My first thought upon reading this story: “this story is just messed”. Kafka’s depiction of the penal colony is extremely disturbing and troubling. I am really unsure how to interpret its meaning as the story seems to take me in all different directions. Of course, one could analyze it in so many different ways, or simply, examine the story for what it is: a disturbing tale of suffering and torture. One particular theme that is difficult to ignore is that of justice and punishment. The penal colony seems to operate on a very rigid system of punishment that is best captured by the officer’s infamous quote: “Guilt is never to be doubted”. In other words, those who are accused of a crime should not be given the opportunity to defend themselves but instead, are guilty without question. The accuser is always right whereas the accused is always wrong. This seemingly unjust process of condemnation is then followed by a brutal and torturous massacre of the condemned. The idea is to use a machine or apparatus that slowly rotates the prisoner’s body and cuts it repeatedly with numerous needles in aims of inscribing the commandment that the prisoner is supposedly guilty of violating. This is meant to teach the prisoner a lesson and to enlighten him on what commandment he has violated. In the case of the condemned man in the story, it was: “Honour your superiors”.

Aside from the fact that this punishment process seems barbaric and only seen in movies such as “SAW” and the “Human Centipede” (by the way, trailer is very disturbing; refrain from watching), what is more interesting to me is the perceptions of the explorer and the officer regarding this execution procedure. On the one hand, the explorer finds it to be unjust and extreme. On the other hand, the officer lauds it greatly, seeing it as the greatest form of justice possible. Can there really exist such a large divergence in one’s point of view about justice? Evidently, it seems almost natural to believe that the officer is an insane and sadistic psycho who has clearly been surrounded by prisoners far too long. His perception of justice seems to be completely distorted, but in a way, understandably so, since he has been in the penal colony for almost all his life. This explains his belief that guilt can never be doubted in that everyone in the penal colony is guilty of something. The officer seems to have developed a very jaded view of humanity given his incessant contact with prisoners and in a way, feels obliged to fulfill a moral duty (this ironically being in a very brutal and inhumane way). He relishes completely in the power of being judge of the colony and of being able to bring justice by executing prisoners with the apparatus. Maybe he is trying to make them feel (no pun intended) how guilty and how awful they truly are as human beings. We can try and justify what the officer could have been thinking or we can simply read him as someone who is insane and just pure sick. He finds pleasure in the pain of others and wants to see them suffer and pay. But since the officer views everyone as being guilty, we could even read this story from a religious point of view (which I will not get into details here) in the sense that most religions share this same belief. Maybe he viewed the old Commandant as God and himself as a prophet who is fulfilling God’s wish of punishing the sins of humanity. Oh that’s right, I said I wouldn’t talk about that here, maybe in class!

I think it’s also necessary to consider the explorer in all of this. Although he is against the officer’s severe way of punishment, one cannot help but notice his passivity. One can compare him to the reader of the story since he doesn’t seem to have much influence on the plot. He is simply there to watch the entire scene unfold. It is even mentioned in the story that the explorer did not care much about the apparatus and simply observed the prisoner with indifference. It is important to note that the explorer is a Western investigator who is sent out to study criminal procedures in all different parts of the world. It is possible that he is emotionally detached by the officer’s disturbing beliefs given that he has already been subjected to all kinds of cruelty. He doesn’t really seem to be sympathetic to the prisoner despite his disagreement with the cruel punishment. It is even mentioned in the text that the judicial procedure had not “satisfied” him. This is quite mild in terms of emotion considering the extent of the brutality of this procedure. Why would the explorer be “touched” by the officer’s severe conviction rather than be disturbed by this? In fact, the only time the explorer is “greatly troubled” is when the machine breaks down and slaughters the officer. This is definitely difficult to grasp since there seems to be an ambiguity in the explorer’s stance about the whole situation.

This brings me to the ending. What are we supposed to make of it? The explorer decides to leave the colony in a boat, leaving the soldier and condemned man behind. I guess the officer’s brutal death must have really got to him so he immediately wanted to leave. But how is it that the details of the nature of the execution did not trouble him as much? This is difficult to grasp. Maybe he was just so disturbed by the end that it was all too much for him to handle. After the officer’s death, the explorer goes with the soldier and the condemned man to the teahouse in the colony where the old Commandant is buried. There, they see inscribed on his grave a prediction that he will rise again. It’s interesting here that only the explorer doesn’t find this humorous, almost as if he was finally scared of the power of this perverted system of justice. This could perhaps explain his prior indifference, simply regarding the officer’s belief as something he had already seen before. There is still something unsettling between the humour and the horror in that final scene at the old Commandant’s grave. Could this be a critique of society that tortures and controls its people both physically and psychologically? It definitely seems pertinent today. All in all, this story leaves room for a plethora of interpretations. I think this was part of Kafka’s intentions; we are forced to question the significance of his story on so many different levels and at many times we wonder: what does that mean? Moral of the story – there is definitely more questions than answers. This should however stimulate an interesting discussion next week!

To say that Lacan’s “The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious, or Reason, Since Freud” is somewhat of a difficult read would be a gross understatement.  Those not versed in the fundamentals of psychoanalysis or Freudian Psychology would most definitely have a hard time in attempting to understand the complexities of Lacan’s discourse.  My attempt to analyze Lacan’s work would do no justice as I find some of his concepts too abstract to grasp.  However, for the sake of some casual blogging, I will attempt to shed light on some of the aspects that I believe Lacan was attempting to convey.

In the most general of analyses, I do believe that what Lacan was generally trying to say was that language exists in our subconscious and that through speech we are able to reflect on the world in our own subjective manner.  He goes on to add that the development of speech is the beginning of the symbolic order of the universe.  Put more clearly, as we reach the age in which we are able to speak, the language present in our unconscious lends itself to speech, allowing us to subjectively see the world and make sense out of it.  I speculate that maybe this is why as human beings we are always striving to confirm the existence of an established order in the universe.  It can sometimes be quite difficult to accept the notions of randomness and obscurity when lending interpretation to the events of our lives; order gives birth to meaning and in doing so, affirms our place in the universe.  Lacan further emphasizes this point in his explanation of the signifier and the signified, in which he places primacy to the signifier.  I think what he is trying to say here is that by establishing the algorithm signifier/signified, the process of signification can take place.  That is, the world is composed of signs that have no inherent meaning attached to them.  Instead, they [signs] garner meaning through the difference between other signs, a process that is ascribed via language.  This is exactly how metaphor serves to invoke a greater meaning/lesson through seemingly unrelated language.  The process at work here is one of signification; one is able to draw a deeper meaning associated with language not intended to be literal.  Of course, at the heart of this is the notion of subjectivity and how as subjects we help to move along the process of signification.  Therefore, just as Freud had suggested that our dreams provide insight into our unconscious and our suppressed desires and true feelings, language may serve to express our notions of how we see the world and, more provocatively, harbor the inner yearnings of our unconscious.

In “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, Althusser begins by explaining that the ultimate condition of production is the reproduction of the conditions of production. This can happen in precisely two ways: the reproduction of the productive forces and the reproduction of the relations of production. What he means by the reproduction of productive forces is the reproduction of labor power. The reproduction of labor power requires not only a reproduction of skills but also a reproduction of submission to the rules of the established order. School serves to teach the “know-how” and guarantees the subjection to the ruling ideology. It is only under forms of ideological subjection that it can become possible for reproducing the skills of labor power. Although Marx represents a society using the metaphor of an edifice, Althusser argues that this is only descriptive and that it is only through the point of view of reproduction that we can begin to understand the meaning of society. Marx believed the state to be a machine of repression, a Repressive State Apparatus (RSA). The RSA enabled the ruling class to ensure domination of the working class via capitalist exploitation. The RSA consists of the government, the administration, the army, the police, the courts, etc. But for Althusser, the reproduction of the relations of production becomes possible through Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA), which corresponds to private institutions such as religion, education, family, media, etc.

There are some key differences worth pointing out between the RSA and ISA. First, there is only one RSA as opposed to a plurality of ISA’s. Second, the RSA belongs to the public sphere whereas the ISA is private. And finally, the RSA functions primarily by violence and secondarily by ideology whereas the ISA functions predominantly by ideology and secondarily by violence. Both apparatuses function side by side in order for the dominant class to maintain its power over the working class, but I am still unsure whether or not this inverse relationship is pertinent. Basically, ideology must be reproduced in every aspect of society in order for such a relationship of power to exist. Althusser explains that this reproduction of ideology works to produce an imaginary representation of the real conditions of their existence. In other words, the ruling ideology creates a false perception of the truth in order to maintain power and control over the people. Therefore, the ruling ideology can only survive if the people accept its conditions. It is precisely through the ISA’s that willing submission to a capitalist and exploitative system is achieved whereas in the RSA, compliance is forced. Althusser also mentions that the school has replaced the church as the dominant ISA and we often see many examples of this where values of the dominant class are preached as being the only existent values in society.

Althusser makes several theses regarding ideology, but I was particularly interested by his idea that ideology exists eternally, creating subjects out of individuals always. This is somewhat questionable to me since ISA’s are the sites of class struggle. Because these sites are so plural and diverse and full of contradictions, state power cannot be as easily asserted. There then seems to be a contradiction since if ideologies interpolate individuals into defined subject positions, what happens when an individual does not assume the imposed conditions of their identity? Isn’t this possible given that the ISA’s are sites of conflict? Because it is through language that interpolation of the subject occurs, what happens if the subject does not respond? Can the power of the ISA’s continue to influence identity formation? Is this power absolute? These all seem like very pertinent questions and are later taken up by theorists such as Foucault and Butler. Interesting read!

The Manifesto of the Communist Party is often considered to be one of the world’s most influential political works. The preamble of the text emphasizes the importance for the Communists to publish and express their views in aims of giving a voice to the Proletariat. Marx states that the spectre of communism is haunting Europe, giving an immediate impression or foreshadowing of the message to come: communism will replace capitalism, abolishing all forms of class struggles and conflicts. But could it really be possible?

The first line in chapter one depicts quite clearly the dominating thought throughout the manifesto: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Essentially, the main argument in the manifesto is that changes in society are motivated by the collective struggle of groups who are seeking similar economic goals and interests. This however creates a problem of power since the economic interests of the dominant classes are favored over the interests of the subordinate classes. The struggles of the dominant classes have historically, as Marx explains, taken precedent over all other subordinate classes and thus, created a significant division. It is precisely this imbalance in struggle that Marx condemns since he believes that such a capitalist system will continue to dominate the workings of contemporary society in a destructive way.

Marx provides us with a historical view of the Bourgeoisie’s journey to power and control, explaining how they managed to overthrow the dominance of the feudal nobility. He states: “We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.” The bourgeoisie’s personal struggle against the feudal aristocracy soon disappeared through its exploitation of the world market, its improvement of instruments of production and its facilitated means of communication. The bourgeoisie revolutionized the means of production and eventually established itself globally as the dominant class in the industrial world. In fact, it is through constant struggle and perseverance that the bourgeoisie succeeded in overthrowing the power of the feudal aristocracy and now, to a certain extent controls society based on its own personal interests. Ironically, despite this seemingly happy ending, the struggles and difficulties of the bourgeoisie have now been passed down to the proletariat. It is essentially another manifestation of dominant classes overpowering the subordinate classes, only the bourgeoisie no longer occupies the subordinate position. Class struggle has not at all been eliminated but simply replaced with another class, precisely the proletariat. It appears that this is what Marx strongly opposed as it produces a vicious cycle of class struggle where equality can never be achieved.

As a result, the bourgeoisie’s hunger for accumulation has allowed them to take over the modern industrial world, adopting a capitalist way of life. “The accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and increase in capital” creates a problematic situation for members of the working class who must compete against one another for meager wages. Since ownership of production is privatized and controlled by the bourgeoisie, members of the proletariat are essentially slaves who are being exploited by the bourgeoisie for profit and forced to work for cheap wages. What is quite disturbing about this situation is that the bourgeoisie is putting the proletariat through the same torture they went through with the feudal society. Marx thus believes, using the same logic before, that the proletariat will eventually rise to power through a revolution quite similar to that of the bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, this will simply initiate another class struggle, highlighting Marx’s point that it is only through communism that class equality can be achieved. However, could such a utopian ideal truly be achieved? Is communism as described by Marx truly what other countries such as China or Russia has tried implementing? Although I am not stating that capitalism is purely beneficial or that Marxist communism should be dismissed, but it appears to me that communism, as envisioned by Marx, has yet to be implemented.

Dreams have always been a topic of interest for not only theorists such as Freud, but for people of the general population. Whether it is a nightmare, an enjoyable or simple strange dream, one always asks: what does that dream really mean? Is it insinuating something deeper about my life? Is it pure fiction or does it have elements of truth? Is what I experience on a regular basis in my dreams an indication about the person I am? These are questions that I often come up with when thinking about dreams. For Freud, dreams can be in fact interpreted and are not at all random or absurd occurrences but rather have meaning. Dreams are “wish fulfillment”; they serve the purpose of fulfilling a desire and satisfying the dreamer. This desire is nonetheless unconscious and thus, its meaning must be interpreted. In this sense, the dream functions as a means of understanding what is truly going on in someone’s mind. But since the content of dreams can sometimes be disturbing, it must be repressed and enters the consciousness under a “masked” form. In other words, these dreams are not what they appear to be and must be interpreted further in order to determine their true meaning in the realm of the unconscious.

Freud explains the difference between the manifest content and latent content of dreams. On the one hand, the manifest content refers to the dream as the dreamer tells it. This dream is believed to disguise a repressed desire and therefore, needs to be interpreted in order to uncover its latent content. The latent content is the product of the interpretation of the dream, its symbolic meaning. This is what is of particular interest to psychoanalysis since the latent content of a dream is what reveals the hidden meanings.

Dreams naturally refer to the events in our day-to-day lives. Last night, for example, my younger sister dreamt about her soccer game that took place this afternoon. It was a competitive match-up and a game that she had been looking forward to for a long time, so her dream-content was very much related to her desire to win the match (they won the game by the way!). However, Freud explains that in many instances dreams can be distorted, their real significance concealed by the latent content. Freud defines the dream-work to be the system that connects the manifest and latent dream-thoughts and aims to understand the mechanism by which the manifest content of dreams transforms into the latent dream-thoughts.

The processes of condensation and displacement are two ways by which Freud believes such a transformation can occur. First, condensation occurs when a number of dream-elements are combined into one, so that the dream becomes more condensed than the dream-thoughts. As Freud states, “Dreams are brief, meagre, and laconic in comparison with the range and wealth of the dream-thoughts” (401). Second, displacement happens when your dream refers to one thing whereas your dream-thoughts seem to reveal that it was about something else. This operation masks the true meaning of your dream by displacing the emotion associated to one idea (something that may be embarrassing) to a totally different idea. This happens in day-to-day situations when for example, we take out our anger on others but are simply upset about something else. My question is that if the dream “gives no more than a distortion of the dream-wish that exists in the unconscious” (412), how does one come to explain the role of nightmares from a Freudian perspective?

In Mythologies, Barthes defines the notion of myth as a second-order sign, building upon Saussure’s semiological system of signifier and signified. In order to avoid confusion and ambiguity, Barthes calls the signifier form whereas the signified is still referred to as concept. When combined together, we have the signification or myth. The reason for the change in terminology is that in the creation of myth, the sign becomes the signifier, which relates to a new signified, forming a completely new “sign”. (refer to diagram on p.81). As a result, a new meaning is created that goes beyond the linguistic meaning. According to Barthes, this serves two purposes: “it points out and it notifies, it makes us understand something and it imposes it on us …” (p.83).

One example cited by Saussure of how the notion of myth functions is through the front cover from Paris Match, showing a young Negro in a French uniform saluting with his eyes uplifted. The signifier (a black soldier saluting) and the signified (the idea of Frenchness, militariness) appear to convey the message that France “is a great Empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag, …” (p.82). However, this is not explicit from the picture but seems rather to insinuate the myth of extreme fidelity as well as the puissance of France. Thus, the signification is formed from the combination of the signifier and an “imposed” signified. This makes clear the objective of myth outlined above in that it conveys a particular message that is in a way forced upon us. This often happens through mass advertising, propaganda or indoctrination.

I will now comment on “Soap-powders and Detergents” from the text. Barthes compares the advertising of two different types of soap: Omo and Persil in aims of showing how these products are sold based on what they signify. He essentially describes how each type of soap pertains to dirt. On the one hand, chlorinated fluids “kill” dirt and in some cases can burn the object. On the other hand, powders are “separating agents” and gently liberate the dirt from the object. There is a clear opposition in the respective relationships of signifier and signified. One agent is violent whereas the other is less aggressive. Persil Whiteness compares two objects, one of which is whiter than the other in order to appeal to a consumer’s concern for social appearances. Omo includes the consumer in the cleaning process emphasizing him as an “accomplice of a liberation”, removing dirt through a deep and foaming action. Although this analysis seems humorous and completely ridiculous, Barthes shows how consumers are often sold things based on mythical ideas that conceal the actual reality. Both advertisements portray soaps in a laudable way, relating foam to luxury, spirituality and miracle. But the reality is, soap powders involve an “abrasive modification of matter” (85).

The end proves to be ironic since although both products (Persil and Omo) seem to be competing against one another, they are “one and the same” (86) company: Unilever. This example shows how the simple change of a linguistic element (the signified) masks a premeditated motive for social and psychological control.

Language vs. Speech

Ferdinand de Saussure was one of the most influential figures of 20^th century linguistics. He believed language (langue) to be “a product that is passively assimilated by the individual” (59) as opposed to being a function of the speaker and speaking (parole) to be an “individual act”. Language and speaking are thus separate entities. In other words, language is a set of socially shared rules whereas speech is simply the verbal mode of communication. Speaking is premeditated but language is in a way conventionally determined by the members of a society (this is the social side of speech that cannot be modified). He makes an important distinction between speech and language: speech is heterogeneous whereas language is homogenous. Saussure defines language to be a “system of signs that express ideas” and that is made up of a union of meanings and sound-images that are both psychological. Speech is composed of several different elements since the speaker can express his thoughts in various different ways. Although Saussure defines language to be a “social institution”, he regards it as being systematic – the association between an auditory image and a concept (as opposed to a thing and a name). He calls this semiology – “the science that studies the life of signs within society” (60).

 What is a sign?

Language according to Saussure is not a simple naming process. It involves a rather complex operation whereby a concept and sound-image “are united in the brain by an associative bond” (61). It is precisely this combination that is defined as a sign. A sign is a double entity, comprised of both a signifier (signifiant) and a signified (signifié). The signifier refers to the sound image (psychological concept, spoken word, linguistic part of the sign) whereas the signified refers to the concept (mental image). Like two sides of a sheet of paper, these are inseparable.

Key Principles

Saussure names two fundamental principles: the arbitrary nature of the sign (Principle I) and the linear nature of the signifier (Principle II). Principle I states that signs are arbitrary, meaning there is no particular reason why a signifier is linked to a signified. There is no natural connection between the two. And in fact, because of the unmotivated nature of the sign, the relationship is thus based on convention. That is why a sign cannot be changed once it has been established by a particular community. The word “cat” refers to a four-legged animal that “meows” only because this has been agreed upon by the members of a society and not based upon a natural link between the mental image of cat and the succession of sounds c-a-t. One problem is the issue of onomatopoeia and interjections. Saussure dismisses this however by citing examples such as the English bow-wow and the French oua-oua, illustrating that both are conventional imitations of one another. The argument against interjections is very much the same. Principle II states that the signifier represents a span that is measurable only in the dimension of time. In other words, auditory images have duration and are linear. As stated by Saussure, this is obvious when signifiers are represented in writing.

Synchrony vs. Diachrony 

Synchrony refers to “everything that relates to the static side of our science” (AB axis) whereas diachrony refers to “everything that has to do with evolution” (CD axis) (64). Saussure compares the functioning of language to the game of chess in aims of stressing the importance of synchrony or the language-state. Essentially, he argues that language is always momentary and varies from one position to the next. In chess, the rules of the game exist throughout the entire game and are based on unchangeable conventions (this is much like language in that rules have been equally agreed upon). Furthermore, by joining the game at any moment, one can still play based on the pieces positioned on the board. Thus, there is no benefit for knowing how the pieces came to be arranged in a certain way or by following the entire match. The chess metaphor stresses Saussure’s desire for studying language as a complete system at any given point in time. This makes sense since speakers generally perceive language in its current state and do not have access to its history.

Linguistic Value

The value of a sign is dependent upon all other signs in the language. From a conceptual viewpoint, terms are interdependent, deriving their value from other terms. One example Saussure uses are the French synonyms “redouter” (to dread), “craindre” (to fear) and “avoir peur” (be afraid) to show that these words have their particular meaning as long they are contrasted with each other. By removing two of the words, the remaining word has no point of reference and thus, becomes nebulous. This is why signs cannot exist alone; their value is determined by their environment. The same argument can also be applied to grammatical entities. From a material viewpoint, it is not only the sound but also the phonic differences that make it possible to distinguish one word from all others. Signs used in writing are arbitrary (the writing of the letter “t” is arbitrary with respect to the sound that it makes), the value of the letters are negative and differential (“t” can be written in different ways), the forms depend uniquely on the limitations imposed by a given system and the means of sign production is irrelevant (engraved, pen, chisel etc.).

Last word

Saussure states that in language, “there are only differences without positive terms” (70). Signs are purely differential, not defined positively by their content but rather negatively by contrast with other signs within the same system. There are no positive preexisting ideas within a linguistic system. However, why then do we have something positive if the sign is considered in its totality?

Bakhtin’s text Discourse in the novel was very difficult to follow and understand, so I will share what I managed to understand from it. It appears that Bakhtin is attempting to redefine the meaning and purpose of the novel. He seems to also reconsider the structure of language. He compares the novel to other literary genres such as poetry and theatre in aims of showing that in the novel, “… the prose writer confronts a multitude of routes, roads and paths that have been laid down in the object of social consciousness” (278). In other words, the novel produces much more variety in terms of style, speech and voice as opposed to the poetic genre, which “is always illuminated by one unitary and indisputable discourse” (278). It is precisely these different styles, voices and perspectives that make novels so unique. I guess this makes sense since by combining various different languages, dialects, and styles within novels, there is a possibility of producing various levels of meaning. However, I wonder if this is necessarily the case for all novels?

Another topic that Bakhtin discusses is the notion of heteroglossia. Simply put, this is the coexistence of multiple varieties or dialects within a single language. However, according to Bakhtin, heteroglossia is “another’s speech in another’s language, serving to express authorial intentions but in a refracted way” (324). I am however unsure exactly what Bakhtin means by another’s speech in another’s language? Reading further on, he states that such speech is double-voiced, expressing both the intentions of the author and that of the character speaking. Evidently, this will produce two different voices, meanings and expressions and thus, create a conflict between these elements. My only issue is that I am having trouble understanding the relevance of heteroglossia as it pertains to the novel. Maybe Bakhtin is trying to emphasize that the novel, given its multifaceted nature, is a direct example of heteroglossia. Moreover, Bakhtin seems to extend the notion of heteroglossia to language in general. He states, “For any individual consciousness living in it, language is not an abstract system of normative forms but rather a concrete heteroglot conception of the world” (293). In other words, all languages have their own set of ideals and meaning; there are no neutral words because all words have intentions and a purpose.

Therefore, novels are defined by diversity but the question is, what purpose does this distinction between the novel and poetry really serve? The only explanation I have is that maybe Bakhtin is attempting to draw our attention to new ways of understanding the novel and the structure of language itself since poetry does not seem to be providing us with these answers.

Viktor Shklovsky’s Art as Technique was an extremely interesting read. Shklovsky points out that what we perceive on a daily basis often becomes habitual and thus, becomes automatic. In fact, “life is reckoned as nothing” (16) because we perceive everything so quickly to the point that we do not feel anything. I can relate this idea to basic everyday habits such as driving, locking the front door, closing the garage door or brushing one’s teeth. Such unconscious automatic actions slow down our perception of things. Although the example of driving is naturally seen as automatic, one can imagine that if all aspects of life became unconscious perceptions, life would become completely banal. This extends to literature in the sense that if everything is rendered familiar and cliché, the true art of literature can never be appreciated.

Shklovsky argues that art “may recover the sensation of life; it exists to make one feel things …” (16). He argues that this can be achieved through the concept of defamiliarization whereby objects are made “unfamiliar”, forms made difficult, and perceptions rendered difficult and lengthy (16). He further explains that the “process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged” (16). In other words, it is the art that matters most and not the object itself. Shklovsky cites Tolstoy’s Kholstomer as a clear example of this. By using a narrator that is a horse, the work becomes strange and unfamiliar. The passage cited shows how the actions of men, as opposed to horses, are guided by words rather than deeds (16). Had such a message been conveyed through the eyes of a human narrator, it would have simply been classified as just another denunciation of human conventions. By using the process of defamiliarization, the work can be appreciated as a true piece of art and be removed from the ordinary and the cliché. Through art, literature can thus be revitalized while still maintaining meaning.

Shklovsky’s also explains that defamiliarization can also be achieved through the use of difficult and complex language. He cites Aristotle to emphasize that poetic language “must appear strange and wonderful” (19) and that it is often foreign. There are a plethora of examples that illustrate how language can transform a work into art such as Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (written in Middle English) or the Fables of Jean de la Fontaine. The former is a classic of French literature, using mostly animals as a means for providing a moral lesson. Whether it is by the portrayal of unique or animal characters or the use of difficult language, defamiliarization can transform an ordinary piece of literature into a fascinating piece of art.

So from what I understand about this story, it seems like it is about peasant life. However, the author is not discussing any ordinary peasant life. Instead, he denounces the customary perception that peasant life is wretched and difficult, and describes it as jovial and praise-worthy even. In fact, the name Toine (short for Antoine) is a French name meaning “highly praised” or “praise-worthy”. By doing this, the author is rejecting the notion of social status. He creates a character that is well liked, well received, and comical.

Toine’s zest for life and relationships with the town’s people contrast that of his wife’s. The author is defying social norms by making a peasant the talk of the town and, more surprisingly, a well-respected member of the community (even the mayor knows him). Even when paralyzed, Toine remains jovial – not losing his spirit and maintaining to be the person that he is. The author is effective in making him to be a larger than life character (no pun intended), at one point saying that “he could even make a tombstone laugh” – all things considered, even “Death” treated Toine differently. Ironically, his bad health and paralyzed state was what allowed him to bear life to the chicks that hatched under his arms. It is almost as if the author wants to emphasize that, regardless of social norms or social status, we should not let labels and/or status define the people we are. Instead, we should choose to be the people we want to be; do not let yourself be a slave and succumb to the perceptions of what you ought to be.

Also, the author may be suggesting the idea of equality in society and caring for one another. Toine’s personality and vigour to engage all those he comes across display his adoration for his fellow man. In fact, there is a sense of community amongst everyone in town to visit Toine, see how he is doing, and check on the status of the eggs. It is as if there is no social divide between the people of the town. Not only that, he is even connected with nature, as displayed by his anxieties over how the Hen (who is also attempting to hatch eggs) is doing. This conveys a holistic nature to his personality that the author is suggesting is a quality that should be admired.

Peasant life is often times portrayed negatively, as depicted by Toine’s wife, but it is the way in which we choose to view our life that determines its outcome. Although Toine’s corpulence and excessive gaiety is not typical of a peasant, it highlights that we should not give others the power to determine our identity. The author redefines the meaning of peasant life by depicting a town where there is no hierarchy. This story is remarkable because it shows how the perpetual joy of one peasant brings all walks of life together. This is further illustrated at the end where Toine is delighted by the simple fact of being able to see his friends more often. It is not more chickens that Prosper (Toine’s cunning friend) was concerned about when suggesting to the wife that she could hatch more eggs under Toine’s arms; he simply needed an excuse to spend more time with Toine. By valuing such simplicities, the author shows his disagreement with the wife’s pessimistic attitude toward peasant life. Toine’s love for life and people underlines that happiness is not only found in the exceptional, but also in the commonplace.