m i c h a e l a

I am not afraid to admit that I am not a fan of Heart of Darkness. I respect that it is a well-written work that was quite pivotal in its time, but it is just not the style of literature that I enjoy reading and/or analyzing. In my high school English class we read Heart of Darkness and watched Apocalypse Now, but we never got around to reading Things Fall Apart, even though my teacher would have liked to. I’m glad I’m getting the chance to study all three together in Arts One.

I thought Jon brought up some very interesting points about HOD and TFA that I did not pick up on during my first reading. I enjoyed that he talked about some very broad topics such as history and identity; it can be easy to focus on minute details when comparing two texts, but I think in this instance that’s nearly impossible because the stories are definitely not the same.

Despite the broad questions discussed in lecture, I’d like to bring up some more specific details that I wonder about:

• Fire – It seemed that fire/burning accompanied Okonkwo in many parts of the novel…it could be because he is so obsessed with his masculinity that he only wants to display angry, virile emotion. Thinking back to lecture, it could also have something to do with destruction.
• The folk tales – I think the folk tales that are present throughout the novel must hold some sort of greater meaning for the story as a whole. It would be interesting to read back and see how they all fit together.
• The locusts – This is very obviously an allegory for the white settlers…but it’s interesting that the Igbo eat them. I may have to do some deeper digging to figure out what this means.
• Yams – I don’t actually think there’s any meaning behind this, but…SO.MANY.YAMS.

I have a few good questions thought up for my presentation this week, and I think that Achebe (like Conrad) has put so much into this novel that there will be many things for us to talk about in seminar.

I still don’t like Heart of Darkness though.

I really liked Jill’s lecture on The Second Sex. While I was reading the text I noticed the multiple similarities to many of the other texts we have studied, so I’m glad she covered them all. I think it’s very fitting to study Beauvoir close to the end of the year!

I think sometimes we forget how recently it was that women did not have the same rights as men. I was surprised (well, not really) to learn this text was published in 1949. I would say that it’s only been in the last few decades that women have really started to break through the stereotypes and prejudices and not just be the “others.”

I really enjoyed that Beauvoir took a very philosophical approach to her argument by using theories of existentialism and humanism. Although they both came across as very intelligent, Beauvoir doesn’t sound as “ranty” as Wollstonecraft did in some sections…her attempt to remain calm and objective in her argument paid off!

I think the part I enjoyed most about this text was the psychoanalytic perspective, and even more so the comparison to Freud. Like Beauvoir said, we aren’t born as men or women. It’s clear that there are heavy psychological influences on both gender and sex and I think it was very intelligent of her to realize this. I also enjoyed that she argues that our sexual organs do not dictate our sexuality. Freud obviously thought the complete opposite so it is nice to read an intelligent and civil reaction to his theories.

From just reading her introduction and one chapter, I think Beauvoir really summed up the point of Wollstonecraft’s argument (not that I didn’t like Wollstonecraft). This could just be because The Second Sex was written more recently, but I think Beauvoir’s argument is a lot more concise and efficient than Wollstonecraft’s. I also enjoyed that she used so many real-life examples to back up her theories. It reminded me of Fanon a bit. Both authors made sure to be inclusive of people from all walks of life, and I think that makes their texts much more accessible to different kinds of readers.

I’m interested in seeing how Things Fall Apart connects to Beauvoir’s text next week.

Upon reading Foucault’s text this week, I found myself intrigued because it didn’t feel like I was reading a typical work of philosophy. I think it was summed up during lecture when Christina said that Foucault never attempted to suggest new ways of thinking, but more so leaves it up to the reader to take action for themselves. While I found parts of the text dry and wordy, his overall argument is intriguing and I especially enjoyed that he did not give off a tone where he was forcing his opinion on me. I find this style a bit reminiscent of Black Skin, White Masks in that Fanon also left the action up to his readers. Either way, I think this is the first time when I would like to read more of a philosopher’s work.

I understand Foucault’s arguments against the “repression hypothesis,” but I am confused by his stance on identity, particularly in the last quote that was brought up during lecture. I can’t tell if Foucault has a problem with people considering their sexuality to be an intrinsic part of their identity, or if he’s ok with it and would just prefer that people look at their identity from a creative standpoint. Perhaps this is the part where he’s left it up to the readers to decide which route they want to take.

Overall I think this topic is incredibly deep and interesting and I’m enjoying the works we have studied so far this semester. I’m sure that our seminar will harbour some interesting discussion about the chronological history of sexuality (as opposed to Foucault’s view of history) and some modern views on the subject as well.

I find it really interesting to study Freud’s work because most of it was not only radical for his era, but it is also considered quite radical today. Many events or theories of the past are entities we have become desensitized to in today’s world, but I think Freud’s theories are just as controversial (or even more controversial) today as they were in his time.

I feel absolutely sorry for Dora, mostly because of how her case has been presented. I thought it was intriguing that this case history was compared to a novel during lecture – in fact, as I read the book I found myself thinking that if you took away the psychoanalysis and hysteria part, the family drama that was going on would have made an entertaining novel! I also am interested in Freud’s delivery of it; until lecture I hadn’t thought about how most of this was written from memory. I did notice that Freud kept bringing up ‘memory gaps’ and I think it’s entirely possible he had some gaps of his own.

Freud’s essay ‘Femininity’ is what made me think he was a victim of his time period. He was constantly stating that the female is inferior, not only during sex, but her sex organs are inferior too. The idea that a young girl (or any woman for that matter) would be envious of the male sex organs is absolutely ridiculous to me. Freud’s conjectures on what constitutes masculinity/femininity are, I believe, the outcomes of what was stereotypical during that era. Men would work, while women were supposed to stay home and take care of the children. Women were deemed inferior then and that’s a fact, but considering how private and sacred people’s sex lives were then, who is Freud to say that women were inferior in that environment as well? Sure, he analyzed many patients but if I were being analyzed by him, I don’t think I’d feel pressed to give away all my intimate secrets! And his point about women being truly narcissistic because they only want to be loved – men during that time were supposed to be the breadwinners of the family, and do the best work they could do to support their household. Why then, can’t men be narcissistic? Recognition of their abilities and accomplishments is a form of love too, and I’m sure that men in those days wouldn’t have minded a monetary raise or a compliment once in a while. I’m not usually sassy in these posts, but while reading this particular essay, I found myself thinking, ‘Wow, Freud, what did a woman ever do to you?’ I felt as though he had completely neglected the male personality and psyche in his conjectures. Why do females need such a complicated explanation?

That being said, I still respect his work because it was/is so radical. I think this has been one of our most interesting texts so far, and I’m looking forward to discussing it in class.

I’m not even sure if we’re supposed to blog this week, but since this would be my week to blog, I’ll do it anyway. I really enjoy reading plays – they’re quick to read and easy to search if I want to reread something, so it was nice to read these this week.

I’ll start with Cesaire’s play. It was really neat to read another work by a French/Francophone author (the first one being Camus back in September). I also enjoyed that he used the sort of ‘slang’ that Carribean francophones would use, I thought it brought a lot of authenticity to the play. Upon finishing this play, I kind of had the feeling that Christophe’s life is sort of like Macbeth’s – they are both ambitious men who are not reluctant to take down even their closest friends if their goals are even remotely threatened. And of course, both of them end up going mad and come to gory ends. I think that Cesaire did a really good job of chronicling Christophe’s life and it was nice to have a really thorough, historically accurate(?) take on who he really was.

Walcott’s play was also enjoyable. I found it reminded me of Antigone in it’s style and language. In fact, this play is part of a quartet of plays. Perhaps Walcott was taking a page from Sophocles when he decided to right about the history of Haiti? This play was a little easier to follow than Cesaire’s play, but I feel like the way it was written was a little more intimate due to the smaller cast of characters.

I think both plays gave me a better understanding of Henri Christophe’s reign, especially since the past two texts we’ve read offered different takes on the subject.

Firstly, I will admit that I have not yet finished reading Silencing the Past (sorry Christina) but I am VERY eager to finish it. Even though I’m not done, I can say that this is probably my second favorite text we’ve read so far. I don’t know which prof picked this book, but I owe many thanks to them.

I’ve heard the question ‘is history real?’ many times myself, but I’ve never fully understood how to begin pondering this issue until reading this book. Everything Trouillot brings up is so thought-provoking, and I’m glad that he presents his views in a way that is completely clear and unbiased.

I can think back to my AP European History class, and I fondly remember my teacher saying that it wasn’t his job to simply teach history, but to teach us the meaning of it. That class ended up being one of the best I’ve had, and it made it even more interesting to read this book.

Now for a few points I thought were interesting about Trouillot’s views:

Connecting the different ways to interpret history to linguistics – I am a huge linguistics nerd, I’m not gonna lie, and I find it incredibly intelligent and refreshing that Trouillot included this little blurb in the first chapter. Not only is language made up of (and makes up) morphology, phonetics, and semantics, but it is plausible that history does as well. Morphology being word structures, or in history being the details of certain situations and events; phonetics being the echoes that are left behind by said events; and semantics being the meaning of history.

I also find Trouillot’s comparison of history to a memory store very fascinating. It is believed that long term memory has the potential to hold everything we’ve ever experienced in its depths, yet we don’t remember every detail of our lives. The same is for history. While the history we have come to know is made up of specific events and dates and people that are easy to memorize, what about all the people we don’t remember? They are part of history, but it is more about their relevance in the context they are in that makes them memorable. They’re certainly not fictional, but in places where there is little distinction between history and fiction, it is easy for people to disregard the fact that they did exist even if they didn’t do something important. I think this is sort of what Trouillot is getting at – just like some things enter our short term memory and disappear, there are parts of history that certainly have the potential to be relevant, but it depends on societal and environmental context to make them relevant. Therefore, history can only be made up of what we view as relevant.

I also find it very interesting to learn about Haiti. I don’t know much about the history of this country, and of course it’s even better to hear it from the point of view of a Haitian. I’m super excited to finish this book and now, read next week’s book. I think it’ll be easy to write about either of them (knock on wood).

Let me start off by saying that Leviathan is not only a sea monster, but the book itself is a bit of a monster, too. I have to say the lecture cleared some things up for me, though. I’ll be the first to admit that most pre-20th century political discourse is lost on me, this text included.

When Crawford connected Leviathan to Genesis, it was almost like everything I had read fell into place. Prior to the lecture, the text was basically just jumbled words in my head.

Hobbes definitely had some interesting ideas, but I can’t say I agree with them. The notion that everything about humanity is explained materialistically is completely incomprehensible for me. So much of what makes us human is immaterial – whether it’s personality or emotion or something else entirely, I think it’s a bit far-fetched to present the idea that Hobbes does. I’m also not sure that I can reconcile his utopian ideas with the totalitarian methods he also presents. One look at the way society is governed today proves my point, although (I think?) I still believe that it’s impossible to reach a true utopia.

I also did a little bit of background digging on Hobbes prior to reading this (and I believe this was mentioned in lecture as well), and I found out that he despised the use of metaphors. Why then, is this text so metaphorical? Perhaps it has something to do with what Crawford suggested by the fact that Hobbes had to be very cautious about approaching his argument in an “atheist” manner. (I think it would also be interesting to explore more into whether or not this text is atheist). This also makes me more intrigued to read Rousseau next week, because it’s said that Rousseau uses metaphor a lot.

I’m still not sure I have Leviathan completely worked out in my head. Hopefully I’ll feel better about it by the end of the week.

Howdy pals!

I’m finally getting around to blogging about Antigone, which is surprising for me because I enjoyed it much more than Gorgias. I found this play fairly easy and enjoyable to read! Not gonna lie, I am a huge Shakespeare nerd (WHY was Othello taken off the reading list omg no) and I found Antigone to be really close in style.

One aspect of the play that I found intriguing was the presence of so many symbols and motifs. Major ones I clued into are the metaphors of ships/oceans and war, but I’m planning on doing another read-through because I want to find more…I’m especially interested in exploring the significance of blindness, both literal and figurative.

I’m glad that after a few weeks of male-dominated texts we get to see a pretty kickass female character in Antigone. It’s particularly surprising that such a character would be found in a text from this time period; I’m sure Sophocles was at least a little controversial in his day. While I admire Antigone’s bravery, I’m a little confused by why she was so angered by Ismene. Obviously Ismene didn’t want to participate in the burial at first, but wouldn’t any normal person be a little afraid to do something that was against the law? I think I’ll have to do a deeper reading of those parts because I feel a little bad for Ismene.

Also, after today’s lecture, I have a teensy bit of respect for Kreon I think, sorta, maybe. I’m not sure yet but I enjoyed that Crawford didn’t just lecture about Antigone, but more about the juxtaposition between her and Kreon. Also HAEMON wow I have a little bit of a literary crush on you. (Any of you other gals get that? No? Ok, that’s fine). I guess I just enjoy rooting for the underdog a little bit. Speaking of which, kudos to Sophocles for such great character development over such a short text! You go, Glenn Coco. I’m really hoping there’s some sort of character development-based essay question because I found that to be one part of the play that really stood out while I was reading.

Do any of you guys do extra digging when you read a text? I usually try to, and I’m actually interested in reading the other Oedipus plays now, as well as doing some research into Sophocles himself, especially after the few tidbits Crawford mentioned in lecture today.

That’s all I can really think of for now, but I’m super interested to see what sort of questions come up in seminar this week!

Until then, goodnight!

Michaela