Author: Tolu

Categories
Moliere

Okay!

This was a great read!

It was very funny and engaging. As someone who did theatre growing up, it felt great to imagine how it would also be acted out in the theatre. I really want to go watch this play now, and hope it will be playing sometime soon!

I would say however, that Orgon got let off entirely too easily. He signed away his estate, basically gave some random all the group chat screenshots, and wanted to marry off his daughter, and we are punishing Tartuffe? I think that he deserved to at least spend some time in prison to really reflect on how he was out here believing an extra pious man over his wife, son, daughter, and maid. He should have gotten the punishment that Monte Cristo did. So yea, Orgon is a 0/10 guy, do not recommend.

Now to Tartuffe.  He deserves everything he got at the end but man he needs to hold a masterclass in deceit and fraud, especially in this economy. I always see jokes about how the most holy/spiritually involved person you know is actually the most evil and he embodies this to the maximum. Being wanted for ten other heinous crimes that can’t even the described is crazy. What’s worse is that he probably might have genuinely been on the way to being better and then saw an opportunity too good to pass up.

Which brings us BACK to Orgon. He might possibly be the most stupid character I have every had to engage with in literature. Not only that, his disregard for his daughter’s feelings were so icky. I would say he is predisposed towards sexism, but he is just as awful with his son as he is with his daughter and his wife. I was shocked and irritated when he imposed his will on his daughter, and then did the exact same thing with his son by kicking him out.

To everyone else, I don’t know how they did not get the ick from his stupidity and error. Personally, if my dad did this or if my partner were to do this I would kick them to the curb…like, immediately. Cause your stupidity is NOT about to get me living under my means. Thank you, but bye.

The villain in this story is presented as Tartuffe, but to me, Orgon commits the most unforgiving crime of all: casting reason and family aside in favor of a stranger.

Still really want to watch the play though!

Question: Do you think you would be able to notice when you are being deceived, or is it entirely fair that Orgon was as misled as he was?

Categories
The Lusiads

Propaganda at its peak

One thing in favor of this book is that its actually quite easy to read, and flows quite nicely.

My first point is a little bit of a call back to our discussion in class about why Camoes chose to use the Greek pantheon alongside the Christian version of spiritually. Honestly, I still cannot give a concrete answer to that. However, my theory is that this is purposeful in that Bacchus is meant to serve as the symbol of evil (further reinforced by the fact that Camoes calls the shrines in India of the devil), while Venus serves as a symbol of good (because she pushes them forward in their quest to spread the Christian faith). So, in addition to the fact that this style of storytelling was popular at the time, this choice was probably never meant to be a contradiction. Using the Greek gods was probably just the best way that Camoes could illustrate this battle –so he isn’t advocating believing in Venus for example. He is just presenting how good (spreading the Christian faith and surviving plots to keep them in India) always persists and triumphs in the face of evil (religion in India, Muslims, natural disaster).

My next point is to how I actually really dislike this book. Camoes slanders the other Christian countries for not embarking on a journey to spread the faith (beginning of Canto 6). When they eventually land in India, he makes radical claims about the faith observed by the people there. He even goes so far (in Canto 7) as to describe the images of the different gods, claiming that “[their] faces and colors [were] as discordant as if the Devils had devised them” (148). This to me is interesting, because could we not also claim that the faces and colors of Venus are similarly discordant? Anyways. Then in Canto 8, we see this uplifting of Portuguese history and pursuit. This shows how Camoes is writing from the colonial perspective. There was really no reason for their religion, and that of the Muslims to be so consistently described the way it has been in this book. I understand that this is meant to paint da Gama as a positive and heroic figure, and indeed the Portuguese are claiming to set out in good faith. But isn’t the very goal of spreading a religion, and beginning from a position whereby you are “baffled and dismayed” by the people’s practices, serve as a sort of violence? So, even though all of the people that tried to prevent de Gama are illustrated as horrible and committing “a vile and irrational crime” (208) the advice given to the king about the Portugeuse is completely correct: “They are a truth-loving people Angered and insulted by falsehood. Visit the ships! Examine the weapons, The dreadful artillery! You will Find it highly diverting to learn more of Portuguese conduct in peace and war” (153).

Sorry, I just don’t buy into this Portuguese propaganda we are being fed.

 

Categories
Uncategorized

Watching The Odyssey prepared me for this

When I started reading, I thought that I could try to write my blog post as a poem after I finished…but alas I’ll try next week because that is actually really difficult. So on a technical level I am impressed by this piece!

I want to draw attention to an ironic contradiction between the religious/belief system being discussed in mainly Canto one and Canto two. I found it very interesting how there is usage of both the Christian belief and Greek mythology system during this first stage of travel. As in, its interesting how the people on the ships believe in Christ and as such reject the Muslim’s beliefs, but at the same time are being actively advocated for by characters in the Greek pantheon, such as Venus. For example, when Venus cries to her father to spare the explorers, but said explorers are actively judging Muslims simply for believing something else. I think it is an ironic representation of how sometimes belief =/ what is happening in reality. On the end of Camoes, its really interesting how he is setting both of these things to coexist in his retelling of the story. It isn’t necessarily that it doesn’t work together –but moreso the knowledge that the Christian religion so adamantly rejects anything other than Christ, and yet the Greek pantheon plays an active role in the poem.

I also found it really ironic that when they met the Sultan, they were speaking to how they were not a violent sort, and that the rumors about them were untrue. Granted, the initial shows of violence we see is in response to the hostility and plots against them. However, I just found it really ironic that they are in the first place journeying to do exactly what the rumors are claiming: which is to claim the places they land.

Finally, I found that this book reminded me of a better worded, more believable version of Columbus’ diary. Again, there was great irony in the fact that they definitely did not mean well, and yet sought to be treated well by others. For example, in Canto 4 they actually capture a black man, and yet take great pains to present themselves as well meaning (e.g.: in their time with the Sultan in Canto 3). This just goes to show that as beautifully written as it is, this is ultimately a poem with clear tones of capture and violence. Columbus’ diary sets the stage for years of violence, and this poem outlines what this violence looks like, at least in the quest for India.

So all the fear and uncertainty that they feel are all ironically framed, especially because they in no way the journey for kind reasons

Camoes says it best:

“Where malice rules, it’s natural to fear
Everyone’s motives must be similar.” (26)

Question: What do you think about the tension between the Greek Pantheon of gods and the Christian tradition?

 

Categories
Cervantes

Nothing is Real!

The transition between the first and second half of the book was very unique to me, because it seemed to solidify the many layers of narration that Don Quixote’s story exists within. I want to focus on this, because even as I continued to be entertained by the story, this rumination remained in the back of my mind.

Reading now, we know that the second half was written years after the first half of the book was published. However, for our dearest Knight D.Q and Sancho, there have been mere moments since their journey concluded and they sought to recover. When Sancho proceeds to recount the thoughts of readers about their character and decisions, there is pushback from the both of them regarding the opinions of others of them. In fact, Quixote pushes back against the opinons of others, trying to correct and justify all that has happened thus far. Moreover, he insists that there is a misrepresentation of him, that the readers are not properly understanding what they are reading.

Hm.

Now I feel bad. Is Quixote really that deluded? Or are we simply being led to believe that because of the way his story is being told?

There is great power in who tells a story. Think about it: if Quixote himself had told this story, would we not be led to believe that Dulcinea is indeed a princess, that he is indeed enchanted, and that he is conquering giants?

There are several complications when it comes to understanding this, but first and foremost, this was to me, the moment when I began to question the accuracy with which the narrator of the story is recounting the journey. The repetive assertation that the story we are reading is as truthful as it possibly can be begins to feel ingenuine –as in, what are we being deceived about?

It is also intetesting that this is what kickstarts the second half of the story. Why would the narrator allow us to know that Quixote and Sancho are wary about his retelling of the story? Is this supposed to strengthen our view that he is indeed deluded, or is this the part where we lock in and start to question the ‘truths’ we are being told?

This contention is further explored in Quixote’s inner wonderings, where he questions how his story is told:

“no truth [is] to be looked for from moors, as they are all imposters, cheats, and schemers”

And then the story continued, and we read about their third journey. But then Avellaneda shows up –and is critiqued for misrepresenting the story of Quixote. OH so this is who the schemer is, this is who is misrepresenting Don Quixote!

….or is it?

So not only was this first written by a different author in Arabic, it was then picked up by another narrator, and then an imposter wrote the first half of the book, but D.Q disagrees with everything.

Seriously, WTF is happening, and what is real here?

Question: Who is really telling this story? What is truth and what is fiction in Quixote’s story?

Categories
Uncategorized

The Office: Don Quixote Edition

D.Q (Don Quixote)

Hold on guys, this was such a funny book. Granted, it took me forever to get through it, but the general delusion kept me coming back for more. In a matter similar to how people will rank episodes from the office, I have quite a few favourite scenes from the book which are ranked as follows (from least to most delusional of course):

  1. Starting at the beginning, we have when DQ first makes his armour, and then to test it, slices cleanly through it. The armor genuinely falls apart, he’s distiburbed, and he makes another one. Except, get this: he doesn’t test it because he’s worked too long to have to remake it incase it is still not strong enough!
    1. BRO, do you really want to just find out about the quality of this in real battle?
    2. delusion.
  2. Making the dude who is punishing his servant to stop, and promising to rain hell down on him if he goes back on his promise to pay his servant. DESPITE the servant begging him and telling him that what he is saying has literally 0 weight, D.Q goes hey, don’t worry kid, i’m a knight. He proceeds to leave and tells himself wow, I’m awesome.
    1. kind ironic that he gets beat up right after LOL
    2. anyway, delusion.
  3. The first windmill battle… do I even have to elaborate?
    1. It’s so funny how Sancho is like: hey you know that’s a windmill…right?
    2. Side note: Sancho is kind of like the Dwight to Michael.
    3. delusion
  4. I went really deep for this one, because truly there are too many moments to list here. But when he accosts the priests and commands them to release the woman I was just in awe of how far gone he really was. I expected that at least in the face of other similarly traditional symbols, he a Knight would at least recognize this as reality.
    1. DELUSION
  5. This one isn’t really a moment, but it had to be included. The Inn is like D.Q’s office, because there’s always something happening there. He’s like the ultimate nightmare tenant.

Special mention: burning the books and poems about Knights to heal Don Quixote of his delusion. The whole conversation about which books were and were not worthy felt like a real life goodreads comment section.

_______________________________________________________

In all, I really enjoyed reading about his adventures, but it took me quite a bit of time to get through all of the content. I think that it is so interesting that this was his chosen obsession. Makes me wonder what things I might unknowingly be deluded about (because of how convinced I am of their reality).

Question: What’s your favourite DQ moment?

Categories
Uncategorized

Christopher Columbus is a Liar

Learning that we were going to read Columbus’ Journal as the first text in this course, I was really intrigued. I find diary entries fascinating because they introduce a honest representation of the writer’s thoughts, feelings, and fears. They are an amalgamation of all the things the writer wants to share about their experiences and the thoughts that maybe cant be shared outloud. An example of this is PM Mackenzie King’s diary entry, where he details his thought process, and is somehow confident enough to judge the character of Adolf Hitler. Anyway. Given the controversial nature of Columbus’ journey, I was looking forward to his most honest thoughts during the journey about his observations and interactions.

Unfortunately by the time I reached December 3, I couldn’t help but think that I was being swindled. The thoughts and observations he was writing down seemed increasingly facetious. “Ah”, I thought, “this man is lying to us”. It took entirely too long for me to realize that the audience of this diary is not me, a 4th year student at UBC. Rather, its the King and Queen of Spain, both of whom could easily execute Columbus based on the extent of the success of his journey.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that he saw what he saw and interacted with whom he interacted with. However, I disagree with the details of these interactions. This is mainly because of the language barrier between him and the natives he is encountering. If he was indeed staying at these places for only 1-2 days for example, how could he possibly have been deducing all that he claims to be deducing? In the beginning, it made all the sense that he was lying to the crew about exactly how many leagues they had traveled. After all, why travel with a disgruntled crew when you can just as easily avoid this by lying to them that you haven’t actually travelled that far? But when he started interacting with the natives, things started to become more and more blurry. When he mentions that the natives tell him *in sign* all the names of the islands around the harbour, I had to call it. I believe he began to gloss over the details of what was actually being communicated with him in pursuit of giving the king and queen positive information.

I became even more critical when he starts to outline his beef with Alonso.  I couldn’t help but think about how, as the author of this ‘factual’ journal, he could represent those around him however he wished and also paint himself more positively than what was actually happening.

In summary, after I started to notice these discrepencies, I realized that I had erred by not being more critical of this journal from the beginning.

Question: Do you think Columbus was as truthful as he presented himself to be?

Categories
Intro

Introducing Myself: Tolu

Hello!

My name is Tolu, I am now in my final year at UBC, and I am studying Political Science particularly, politics, policy, and administration. I am originally from Nigeria, and have lived in Alberta and Ontario. I un(fortunately) do not have the Toronto accent, but I had an absolute blast in Toronto. I moved to Vancouver to go to school here and it is so beautiful! I love the landscape and the general aesthetic of the city! I haven’t yet done the staple vancouverite adventures of willingly climbing Grouse Mountain, going skiing at Whistler, and going to an obscure island, but it is definitely on my list!

I took a class with Jon last semester, and I came back because I really enjoyed reading all of the books. I have always loved reading, but coming to University and having all of my required course readings for my political science class limited the time that I could spend reading texts beyond those about violence, comparitive politics, racism, and just general academic works. Being in the class last semester gave me the perfect excuse to slow down and read great but sometimes strange books. It felt like another way that I could engage in self care, and the discussions were also really exciting to attend. I loved the debates that we would have over the books, and I felt so much like a lawyer during this. I really enjoyed that the class wasn’t lecture style and that I could actively participate with the content. We even burned money! and the drink pairings were also so great.

Long story short–I’m back because I still love reading and I’m looking forward to the new variety of writers, books, and topics that we will engage with this semester. I look forward to any possible debates that we will have, and to reading about everyone’s opinions about the books. I am also really looking forward to how my reading analysis skills will continue to develop through this class. I want to see if I can better identify possible themes and connections between books during this semeseter.

There’s no introductory lecture yet that I can see, but I guess in response to Jon’s introductory video, I would like to say that supporting Manchester United is quite interesting, especially given how badly they have been doing recently.

My question for this week: Is there any such thing as a ‘modern’ theme?

Have a nice weekend everyone!

This is me by the way:

Categories
conclusion

Concluding Post: bye bye Freud, you will be missed

WOW!

I can’t believe that we are at the end already. At the beginning of this course, I felt a little overwhelmed: I did not believe that I would read so many books, while also juggling my 4 other classes. I am so glad that I took this course. If anything, it has taught me that I can engage with different types of texts–even when I don’t like them. As well, I think that with these books, I have gotten to engage in with really well written books. I think that at the beginning of the course I mentioned that I was used to reading, and that I have engaged with books recommended by booktok. I will say, trying to go back and read a book recommended through tiktok was disappointing. I didn’t realize that we have been engaging with really high level texts.

Above all, I have learned not to judge a book by its title, and to maintain an open mind. As well, reflecting from the lecture, I have learned to be okay with the “slippery” nature of literature. Its okay to have an understanding of a book, and to engage with a completely different understanding (seen through others’ blogs and during discussion sessions), because “their meanings multiply and change in the new contexts in which we read them” (p. 6, Lecture Transcript).

My favorite texts were probably Proust’s Combray and The Shrouded Woman. I liked that both engaged with unique perspectives by playing with the idea of memory in different ways (one through childhood, and the other through death). I am happy with the books that I chose, and I could see a pattern of themes like childhood, memory, love, and morality (as explored in the idea of whether the characters we were engaging with were ‘good’ people). I think that my understanding of Romance Studies for me now is that it is literature that reflects cultures that come from those romance languages. I think that through this understanding, it is therefore possible to layer contexts to understand what is being written about.

I think the discussion that stuck to my mind was when we debated whether or not The Shrouded Woman was a feminist text. I think we engaged with so many different contextual understandings with this discussion, because everyone’s justifications and definitions of feminism differed so widely.

In all, I think that other courses should be like this one because of its elimination of barriers through the contract grading. We essentially got to pick our struggles, and through the blog to express without limit our thoughts on what we read. To this extent, my question for the class now is, Would you re-read any of the books you read during this course?

Categories
Love me Tender

Fog

“I realized I’d finished grieving for my son. I said to myself, That’s it now, the grieving’s over. I felt good. I hadn’t felt that good in years.” (164)

“There was nothing left to say. Nothing left to do.” (165)

This was a very touching read. It was so simple and easy to digest. As someone who has grieved for people so dear to me in the last 2 years, this was so heart wrenching, because it was like experiencing grief all over again. Except, for her she was grieving someone who was alive.

Throughout the book, we are experiencing her efforts at regaining a relationship with her son. It’s terrible that Laurent uses her sexuality as a weapon to turn the courts and society against her. Its even worse that he can do this–that discrimination against her was normalized because of her sexuality. Why was it not enough that she loved Paul? Why was it not enough that she tried over and over again to regain her son? Why was it so simple for him to villainize her?

Seeing her go through different relationships with other women (though I doubt she would call these experiences relationships) as she existed in this limbo was essentially seeing her actively engage in coping mechanisms. The smoking, the swimming, the sex, all of it did not ever measure up to the happiness she felt after meeting her son: “The other day, my roommate guessed right away that I’d seen you, because of how happy I was,” (101). The fact that even the people around her could acknowledge this difference in her mood illustrates how much her life was affected by being yanked around by Laurent. Like crawling through a fog called grief, where nothing else mattered until she could resolve the issue, until she could be brought to be justice.

The worst part, I think, was when she was then rejected by Paul himself. All of that struggling to get through her day, her week, the months. Of seeking to ensure that those who had villainized her, and the legal system that had sealed her fate understood her love for her son. All of that was for nothing, as she never attained the happy ending she wanted with him. Perhaps, love is the word most mentioned in this book. She uses it in reference to her flings, to herself, and to her son. She is never truly able to experience unimpeded love with her son.

Honestly, I think the silver, rusting lining of all this is that she feels no regret: ” I guess these things should make me feel nostalgia, sadness, regret. But no, nothing.” (28) But perhaps it is not nothing, but rather a numbness.

There’s no happy ending, and no explosive reveal. We end the book and continue with our lives. And she? she remains in the fog.

Categories
Faces in the Crowd

Everything Everywhere All at Once

“Then I go back to the novel. A vertical novel told horizontally. A
story that has to be seen from below, like Manhattan from the
subway.” (122)

“Or a horizontal novel, told vertically. A horizontal vertigo.” (125)

Getting into the book was a bit difficult for me. It reminded me of Andre Breton’s Nadja due to what felt to me like a disjointed book. After taking a LONG break, I realized about halfway through the book that this was actually being told from two different perspectives: the woman’s and Owen’s perspective. To this effect, I tried (and failed) to mentally construct some sort of plot line and timeline to the book. It went a little like this:

  • Are they going to meet? (no, he’s dead–no wait he’s alive?)
  • Is her husband the other perspective (yes, no, maybe???)
  • Are the characters like Moby real, or are they ghosts? (I don’t know, I give up!)

I don’t particularly enjoy not knowing exactly what’s happening, and to me, it felt like I was in a frequent state of confusion. Indeed, reading it was like experiencing vertigo, it was like I was at a consistent loss of balance–of understanding the stories I was being presented with. However, something that I did really like was the mirrored moments. To me, it showed in a sense, how time was changing the characters. For example, in the beginning the woman’s (or Owen’s?) legs are strong and slim (8) and then later they are like “two elephants’ trunks” (121). Also, the manner with which the notes written by the woman somehow transition into a real, experience as narrated through Owen’s perspective was very interesting to me. For example, the part where the notes taken by the woman about Owen are then later translated are so interesting. On page 40, she talks about how Owen would weigh himself in the subway because of his belief that he is integrating. Then, this is confirmed on page 69 when he talks about how he weighs himself, believing that he was disappearing slowly. Beyond this however, was just the utter feeling of confusion because of the sense that time was not an actual constraint here. She was just fluidly moving through time, with a focus on the characters.

My favorite part of the book (the part that I actually understood most), was the end of the book following the earthquake. The two were experiencing such different things and somehow their experiences were overlapping. For example, the mother, the son, and the baby hid under the table; and simultaneously, Owen laid on the table and knew that there were three cats below him. It kind of reminds me of the movie everything everywhere all at once

To me, this leads me to asking the question: are we in the present, the past, the future, or are we just experiencing these things all at once?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet