Author Archives: Daniel Choi

Week 3 – Aragon, “Paris Peasant”

Posted on by

Reading Aragon’s Paris Peasant felt like a brain workout at one hand, and an imaginary escape at another. With a conventional bias, I struggled to find the “plot” of the story, like many of my peers reading this book. I constantly searched for a plot; however, in the process of doing so, I realized that I was characterizing the idea of a “plot”. I realized that I shouldn’t be looking for something in the book, but to absorb whatever the book was throwing at me. In this way, Aragon’s way of writing felt quite similar to Proust’s Combray; both authors reflect on memories associated with specific areas. However, whereas Proust focused on conveying the everyday experiences the narrator had with his family, at least in the first section of the chapter, Aragon focuses on his particular thoughts and opinions that were derived in the Passage de l’Opera. For example, after giving a great description of the Passage de l’Opera, Aragon quickly turns what specific thought he had regarding Hotel de Monte-Carlo, Librarie Rey, the passage’s concierge, Café du Petit Grillon, etc. It was particularly interesting to read the section about exportation, especially because Aragon inserted pictures of authentic signs and newspaper articles for reference. This whole section about exportation, from page 24 to 32, even seemed like a story in itself. Aragon’s description of the struggles faced by whom he called “tomorrow’s victims of exportation” really engaged me in the section of the book, and almost brought out a sympathetic emotion.

Aragon’s attitude, especially in the first pages of the book, also showed similarities to Proust. Particularly, this quote grabbed my attention:

“Humanity’s stupid rationalism contains an unimaginably large element of materialism. This fear of error which everything recalls to me at every moment of the flight of my ideas, this mania for control, makes man prefer reason’s imagination to the imagination of the senses” (9).

This quote showed Aragon’s perspective to focus on his senses and be limitless in his imagination; it showed his interesting perspective that errors, especially those that are caused by sensual imagination, can provide a unique insight that nothing else than itself could provide. Perhaps this attitude can be described as “modernistic”; it challenges conventional habits and beliefs suggests a new approach. Much as his writing style being unlike a traditional novel, his thoughts seem very unique and new as well. Aragon’s focus on sensuality is further shown when he writes about hairdressers and sensual pleasures (44-45). Lastly, starting with “A Feeling for Nature at the Buttes-Chaumont”, Aragon’s thoughts seem to deepen, with heavier ideas of surrealism and temporality are shown.

To finish my blog, I would like to end with a question: What kind of attitude do you think Aragon has toward modernism? Does Aragon seem hopeful for the new changes modernism can bring? Does he seem to be against modernity, as it poses a risk that “what was known until today could be completely gone tomorrow?”

Week 2 – Proust, “Combray”

Posted on by

Reading Proust’s “Combray” was such a delightful experience, especially thanks to his wonderful use of descriptive language. One line that quite amazed me was this: “[…] she derived from this very constraint one more delicate thought, like good poets forced by the tyranny of rhyme to find their most beautiful lines […]” (24). The simile that was used in this line relates two quite complex ideas in such a meaningful way. As such, Proust’s use of imagery didn’t feel natural; it didn’t feel like what seemed to be the “norm” of most novels. However, it certainly was attractive and effective. Proust’s exceptional use of literary devices helped me engage into the reading not as a “reader”, but as an active “participant” of the story; I wasn’t reading to gain information but was reading to experience the story. Similarly, I felt that Proust’s writing style itself was quite revolutionary; sentences are unprecedentedly long, and commas appear very frequent. In fact, Lydia Davis, the translator of this book, stated in the introduction that Proust required long sentences as “[…] a long sentence contained a whole, complex thought, a thought that should not be fragmented or broken” (17). Reading this quote, I realized that it was not just Proust’s writing style that was revolutionary; his whole thought was.

Perhaps my use of the term “revolutionary” can be known as the “modernistic approach”, or “modernism” in general. Although the reading itself looks back to the past, it has a strong modernistic approach built within it. Proust attempts to reconstruct the past with his modernist views; he does not just reflect on what happened in the past, but he reflects on it with his ideas and beliefs of the present. While attempting to relieve the delightful joy that came with the taste of tea and madeleine, the main character (who is known to be a representation of Proust, himself) acknowledges that “[…] the truth I am seeking is not in the drink, but in me” (45). The main character is not merely thinking of the past; rather, he is using a memory in the past as a window to view himself in the present. At the same time, he is also reconstructing his experience in the past with a new, more experienced and aged, view.

Overall, it really felt like a “roller-coaster ride” reading this book. I pay particular attention to the first section because the complex relationships between the main character’s family, as well as the complex thoughts of the main character resonated within myself. Though I had not experienced any of these memories myself, there were many places where I could empathize what the characters were going through.

To finish of my post, I would like to end with a question: Does modernism allow us to create ideas and thoughts without constraint? Is a “modernistic approach” aligned with the “limitless nature” of Romance studies?

Thank you for reading my blog.

Week 1 – Introduction

Posted on by

Hello everyone! My name is Daniel Choi, I am a second-year arts student currently with an undeclared major. I am looking forward to pursuing a major in International Relations. Throughout my first two years of post-secondary studies, I have developed a keen interest in law and history. As such, I enjoy topics that require critical thinking, active discussion, and creativity. From watching the introductory lecture, I already became fascinated by the big questions the course was asking. I am excited to engage with the readings and continuously attempt at answering some of those questions. I was also especially delighted to learn about the first goal of the course, as I am always interested in ways to improve my reading strategies and critical analyzation skills.

I don’t have much background knowledge in Romance studies; however, I am very interested to learn more about it. Before watching the introductory lecture, I always viewed the “Romance World” as a confined region within Western Europe. I always thought of the “Romance World” in significant connection with the Romance languages, and therefore thought of it only as a region in Europe. Realizing the limitless nature of Romance studies is exciting, as it allows a more creative approach towards concepts such as colonialism, globalization, and much more. I am looking forward to critically examining how our course readings represent various concepts through language. One point from Professor Tim Beasley-Murray in the conversation video that left me thinking was that “we tend to think of literature as a testimony to a certain set of experiences.” I completely agree with this point, and I think this might sometimes be a pitfall in trying to find new relationships between languages and cultures. I look forward to “putting language at the heart of things again”, as Professor Tim Beasley-Murray said, and find interesting commonalities and differences between Romance languages.

To finish off my blogpost, I would like to reflect on questioning the authorship and agenda of literature sources. I learned that for reading historical sources, especially primary sources, this question of authorship and agenda is important for contextualization. However, I feel like this process of critical analysis is somewhat confined, as it aims to understand a text in a perspective that is particular to a specific area or time. With that being said, I would like to end off with a central question: Do you think analyzing the authorship and agenda of our course readings, asking who wrote it for what purpose, would help us better understand what Romance studies is? Or would it rather mislead us to an understanding that is confined to specific areas, which goes against the limitless nature of the Romance world?

Thank you for reading my blogpost! I hope you have a great day.