So, being the last week and all, I managed to forget about this blog post. And now, at 2:32am, lying in bed, I remembered!<\/p>\n
So here we go!<\/p>\n
This week we read two plays, both regarding the Haitian revolution. This follows the theme of the previous two books we read.<\/p>\n
During the lecture today, I managed to get a little bit distracted with the twitter conversation I was having with some of the profs. Jon Beasley-Murray, who was running the lecture, talked a lot about ruins. And it has us (the tweeters) really wondering what ruins represented.<\/p>\n
Jill Fellows stated the dilemma quite nicely in her tweet:<\/p>\n
Jill Fellows<\/strong>\u00a0\u200f@FellowsJill<\/a>13h<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n Do ruins suggest that nothing is permanent? They exist. They resist remodeling. I wonder if their impermanence is questionable. #artsone<\/a><\/p>\n On one side, ruins are proof that everything continues. Just like in our plays and novels, Sans Souci still stand. It may be crumbling, but it continues to live on.<\/p>\n On the other side, ruins show how nothing is permanent. Like Leonard de Mezy’s plantation in Kingdom of This World.\u00a0<\/em>When Ti Noel returns to the site in the third part, all that are left are stones. He himself says no one would recognize it for what it was: “Ti Noel sat down on one of the cornerstones of the old mansion, now a stone like any other stone for those who did not remember” (106).<\/p>\n So are ruins just a pause in the timeline of decay? Can we look at them as something on their own, or are they just a piece of something that will soon be gone?<\/p>\n Are they permanent?<\/p>\n ~Ola<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" So, being the last week and all, I managed to forget about this blog post. And now, at 2:32am, lying in bed, I remembered! So here we go! This week we read two plays, both regarding the Haitian revolution. This … Continue reading