Thursday, April 22, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The other thing I've been wondering and really trying to work out in my head, is why exactly does Lily not play her trump card and expose Bertha for who she really is. This makes absolutely no sense. All Lily really wants is to be part of high society, yet she seems to want to do it in a quasi honest way. Whereas everyone else around her doesn't care how they get their status, just as long as they get it. Again, this only adds to the frustration that is Lily. She never reaches her potential as a character and to me this is perplexing, Wharton alomst teases us with this character and this book.
As I get my closure with this book, I understand where this book stands within the canon.
Good book, but very limiting when in characters develope....or don't.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
I thought Greed was going to do a really good job of making a book come to life, but I was let down. Overall, the movie didn't do the book justice and it's unfortunate because it could be something really special, especially if the intensity of the book spilled over to the movie.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Last week I posted on Joaquin Murieta although I hadn't finished it. Being done, it didn't live up to what I wanted it to be. He wasn't a Robin Hood figure at all much less a hero. He was a self serving bandit who did things to benefit himself. There was no order to how he operated and worse he didn't really have a greater calling and if he did it was that he didn't like white people.
As I was listening to the groups talk about their questions I felt there was a common theme that ran through all the groups and that's the idea that as much as we want to try and sensationalize Murieta as a hero we can't simply because he isn't. In my group we brought up the point that Ridge liked the idea of a Robin Hood like figure but failed to deliver on that idea. Maybe I missed this in class or the readings but how accurate is this story? It seems that we have run into a bit of a problem with the separation of historical recollection and telling a good story. Thus, as much as Ridge would like to make Murieta the modern Robin Hood he can't in the name of historical accuracy.
What I'm really identifying is a bigger question/problem in literature and thats where is the line, or is there a line, between fact and fiction? In most of my English classes we tackle this problem at one point or another and Joaqin Murieta is a good example of this. How would we classify this text? It is my belief that this is a work of fiction and doesn't really educate the audience on who this man was. Wouldn't it be more effective to chose between a biography of Murieta or a story based on "true events"? We still can't escape the overarching problem of removing the authors bias, but it would set the stage in a more clean and precise manner. Ultimately I took away that this book, like many others, falls in the grey area of literature that doesn't allow for real in depth analysis simply because everything we analyze is the authors point of view rather than the things Murieta did. I often ask this question when I am reading something and I can't seem to work through that problem. To me, this is a fundamental flaw in our field. Literature is a subjective medium that doesn't allow itself to be truly analyzed in the sense of historical accuracy because all we really analyze is that which the author feels worth documenting. I may be completely wrong but there does seem to be a disconnect between fact and the authors motivation to put pen to paper.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
I’m not the biggest fan of romance novels and I’m not very well versed in the likes of Hawthorne. With that said I was rather disappointed by this novel and found it very hard to get engaged in the text. But, as I read on and made progress through the long winded descriptions I noticed and undeniable tension that persists through all of the characters. Tensions between Coverdale, Hollingsworth, Zenobia and Priscilla that at first glance are seemingly healthy and a natural progression through development of each character but as we move on the tensions grow into something more, something more complex than emotional strain between all of the moving parts of this book. Coverdale is the problem with the entire book, we only see things the way he wants us to see them. We are only allowed to see what Coverdale thinks is of importance and because of this our view of each character is affected. I have a problem with this because it limits our ability to look at the texts objectively. By only seeing the characters through the eyes of Coverdale and his very unique look not only on the world but his place in it, the book starts to become this twisted tale of one’s personal life view. By essentially taking everyone’s problems and making them of his concern he starts to see people as objects that fit into his life. Hawthorne uses a very interesting ploy to allow Coverdale to act this way by claiming that he is an artist. But an artist only has so much room to say the things they want to say and play them off as art or say some cliché like art imitates life. Coverdale is a sad soul whom Hawthorne wants us to pity, which we do to some extent.