the mind by reconciling the two?

But the characters in this book aren't writing this stuff, they're living it. (And they certainly don't seem to be reconciling the two.) Control, “moral preoccupation,” “aesthetic self-censorship,” out the window to make room for their game and their Room, things they seem to hold above whatever goes on in the outside world. (ok, i'm not entirely sure I know exactly what “aesthetic self-censorship” is. But any meaning i can guess at, they're throwing that away ^_^) And it's all they can do. Paul at the very least it explicitly states could work with the game but when he tried conscious self-analysis he failed miserably.

But...so what? Is what we see in this book supposed to be some sort of unfiltered reality? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what surrealism is (am I lame for now being kind of curious about reading those manifestos now? ...yes. Yes I am.). Still, sorry, but Liz and Paul's world looks exceedingly unreal to me. But, well, that's what anyone's reaction would be upon being introduced to this. I've watched them for a whole book, so I feel like I ought to know better, see the real behind the unreal, but...

*flips through the book again*

...Nope, they still look pretty lunatic.

Am I missing something here? Or is trying to find the 'super-real' part of this book going in totally the wrong direction in trying to understand it?

...Also, what's the deal with that Michael guy being, er, allowed in the room after he's dead? What, now he's dead and away from the rational world he makes it in? That seems rather a paltry excuse. I feel like I'm missing the mark.

youre to Jung for this...

2008-02-14T14:12:00.007-07:00

Elizabeth and Paul's relationship borders on the unhealthy. The concept of the "Game", the constant togetherness, stealing etc. The concept of personal space and borders do not exist between Elizabeth and Paul but between the world and Elizabeth and Paul. "No notion crossed them... even faintly of the external impression they produced" p59. Cocteau points out how close they are. After the death of their mother, their relationship became even more dysfunctional close.
I kept thinking of the idea of the anima and the animus. Anima is the unconscious female and the animus the unconscious male. The Anima and animus are shadow selves of each other. The female/male is not a genderized or sex trait specific expression but a symbolic one.

Jung also set out a hierarchy or "levels of development” in which each that each gender had to work though in order to maintain a healthy relationship with the opposite sex.

Only when you could achieve perfect balance of your anima/animus could people have a healthy relationship.

I am thinking about other untraditional relationships between a man and a woman-- such as the straight women/gay male relationship.

Although Paul and Elizabeth are brother and sister, they still are friends. The gay male/straight female alliance has been under recent fire lately, due to shows like Will and Grace.

So why did I infer Paul was gay? Up to this point in the book he idolizes the athletic youth, and seems to have crushes on his male friends. ( Worshipping the athletic youth is one of the levels in the anima/animus)

The isolation of Paul and Elizabeth reminded me of Flowers in the Attic by VC Andrews. This book has gained a huge cult following. It details the sexual feelings of a Cassie Dollanganger to her Chis brother while being trapped in an attic.

Paul/Elizabeth Cassie/Chris and even Will and Grace- feel isolated and depend on their "other half" to complete them. They exhibit signs of L’Amour Fou- or Mad Love. This emotion was described to me as "an all consuming passion for each other, to where the world does not exist- only love exists"

To my cynic mind.. maybe they need more analytic psychology and spend some time apart.

love is a battlefield

2008-02-14T06:33:00.002-07:00

(clears throat) I'm sure we are all familiar with the song, right?
The Holy Terrors opened with a scene in which a snow ball fight was occuring. Even after reading on to scene's with doctors and nurses and hotels, I couldn't get over that first scene. I had to read it and reread it. I think this is mostly because I wasn't sure what had actually happened. The way in which this scene was described made me unsure at first if it was actually a battlefield. I understood that there were teenage boys running around with injuries to their knees, but the passion with which the whole incident was despribed was quite a bit more than a snow ball fight needed.
Then, once I concluded that there wasn't actually a battlefield, but more a figurative one, I stumbled over the gangs a bit. Was that also an exageration?
OK, now to the really good stuff... who the hell puts a rock in a snowball?!?! This whole incident was just one thing after another that I couldn't quite put my hands on. I understood things once Paul made it home to his sister, but up until that point things seemed to fluid for me to be able to hold in my hands. Gerard felt guilty or scared about saying Dargelos had put a rock in the snow ball. Was that because it was a lie out of jealousy or because he was afraid of retaliation? And why was Dargelos so angry at Paul in the first place? He just wanted to make sure this guy was safe. Is it such a crime to care about another person, even if that person does not return the care?
I was uncertain what was really going on when all of this went down, but it seemed almost as thought Paul had interupted Dargelos from getting beat up, in which case there should have been some appreciation.
Maybe all of this is just too delicious for my mind to be able to understand it.

"Tu"

2008-02-13T21:12:00.000-07:00

I am struck by the second to last paragraph on page 81:

Of this instructive session, Gerard retained one imprint and no more: namely, the moment when Elisabeth had addressed him for the first time by the familiar “tu.”

Although I like to think that I can speak French, I do not remember enough high school French to pass as fluent. However, I remember enough to know that “tu” is the familiar form of you, while “vous” is the proper form of you. This happens as she is taunting Paul with the crayfish and Paul has just hurled a glass of milk at her. I think it is strange that although Elisabeth is familiarly acquainted with Gerard, she refers to him in the proper form. I think that Elisabeth is too self-centered to consider someone else being above her. I guess I am just not understanding the relationship that she has with Gerard and the significance that Gerard finds in this occasion.

We talked in class about Les Enfants Terribles being translated to The Holy Terrors. I think we could all agree that The Holy Terrors accurately fits the characters in this book, but I still don’t think that it is an accurate translation. The Bad Children to The Holy Terrors. I am really curious as to what liberties a translator has in translating a book, and how my small knowledge of French is affecting how I am interpreting this story. Obviously some things are not easily translated, English does not have a familiar and a proper form of “you” so the “tu” had to be kept in the text to make a point.

Pat Dorman Women's Studies Scholarship

2008-02-12T10:12:00.000-07:00

I received this e-mail from Lisa McClain, the director of the Gender Studies program:

Hello everyone,

The deadline for the Pat Dorman Women's Studies Scholarship is approaching. I encourage you to, in turn, encourage your students to apply for this scholarship. You may recall, last year we did not have any applicants and the scholarship went un-awarded. What this means is that the award will be more substantial this year. You can tell your students that the $350 on the application is the minimum amount we award and that in the past we have been able to award several hundred additional dollars, depending on how the scholarship fund performs in the market.

I am including the link to the scholarship application below.

Feel free to forward the link to interested students or just print out the application and make as many xeroxes as you desire. Hopefully we will have some great students applying this year. Please help us ensure that we award the scholarship for 2008-2009. This is an honor to Dr. Pat Dorman, one of the founders of the Women's Studies Program (now Gender Studies) here at BSU and its first Director.

2008-02-11T03:44:00.000-07:00

It took me a while to get into this book. The overly abstract-flowery language seems substantially less once Gérard gets Paul to his uncle’s house. I did attempt those first five or so pages a few times and finally managed not to find myself napping during my final attempt. The boys of the snowball fight, on page 4, are referred to as “—the terrors of the Fifth”… “A year from now, having become the Fourth.” I can not figure out what this means; however, the capitalization and the fact that it is here in the novel at all, make me think it might be important. If anyone can explain to me what they are referring to, that would be fantastic.

Sexual identity is something that Gérard, Paul, and Elisabeth seem to be trying to figure out for themselves. In the beginning, Gérard is quite infatuated with Paul, but by page 85, he seems to be more so with Elisabeth. I wonder if this has to do with their dominance levels. Before that, he flirts with an entirely different possible fetish. “There had been something of a perversion, almost of necrophily, in the delicious pleasures of that journey with the unconscious youth; not that he envisaged it in such crude psychopathic terms” (32). Paul in the beginning likes Dargelos but then takes to picking up girls on the streets. Elisabeth, I think, is going through teenage girlhood as expected, insecure and seeking constant approval. The incest stuff is something that I won’t even attempt to assess. On page 75, Elisabeth is said to be “using Gérard as a stooge.” Is this sexual?

The rich, parentless, incestuous siblings reminded me of that movie, Cruel Intentions. I looked into it and found that I am wrong. That movie is based off a much older French novel. It helped me though to gain perspective for these characters since I personally, have a hard time relating to them. Here is how I am tracking them as I read:

(Elisabeth & Paul)

(Gerard)

(Dargelos)

A few other things that struck me as dominant throughout this first half of the novel are the death of parents, dominance among peers, charity (both giving and receiving), and inhibitions of various settings: (alone vs. being with people you are quite comfortable with vs. people less familiar to you).

The Holy Terrors

2008-02-09T15:48:00.000-07:00

I must admit that this is a rather interesting book to read, a little bit lighter than Swann and therfore slightly more enjoyable on that level. The characters are very eccentric and I do not relate to them on many levels, it seems, but that does not keep me from enjoying the book greatly. I suppose there are two things that really stand out to me that I want to discuss, The Game, and What they think.

The game is a interesting notion to me, and comes up countless times through out the story, or what we have read. Now the game is clearly something that these twins do for amusement, which has no set rules per se, though it is mentioned on pg 35 that "To disturb a player once this third stage had been accomplished was considered unforgivable". Other than that though everything generally seems to be fair play. Whether it is disturbing each other's sleep, physical violence, torturing small children, petty theft, nothing seems to be out of bounds.

What is the point of the "Game"? Well it seems to be just amusement for these twins. Sure, Elisabeth doesn't want her brother to become too slothful, but other than that they have no real goal besides their own entertainment. They both adopt roles and push each other in odd directions because it seems like they have nothing better to do, as if they are building a world of fantasy for themselves to live in. I can not find the quote but earlier in the book it mentions that their room represented some sort of world/city for them to create and control. Later on it mentions that Paul's half of the room in the hotel was the upper half while Elisabeth's was the lower half, demonstrating the power struggle between them.

Twice in the book it also distinctly mentions that they did not care what others thought about them, which I question the voracity of. They certainly do seem carefree and aloof, free from social structures and bounds, but I highly suspect that they care about what each other thinks, and I believe that is the root of the game, to get inside one another's mind and to screw with the other's perceptions of who they are and what they think. Ultimately I am fairly intrigued by this book and look forward to seeing how it progresses.

Which Swann?

2008-02-07T09:52:00.000-07:00

In the final section of Swann's way, Marcel continues to draw parallels between Swann and himself. Ostensibly, this epilogue is mostly about his burgeoning love for Gilberte (staring at almost any given page from this section, I am amazed at the number of instances that "Gilberte" makes an appearance), but what stood out most to me was Marcel's ongoing preoccupation with Swann himself. He has pointed out their similarities a few times over the course of the book. Here, he talks about finding qualities in Gilberte that "literature or conversation have taught him are among those worthy of inspiring love, so much so that he assimilates them by imitation and makes them new reasons for his love, even if these qualities were the most diametrically opposed to those his love would have sought so long as it remained spontaneous" (426). Marcel then directly refers to Swann having done the same with Odette. So what would his love have sought had it remained spontaneous? I don't know about the rest of you, but I read that as a pretty thinly veiled confession of the narrarator's true preference. Perhaps Swann's as well.

Swann becomes a mythical, supernatural creature to the young Marcel despite his fleeting appearances in the last fourty or so pages. Seeing Swann makes his heart pound and he compares him to a historical figure that impassions him (423). He experiences a "delectable melancholy pleasure" upon hearing that Swann had... bought an umbrella? (431) Finally, I'd like to point out a conversation Marcel has with his mother where she rants about a 'horrible, frightfully vulgar woman' who said that Marcel was "too nice looking for a boy" (430). It makes me think back to the prostitute at his uncle's house who said that Marcel may grow up to be an 'artist' or the only kind of man who really understands women. Marcel is not at all shy about asserting his dandyishness, something I think is linked to the snobbish attitude both he and Swann share concerning history and the arts.

GASP!

2008-02-07T09:41:00.000-07:00

Well, there goes the first book, but before we bid Adieu to both Swann and Marcel, lets take a look at that last section. As mentioned in the other post, Marcel clearly takes after Swann in his obsessive manner, or maybe Swann just exemplifies this obsessive streak inside of him. Marcel definetely had the obsession before we were formally introduced to Swann, via the desire for the kiss. Now we can see his obsessive nature when it comes to objects of love. I find slight irony in the Marcel's attraction towards Gilberte as Gilberte clearly echoes Odette and Marcel echoes, or at least seems to follow in the foot steps of, Swann.

Now I think that there should be slightly more leeway granted Marcel when it comes to matters of love, considering that he is notable younger than Swann. Such a level of Obsession is slightly more acceptable when he who is displaying it is a child. Obsession is childish, in a sense, because it shows a lack of maturity or a will to control desire. When we see Marcel tearing himself apart pining over Gilberte it is almost cute, because we consider such things to be the norm when one is a child. However, in reference to Swann doing it, we see it as very distressing because while this pining is on the level of childlike behaviour, we all indulge in it.

I felt as if this last section really didn't wrap up too much, or expand upon too much either. At the end we get to touch upon the theme of Memory, having Marcel wander around the garden and think about the past. We also get the theme of obsessive love come up via and Gilbrette, and reality being different from imagination when Marcel gets suddenly sick and is unable to go on his Grand Tour of Italy. I pray that my classmates can sympathize, or even empathize, with this sort of plight, to desire something so bad and yet not be able to attain it due to things outside of our control. A fairly common theme in this book, like the Kiss, or Odette. Ah yes, Odette.

So, apparently Swann and Odette got married. How cruel of Marcel to inform us of this at the end of the novel and provide us no explanation. But beyond that, isn't it a little bit funny how Marcel views Odette, I mean, literally. Whenever he describes Odette his focus shifts to that of her fashion and how she carries herself. He isn't interested particularly in who she is, or what she does, but how she looks. Also, when making a comment about Swann, he says he wishes he could be bald like Swann. This is a bit tenous, but perhaps an example of his homosexuality. Homosexuals are apparently know for their love of fashion, and Marcel is certainly showing his colors when he comments upon her clothing, and also how that clothing was so much better rather than this pish posh bird cages in hats sort of thing.

But even beyond that, the whole, GASP! part was Odette and Swann marrying. WHY!!!!???? I mean at least that was the first question that popped up into my mind. Why would Swann marry someone he got over, and why would Odette marry someone she has very little interest in? Marriage of Convience? Maybe they do love each other and they needed to get over their inhibitions? I find it to be strangely fitting at least, Swann did get what he wants, and judging by the descriptions of Odette, she got what she wanted too. I suspect what really ties these two together is the Child. When one has to support a child one isn't too inclined to be a prostitute, I imagine, and who wants to care for a Prostitute with child? Swann probably took mercy on Odette and took her under his wing when she was pregnant, helping her through that time monetarily. But this is just conjecture, obviously. Damn Marcel for springing this upon us and leaving us to hang. If only I had the free time to read the other thousand pages he had written. Oh, if only.

In summation I Really enjoyed the book, though I Felt like the last section was a little lack luster. Maybe because it was shorter than the other sections and didn't provide as much in depth study of emotion and thought as I was use too, or maybe it was because I was tired while reading the book and therfore not as receptive as usual. It made for a good end to books, as endings go, but I Felt like Marcel was giving me more of an ending rather than than a continuation of the story. Sure we have the little sub plot about him and Gabriele, and there were definitely a number of loose ends wrapped up in this, as well as one or two more mysteries created, but ultimately Swann was tidying up what he had laid down and giving us a sort of enticement to read his next book. Understandable, but this part just didn't have as much pull on my heart/soul(as it where), than the other parts. Very pretty, no doubt, but much too brief. Overall though, good book, I enjoyed it. Heres to the next one!

So What Does it All Mean?

2008-02-07T08:19:00.000-07:00

Surreal is the best word I can think of to describe Swann’s Way. The book has this dreamlike quality; at times while reading, I didn’t know if I was awake or asleep. As I read the final section, I found myself wondering why Swann was the object of Marcel’s fascination. Is it accurate to say that Marcel was obsessed with Swann to the same degree that Swann was infatuated with Odette? Would Swann’s Way have been just as effective had it not contained a novel within a novel? These questions stand out the most as I try to wrestle with what this book really means.

Originally, I said that Marcel had more in common with his Aunt Leonie than he did Swann; Swann was merely an idol that Marcel looked up to. However, it would appear that there is a connection between Marcel and Swann that is more involved than what the reader first experiences. As a reader first delves into Swann’s Way he/she is struck by the story of the Madeleine and Aunt Leonie and by the language that Marcel uses in his reminiscences. The people that Marcel talks about the most are those that are closest to him, he interacts with these people, even if it is on some basic level. Swann seems to be part of the backdrop. Why would Marcel take such interest in a man who trespasses against his time with his mother?

Keeping in mind that the story of Swann in Love came to Marcel came to Marcel through some other means signifies that Swann plays a larger role in the scheme of things. In other words, Marcel did not include the story of Swann and Odette’s love affair because it struck a chord; he found a man that he can relate to on a deeper level.

Just as the story of Marcel’s first taste of the Madeleine is a memory, so is the story of Swann in love. There seems to be a connection between involuntary memory and love. It is the theme that is played out the most throughout the book. Just as the cookie is Marcel’s catalyst for remember, Odette seems to be the prop that propels Swann to realize his own self deception. And yet, I sit here trying to wake from the dreamlike quality of the book and I wonder how Marcel was deceived. Did the real world not match up to the fantasy world that Marcel created? Did Marcel have greater hopes for a man like Swann? At the beginning of the book, one could certainly say that Marcel was deceived by the taste of the Madeleine, but there has to be more to Marcel’s deception than what revolves around a cookie.

This book has been difficult for me to read because I cannot seem to make sense out of all my disconnected thoughts. Have I succeeded in answering any of my questions? No, I have only managed to raise more. Personally, I was frustrated with Swann’s Way because there was not a character that I could readily relate to. And yet, I am intrigued by the book as a whole. The novel inside a novel is fascinating to me. One thing is certain, this novel is very thought provoking. I realize I have not managed to say anything profound as I wrestle with the meaning of the book, but I am trying.

Major Themes 2/5/08

2008-02-05T11:36:00.000-07:00

DJ and Mike: Ambiguity of Perception (257, 253)
You see yourself one way and another person sees you another way. Odette's taste. "What a charming place . . . " (257). "The notion she has formed of society people is not accurate . . . ". What we perceive may not be truth. Our perceptions are skewed by our opinions. Swann sees Odette as a pristine thing but she's not.

Erin, Amanda F., Nora: Self-Deception (284, 390)
"To think that I wasted years of my life. . . ". Brings back the story with Odette and how he deceived himself. "How often we sacrifice . . .". They sacrifice what they like for immediate pleasure. Self-deception keeps coming back.

Ronia, Mel: Identity; how you see yourself vs. how society sees you/truth and falsehood (254)
Discussion about antiques; fitting people into stereotypes v. how people really are. For her, it seems to be more about the appearance of being a certain way than actually being that way. Also, on 373, using lies to gain truth.

2008-02-04T15:11:00.000-07:00

Section One: (Page 1-48)

"If you knew everything they thought, I bet you'd wish they they'd just shut up."-Modest Mouse

In the introduction to Swann's Way, when Proust is begging publishers to print his book and offering to pay them to do so, they seem to be complaining about two things, his long sentences and his inability to get to the point quickly. Personally, I agree with Proust that some sentences lose meaning or strength when they are chopped up into smaller sentences. I do however agree with Ollendorff's complaint about taking "thirty pages to describe how [a man] turns over in bed before he goes to sleep." (xiv)

Proust delves far into common experiences that are easy to relate to. He seems to be accomplishing the feat of making such familiar experiences, unfamiliar. Mostly, I think this is accomplished because people are not used to dwelling on such things for so long, maybe in thought, but when it is on the written page, the time actually spent on occurring thoughts before sleep and awaking from dreams takes much longer to digest. I found it challenging at times to stay focused on the writing when he goes on for pages and pages about things that seem almost trivial such as wanting a goodnight kiss from his mother.

The silent power struggle among the grandmother, the aunt and the father is complex. I was surprised at how submissive Mama is toward her husband, while her mother, grandma doesn't think twice before telling him how to raise his son. I find the aunt's obnoxious surliness very amusing. Between the Aunt and the protagonists overwhelming awareness of the intentions of his upbringing, Proust has built himself a means to spout off every arts and cultural thing that seems to be accessible at this time. I think that it is a great way to preserve some of the culture of the time and it reinforces the social class of this family. At times, however it seems almost pretentious. On page 29, the protagonist nearly outright calls Francoise, the servant, primitive.

I don't know what to make about the boy's insecurities about his mother's affections. His out of control crying and seemingly meaningless sadness make the part of Little Miss Sunshine, when Uncle Frank, the Proust scholar, who tries to comfort his emo nephew with the wisdom of Proust, quite amusing. In the movie, he tells the kid that Proust was a sad and miserable child and when he grew up, he was miserable as well, but he realized that it was those sad times of his youth that shaped him and made him the way he was.

On page 19, the narrator talks about his family's clueless behavior towards Swann's social class. When he talks about "the simple act that we call 'seeing a person we know' is in part an intellectual one," and then goes on about recognizing the physical aspects that make up an individual and then attributing our associations with that person, I thought of Roland Barthes' "Sign" system. I'm not sure if that's what he meant or not, but I felt that connection anyway.

Tegan & Sara Quin, sporting their mullets, or as the French say, their “Bressant-styles”(14) proving that, like Swann, you can actually get away with wearing your hair this way and still manage to attract women.

Section Two: (Page 49-191)

The conclusion that Marcel comes to in his own mind on pages 86 and 87, about the desire for human emotion without having an actual person is quite an interesting idea although I’m not sure I agree with him. He finds this to be an attractive element of reading. You can feel the same things the characters are feeling, without having the “dead weight” of an actual person. I can see the interest in empathizing with a character without actually having the possible awkwardness of having to deal face to face with that person, whatever it is they are going through. For instance, if someone’s mother dies and you get a sense of what effect that has on them on the written page, somehow you still have exposure to the experience, but because it is a fictitious event happening to someone unreal or at least, unknown personally to you, you don’t have to deal with the possible difficulty in consoling that person. You also don’t have deal with your reactions wholly by figuring out how you are going to deal with them around that person. In reading, it is just you and the idea of the emotion-evoking circumstance.

On the other hand, going through life with the idea that real people in real life situations is unnecessary when you have the alternative of experiencing life through books, seems pretty ridiculous. I’m not sure how much you would actually gain since reading about something without having experienced it yourself, versus reading about something you have been through is quite a different experience. I guess, in a way I agree with Marcel that it can be somewhat desirable to gain some exposure to things in life that can give sensation or feeling to a person, but I wouldn’t put as much weight on the benefit as he does.

Often times, Proust uses language that seems to me, somewhat ambiguous and I’m not sure what to make of it. I would say that this is an instance where his long sentences do more harm and would not lose meaning, but clarify meaning if it were shortened. On page, 148 when Marcel is saying goodbye to the hawthorns, ruining his nice clothes and curled hair and his mother has found him, he says, “putting my arms around the prickly branches, and, like the princess in tragedy burdened by vain ornaments, ungrateful to the importunate hand that with such care had up my hair in curls across my brow, trampling underfoot my torn-out curl papers and my new hat.”
My first read of this had me thinking, well here’s a fine example of this boy exemplifying youthful “dandy-like” behavior. The more I read it though, the less confident I am that he is referring to himself as the “princess.” Is he referring to the flowers, or his mother instead?

Another instance of Proust’s writing that has me stumped, is the instance of Marcel looking in on the lesbian girls. The first thing that struck me is the perception in which this scene is told. It seems to be limited to what Marcel can see and hear as he is observing the scene through the window. However, the thoughts and intentions of that are given on pages164-165 of Mlle. Vinteuill are far more insightful than anything that can be seen through a window.
On page 167, Marcel says that one girl encouraged the other to spit on the picture. But going back to review the conversation, it seems as only the girlfriend had that intention. She wasn’t encouraging Mlle. Vinteuill to do it nor was she being encourage by her. Was this intended to make the narrator seem less reliable?

Section Three: (Page 195-250)

One thing that surprises me about Marcel’s family is the amount of walking that they do. I would expect them to take a fancy coach everywhere rather than spend hours walking everywhere. It doesn’t always sound like a leisurely activity. Marcel says they choose the Méséglise way when the weather is bad. I was relieved in this section that Swann had a coachman drive him all around town looking for Odette. I have been wondering where the coaches are.

The attitudes the Verdurins have about women and lovers that they “were not afraid of a woman having a lover provided she had him at their house, loved him in their midst, and did not prefer his company to theirs” (197), surprised me a little in regard to opinions of female sexuality considering the way people reacted to the lesbians.

I think it’s hilarious the way that Odette is so ignorant about the arts and has an almost incapacity of learning about them. I think it’s really odd that when most single girls at this time held in the back of their minds, music they would want played at their wedding, Odette has chosen a song she wishes to be played at her funeral.

Section Four: (Pages 251-396)

The contrast from the beginning of this section, when Swann’s opinion that the people at the Verdurins are more “intelligent, more artistic, they are than high-society people!” (257) compared to reality of Swann among people of his own class, where the Princesse des Laumes gets his humor and the tastes of the group are far more refined, is interesting.

What is the difference in Princess and Princesse? I thought at first, it was a translation thing but then realized that both forms were being used: the Princess of Parma, and the Princesse des Laumes. (Hawthorn fruit

as Princesse des Laumes

wore in her hair)

Following the process of Swann’s heartbreak was fascinating. The denial of Odette’s actions, the mishearing of conversations in order to comfort himself, hoping for his death and then hers, visiting brothels to get information about Odette, sending visitors to check in on Odette instead when he is the one that really needs the company, make his tragedy seem so realistic.

It reminds me of Marcel saying that you can read about the experience without having to go through it, we as readers can probably relate to those jealous feelings and we feel for Swann but we have the luxury of not having to actually go through the agony that he does. “The pain he was now experiencing resembled nothing he had imagined.
I found it quite amusing when Swann ponders the people in lower classes and comes to this conclusion: “In these almost working-class neighborhoods, what a modest life, abject, but sweet, nourished with calm and happiness, he would have agreed to live indefinitely!”

On page 323, Odette accuses Swann of “trying to flaunt their affair, that he was treating her like a prostitute.” I think that Swann is the only person that doesn’t treat her like a prostitute. Even her beloved Verdurins hoar her off to any man they see fit at the time.

I have to admit that I actually thought that Odette and Swann would ultimately reconcile. With all of the talk in the beginning of the novel that Swann had married so beneath him, I figured that Odette, a call girl, certainly would fit that description. I began to have doubts until Mme. Cottard told him how much Odette really does love him. Then on page 383, Odette refers to herself to Swann as “Your little Odette,” implicating that she might not mind him feeling ownership of her. I was surprised when Odette left and Swann came to his senses about ever liking her in the first place.

Knowing how much Vinteuil’s music meant to Swann, the scene in Cambray, when Swann talks to Vinteuil, makes more sense on why Swann would talk to an outcast when it is unpopular to do so. It also makes me wish that Vinteuil would have been kinder to Swann know the comfort Swann took in his music while dealing with his heartbreak over Odette.

Sometimes I don't have the words I need...

2008-02-03T13:13:00.000-07:00

There are so many things that I am struck by while reading Swann's Way and would love to point out and break down for annalysis, but I just don't seem to ever have the words I need to express quite what I'm thinking. So, I've thought and thought about what it is about this book that strikes me so odd.
I'll start off with a story. I was taking Theatre 101 and the teacher went on a rampage about how we know things about people, and it is really only through their actions and reactions. He said that people like to think that someone could pick up their ipod or diary and really know who they are as a person, but that isn't the case. That gave me plenty of thinking to do for a while. Infact, I can't seem to go for any long amount of time without being struck by that idea again.
I think that people try to put on a show for others. When we write in our diaries we do it assuming that someone will read it some day. When we get dressed in the morning we are putting on a face that is there for others to see. I have been working on getting together photos from my wedding and while I do it, I picture someone some day flipping through it while I tell them little insights about the different pictures and moments.
I think that is what this book reminds me of. I am sitting down beside Marcel who is flipping through a photo album. I am only seeing little clips of his life with not all that meaningful commentary from him, and trying to put meaning to all of it. It jumps around and doesn't ever tell me quite as much as I really need to hear to understand, but I am doing what I can with what I have.
I'll see one moment of this boys life followed by another. They aren't necessarily related to one another, but I try to connect them and fill in the blanks.
I wonder if my filling in the blanks says something about me. It's like the narrator said how a reader might know something about themself through reading. Does the connection of these events that I create shed insight into myself?
We really are given very little information and we make more of it than we should. We make assumptions and we make judgements. Can we do that from just looking into a few clips of one persons life? If it's just fictional, does it matter?
Whether it matters or not, I can't help but make a connection between these ponderings and that comment fromt he narrator. I can't seem to escape it. I read about people living lives, but I don't really live one. I just can't help but wonder how much I have learned from the lives of characters that I might not have learned otherwise.
And now, because I know I'm a long winded person, I will end this rant with one final question:
Why do I always end up with more questions than answers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpP8NWNFdLY

(the you tube video wouldn't embed)

In conclusion, Nora is like Marcel because she likes pink food, and anxiety makes her really long-winded

2008-01-31T02:03:00.000-07:00

Ok. *is constantly reminding self in order to get over anxiety of posting here that the fact that her stupidity will be displayed for the whole wide internets to see is in fact nothing at all new* I'm bad at this stuff, so I suppose I'll have more questions than enlightening commentary ^_^

I'm probably stating the obvious here, but Swann's sudden anxiety/panic when faced with not being able to see Odette that day seemed very reminiscent of Marcel's attitude toward his mother's kisses. Some of these passages sound like they could even have been lifted from the beginning of the book: “Once he was with Odette [ . . . ] he would cease to be able to think about her, too occupied with finding pretexts that would permit him not to leave her right away and to make certain, without seeming to care about it, that he would see her again the next day at Verdurins': that is, to prolong the moment and to renew for yet one more day the disappointment and torment that came to him from this pointless presence of this woman whom he saw so regularly without daring to take her in his arms.” (237) It sounds a bit masochistic, and I wonder if Marcel's demand for his mother's kisses is similar, something he does in part simply to torment himself? And why would he want to torture himself in such a way? He does seem to make some connection between hatred/hurt and love. (I recall him hoping he could do something really cruel to Swann's daughter to make her hate him? I know young boys sometimes tease girls they like, but something tells me it's not usually that calculated, nor that extreme.)

Actually the scene where he says goodbye to the hawthorns from the reading earlier also reminded me of his mother obsession somehow, but looking back that may have been just me linking them because they were both 'weird obsessions of Marcel,' hehe. After all he does tell them (aah, nutty boy) that “you're not the ones trying to make me unhappy,” (somehow, i found the whole scene a bit disturbing), so apparently they aren't torturing him, at least in his eyes. General obsession with hawthorns aside, though, his obsession with their pinkness was a little eyebrow-raise-inducing to me as well, though I'm not sure if there's any meaning to be drawn from it. Some of the language is interesting. The pink cups apparently have “reds of a bloody tinge” when they start to open, which express the “irresistible essence of the hawthorn.” “Smiling in its fresh pink outfit, catholic and delicious.” “These flowers had chosen precisely the color of an edible thing.” (Did I already mention I find Marcel's obsessions disturbing? Well, always worth saying again.) Naturally in my frantic chase for meaning I started paying attention to pink. I could think of was the courtesan and possibly Odette's face... Interesting, but I'm not sure what to say. :)

Other random comments.... Swann's chase after the song also reminded me of Marcel's, er, chase with the madeline. He's self-centered like Marcel, too, and as previously said both have an “insatiable heart.” Swann does seem much more proactive about chasing the objects of his affection than Marcel, but then again he rather uses them for escape like Marcel uses his books, and it's not as if Marcel makes any fuss about obtaining books, so I'm not sure if it makes them the same or different. I remember thinking Swann seemed extremely vain as well, though (having trouble remember the main thing that gave me the impression...to a lesser extent I think one thing was the way he was glad he could “justify” his attraction to Odette by connecting it with “his own aesthetic culture”). Marcel hasn't struck me as exactly that yet. I wonder, is he? (Is it even important, heheh?)

Actually one of the things I was most confused by (and had to claim first finder's posting rights to so brother Carl wouldn't steal from me even though this thing has now gotten hopelessly long and I should have given it up to him anyway): Did anyone notice weird pronoun shift on 239? I considered Marcel to be sort of narrating from the POV of Swann, but in the last full paragraph, when the narrator gives us a little rant on the most effective agent which "disseminate[s] the holy evil" (love ^_^), the narrator refers to the hypothetical object of love as "him" for the entire paragraph. Iiiiinteresting choice. A sudden change to a woman's POV? ...Unlikely. A sudden POV from an apparently gay/bi person (be it Swann, Marcel, or Proust)? I'm not even going to feign a clue as to what that's all about.

In conclusion, I think we all don't trust Marcel cause he's a really, really creepy little boy. (Actually I think his extreme attention to detail on certain things is part of my reason. Anyone that goes on that long about church steeples is trying to distract you from finding out something, I swear it. ^_^) Though I do agree with him about the pink thing. The pink cookies always looks the tastiest.

Swann's insatiable heart, character flaws, and truth

2008-01-30T21:22:00.000-07:00

It's funny the way that the story is set up in this second section, almost with an omniscient narrator and yet our Marcel is nowhere to be found. But is this really the case? Where I realize in a very real sense that they are two different people, Marcel could easily grow up to be this man who he admires greatly. The primary characteristic I notice that they both share is their insatiable heart.

I think this inability to find satisfaction in regular pleasures is very closely related to the idea of the external versus the internal. The external being, for example, an enjoyable social gathering such as when Marcel begins regularly attending the Verduin's parties with Odette. On page 126, it is noted that Swann often shows up late to the parties (and to see Odette) as if to emphasize, if only to himself, his own disinterest in the event. Happiness and pleasure are not the same as contentment and satisfaction. And though these parties may bring the prior, the value is fairly low to Swann for this reason.

The internal, as explained on page 217 where Swann describes his reaction to a particular phrase in Vinteuil's sonata, is where the beauty is not necessarily the thing itself (the external stimuli) but the emotions and thoughts it triggers into him when he hears it. Much like Marcel's madeleine, but rather than a memory being brought back, it is feelings and future ambitions. He continues to seek it out to trigger this reaction knowing that it is fleeting. I think it's the very finite nature of the piece causing it and the dependence on the stimuli (which can be extremely erratic)to elicit these rare and fragile feelings that give it such a high value to Swann. To summarize, “the ideal is inaccessible and happiness mediocre” (230).

The inability to feel satisfied also lends itself to the egotistical natures of Swann and Marcel. We can see this egotistical notion of value on page 232 where Swann begins to notice a more real beauty in Odette only where her features are that of Botticelli's work. Previously he found her to be almost repulsive, her beauty so ordinary as to make her seem plain. Odette reminded Swann, if only vaguely at first, of a subject captured by Botticelli, an artist whose work Swann admired. If Botticcelli had found beauty worth displaying in someone who looked, if only slightly, like Odette, surely that would mean that it was a higher beauty than a common person would see and one now worthy of Swann's admiration. His inability to obtain the same daily satisfactions as "normal people" make him deserving of even finer and finer things. This egotism isn't meant to be cruel, however, the expectation being so ingrained into his psyche as to become his nature.

Lastly, I would like to note that, in Marcel's search for truth, I think it's important that the “flawed” natures of our subjects are examined. From the sadistic nature of the lesbians to Francoise's cruel streak, (pg 125) noting she could more easily cry for a stranger than an acquaintance, to the very obvious vanity of Marcel and Swann, what we are observing is a more human behavior. Particularly in this time period and with individuals of this class where propriety and manners take precedence over true intimacy and real thoughts were less easily discernible. It stands to reason that that within us which we least like to show is what is most unkempt, imperfect, offensive and yet it is what makes us up. And, given Marcel's near obsession with truth (or is it Truth?) it is not surprising that he is so internalized as this is where his truth will come from.

Marcel, Aunt Leonie, and Involuntary Memory

2008-01-30T18:01:00.001-07:00

I have been struggling with Marcel as a character. I find him to be an awkwardly pretentious adolescent, who is far too timid with it come to social situations. Marcel’s likeness to his Aunt Leonie is an interesting parallel to me; he strives to be an intellectual character and yet he has more in common with a prying, bedridden woman. The similarity between Marcel and Aunt Leonie is ironic to me because Marcel writes about Swann in such a way as to make a reader think that Swann is the real idol to which Marcel looks.

Looking over the text, involuntary memory is associated with the Madeleine for both Marcel and his aunt. When Marcel speaks of the Madeleine his tone changes; he is transformed from the past into the present as he remembers the sensations of the spoonful of tea and the softened Madeleine touching his lips for the first time.

A delicious pleasure had invaded me, isolated me, without my having any notion as to its cause. It had immediately rendered the vicissitudes of life unimportant to me, its disasters innocuous, its brevity illusory, acting in the same way that love acts, by filling me with a precious essence: or rather this essence was not merely inside of me, it was me (45).

Perhaps I have lived a sheltered life, but I have never had an inanimate object (let alone a cookie) give me that much insight into my life. An adolescent is not supposed to use such flowery language; they are not supposed to concern themselves with finding who they are at heart. Perhaps what I find most interesting about the scene with the Madeline is that all of the insight that was granted to Marcel upon his first experience with the Madeline is displaced to the memory of his Aunt Leonie. The Madeleine becomes the tradition of Sunday mornings. To me, the profound moment of the first taste of the Madeleine is lost in the sharing as well as the routine.

The way the Marcel longs for his mother and her goodnight kiss parallels the yearning that his Aunt Leonie has for her dead husband. In class, the oedipal complex readily came to mind as we analyzed the first section of Marcel at Combray. After reading more of the book, I really feel that Proust wants readers to associate the relationship between Marcel and his mother in the hopes that it will be under close scrutiny, but after continuing to read will realize there is more than what is on the surface. I see it as a technique to keep the reader interested, yearning for more information that will give us insight into the character of Marcel. This is definitely where the idea of the elusive object comes into play. Marcel can never have his mother in the way that he did as when he was younger, nor can he have her in the way that his father does; just as his Aunt Leonie will never again have the physical presence of her husband.

The greatest commonality between Marcel and his Aunt Leonie is the way that Marcel peers into windows and the way his aunt peers out of her window in order to make themselves a part of something bigger. (Perhaps it is Marcel’s “’Peeping Tom” quality that I deplore most.) Marcel looks into windows in the same capacity that he reads; to escape the world around him. Reading and “peeping” seem to be the only two things that he is truly sure of in his life as an adolescent. I think that Aunt Leonie looks out her window in order to still be a part of the world that she purposely left behind. By looking into windows Marcel takes command of the world that he really doesn’t have a grip on and his Aunt is allowed to continue existing.

Using the quote we examined in class: “We are familiar only with the passions of others, and what we come to know about our own, we have been able to learn only from them” (132). It seems to me that Marcel acknowledges that he is like his aunt even though he would like to be more like the ever elusive Swann. Marcel understands himself more because of the involuntary memory with the Madeleine and characters live through this involuntary memory, but Marcel still yearns for the unattainable.

So, I think that my problems with Marcel as a character lie in my desire for him to get what he yearns for the most. (Everyone deserves success in one form or another.) I want him to be more like Swann and less like Aunt Leonie. Furthermore, my visual image of Marcel (pale and sickly) does not match up with the recollections of the older Marcel.

New Post Demonstration

2008-01-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

Here is a picture of my cat:

This is my new post.

Swann's Way, 49-191

2008-01-28T13:11:00.000-07:00

I am struck most in this section by Marcel's struggle to distinguish between his "interiority" and his "exteriority." There seems to be always through the novel this sense of Marcel being directed by his interior existence, that his exteriority, that is, life itself, is but a pale reflection of his inner-life. As Marcel says of what he learns from Swann's Way, "I was struck for the first time by this discord between our impressions and their habitual expression" (158). Impressions (interior) and expressions (exterior) are never in accord for Marcel, which raises the question of it they are for any of us.

The structure of the novel so far embodies this discord in the way that many characters are roaming, even haunting the background of the narrative: Francoise, the kitchen maid, Swann, and uncle Adolphe. They have a presence in the narrative, but beyond that they have a hidden presence which more vividly populates the narrative. Francoise, for example, with her secret cruelty, or Adolphe, with his mysterious connections, or Swann, with his wife who cannot be introduced. These hidden events are really what seem to have the most impact on the lives of the household. The hidden, the interior, directs the exterior, which has little significant impact on us.

I'm also very interested in the scene between Vinteuil's daughter and her lover, 162-67, but I'll hold my thoughts until I hear from you.

Giotto's Envy

2008-01-28T11:37:00.001-07:00

2008-01-28T11:21:00.000-07:00

Giotto 1267-1337
Charity

Swann's Way -- Section 1 -- Themes

2008-01-24T10:57:00.000-07:00

Anxiety -- in respect to mother's love --one feels an incredible anxiety -- (30).

Power of love for an illusive object. Marcel love's anything elusive; i.e. the madeleine. This is the same thing when he's trying to bet his mom to kiss him. The same pattern with kisses from his mother and the madeleine.

Waking up -- movement from the recollection

The shifting self -- an adult contemplating the life of a child.

Elusive object (illusive?) as a draw for Marcel -- why?

Swann -- another elusive object. Doesn't fit anywhere. Related to the memory of the madeleine -- by trying to grasp a memory, you don't get anything.

Marcel -- never satisfied. A primary condition of humanity.

Social class -- several pages where they talk about the family and their visits with Swann; great-aunts' opinion of Swann. People are meant to associate with people of the same class.

Loss -- Death -- Disorientation.

Class anxiety.

The representations of women and men. The women provide structure, calmness, emotional connection; the men represent isolation, mystery, estrangement.

Memory -- associations between Marcel and men/women. He's searching for something, nurture some part of himself.

Instead of trying to figure out where he fits in, he's trying to figure out what completes.

He shifts into the present in the madeleine scene.

Actualization comes from memory.

Oedipus complex. Does this apply?

Dandy-ness. Intellectualism/feminism.

Welcome to French Modern Literature

2008-01-20T17:41:00.000-07:00

We'll use this space to reflect on the literature we read. Please play around with Blogger's features -- I encourage you to take advantage of the Web platform to add links to interesting online sources.

In French, with Jean Cocteau (and others):

Fine art mentioned in Swann's Way: