Pg 45 -"You're all against me..."

"You're all against me, the hand of every man is against me, and he began to moan and cry."

This is the response of the girl's father when her mother tells him to quit hitting her son. I thought that this was interesting because of the way the sentence is constructed - there can be another meaning interpreted from it than just the context of which it is is.

First, it is ironic because throughout the book the father is portrayed as this failed being and it is evident that the narrator does not think highly of her father. It is also clear that the narrator thinks highly of her mother and that he mother also does not think highly of her husband. Yet, the husband is blaming the entire family for his failure. This sentance could also be a reflection of the narrators views of man - that they blame the rest of the world for their failures.

This sentence also suggests that "every man" which can be taken as society as a whole is against the father - or a male figure. This is interesting because it seems that this book could be going in the direction of a femanist type plot where the narrator may end up in fact being quite unreliable. Or the rest of the book could be a tale of the tragedy of women during the era - the ending is not known yet. However, up to this point in the reading it seems that the women in this book - at least as portrayed by the narrator - have much power even though they claim not too. There is also an interesting plot between "the man" or authority and "the man" as in the men of the society and even between the men of society.

aristotle's poetics...

One quote that really made me think is from a man named J.C. Watts who said, "Everyone tries to define this thing called Character. It's not hard. Character is doing what's right when nobody's looking." I think people try to hard to think about what good or bad character actually is. its not about doing good things for people or even doing something bad which would be bad character. it's plainly simple; Character is doing what is the right thing to do when no one is around to see you do it. it's the self-satisfaction that you get out of doing something good that you know is the right thing to do.

1) one passage i found is on page 5 where it says, "In respect of character there are four things to be aimed at. First, and most important, it must be good. this is true in the sense that character is a good thing if your doing it yourself and you know no one is there to see it but you know you are doing the right thing anyway.

2) page 6, "in general, the impossible must be justified by reference to artistic requirements, or to the higher reality, or to received opinion." having good character is not impossible or not as hard as people think. character is actually a very simple thing. everyone may have their own opinion that they are entitled to. but character is one of the most important things to have in a higher reality.

Posting Assignment #2 (due Sunday 9/20, 11:59 P.M.)

"Ariphrades ridiculed the tragedians for using phrases no one would employ in ordinary speech [...]. It is precisely because such phrases are not part of the current idiom that they give distinction to the style."
--Aristotle, Poetics

"I could write a novel about the children of the barrios along the river Rímac; but only photography, and no other language, could express the pain of that child's eyes, of those tears mixed with blood."
--Augusto Boal, Theatre of the Oppressed

In other words, language matters. Words and phrases and sentences are not mere vehicles for ideas: depending on how things are worded, they can take on completely different meanings. Meridel Le Sueur was very aware of this. The Girl, as you may have noticed, makes very intentional use of language in conveying characterization, plot, tone, and social/political issues to the reader.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT is to (1) choose ONE SENTENCE from Chapters 1-19 of The Girl, in which you find a strong connection between the language being used (word choice, sentence structure, figurative language, etc.) and the content you think Le Sueur is trying to communicate to the reader, and (2) post a CLOSE READING of that sentence, 300-400 words in length (as usual), in which you analyze it and demonstrate how Le Sueur uses language to put her thoughts, issues, and arguments accross to the reader.

Leave no word, phrase, or punctuation mark unturned! I encourage you to think about the terms and concepts we've introduced in class, and how they might help your analysis. And let's aim for a range of quotes from a range of places throughout the first half of the book -- it'll help us do a better analysis in class next week.

As usual, feel free to get in touch with any questions or issues.

Meaning of Life

One piece of text that particularly makes me think, is an excerpt from Lev Yilmaz's book, Sunny Side Down. This excerpt, titled "Meaning of Life", describes the author's view of what life truly is through short sentences that describe the path of what seems to be a typical human being. For example, the first few lines are as follows, "Be born. Go to school. Do well. Graduate. Look for a job. Find a job. Make some money. Make more money. Meet somebody. Go out with somebody. Marry somebody. Make more money" and eventually ends with, "Get kind of fat. Become a grandparent. Finish making money. Retire. Get old. Die."

Although Yilmaz's book is supposed to be humorous in sort of a twisted and depressing sense, it really makes me wonder about my own thoughts about the meaning and purposes of our life. This can relate to Aristotle's "Poetics" because Aristotle states that in a well constructed plot, "The change in fortune should be not from bad to good, but reversely, from good to bad. It should come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty, in a character either such as we have described, or better rather than worse." (pp. 4-5). In this case, it seems as if the people who live a similar life have failed to find some sort of meaningful purpose and choose to focus on making money and leading materialistic lives instead.

This excerpt also makes me think about how people are in control how their lives turn out through their actions. This is similar to what Aristotle believes as he states "Now character determines men's qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or reverse."(pp. 2)

Expressions of Tragic Poetry

The Poet's Dead By M. Lermontov

User Rating: -- /10 (0 votes) - vote - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 E-mail this poem to e friend Send this poem as eCard Add this poem to MyPoemList Print friendly version

The Poet's dead! - a slave to honor - He fell, by rumor slandered, Lead in his breast and thirsting for revenge, Hanging his proud head!... The Poet's soul could not endure Petty insult's disgrace. Against society he rose, Alone, as always...and was slain! Slain!...What use is weeping now, The futile chorus of empty praise Excuses mumbled full of pathos? Fate has pronounced its sentence! Was it not you who spitefully Rebuffed his free, courageous gift And for your own amusement fanned The nearly dying flame? Well now, enjoy yourselves...he couldn't Endure the final torture: Quenched is the marvelous light of genius, Withered is the triumphal wreath.... This poem was written after death of greatest Russian poet A.S. Pushkin, who was famous for his progressive, liberal, and revolutionary views. He died on the duel at age of 37 and was mourned by many intelligent people of his generation. I've found some ideas connecting this poem to the writing of Aristotle: According to Aristotle,(page 3 of "Poetics) for tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action. Lermontov in this poem does a great job describing actions of Pushkin: "the poet's soul could not endure..", "Against society he rose..". Descriptions of these actions perfectly render characteristics of a person, and actions of a poet speak for his character. Also Lermontov compares poet's thirst for revenge with the lead in his breast, which seems like an interesting analogy, or imitation of a subject with the feeling of a poet. As Aristotle would say:"The poet being an imitator, like a painter or any other artist, must of necessity imitate one of three objects - things as they were or are, things as they are said or thought to be, or things as they ought to be." Also, according to Aristotle, in respect of Character there are four things to be aimed at: it must be good, to aim at is propriety/manly valor, character must be true to life,, and consistency. Hero of Lermontov, as we can see can satisfy all the criteria of Aristotle in regards to Character: he is definitely good ("Rebuffed his free, courageous..."), has a manly valor (Against society he rose), true to life, and consistent to his ideals (Lead in his breast and thirsting for revenge, Hanging his proud head..)

Imitation of Fearless Creativity.

My Dad (the architect) wrote me (the art/architecture student) an email this week—here is a small bit of what he said:

“I noticed something this week while working

on a challenging project, and it is this…

whenever fear is present, my abilities are

limited. It is almost as though I need to get to a

point of "I don't give a..." in order to truly allow

myself to produce. Now people have different

ways of arriving at that point, but I believe we all

thrive in an environment that is focused and

fearless. Sometimes to get to that point we just

have to start, and then allow your effort and

gaining of knowledge about the situation to

dissipate the fear..” –Good ol’ Daddy

A few ideas I found when connecting this to Aristotle’s writings were this:

On page 1: Aristotle writes about imitation being implanted from childhood and says, ‘no less universal is the pleasure felt in things imitated.’ The way that I interpreted this to connect with my excerpt was that I found what my Dad was saying as reflective of my life. I could relate completely to the fact that when I get flustered and fearful of what people will think about my art and whether it will turn out as I envisioned it-- my creativity begins to all go down hill—but, when I relax, things fall into place. Therefore there is a pleasure in seeing imitation between humankind—one individual relating to another’s struggle and how it can be worked out.

This brings me to my second thought and that is from page 3- “..that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen—what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.’ HiHHhifsdf My Dad’s words spoke about the probability of creative flow when I began to relax and move away from fear. He was not stating an actual fact that was taking place he was speaking of what could happen when fear was let go.

Losing Control

I just recently heard the story of a comedian that had come to my church. He told us that he was a good kid and did the right things and lived what seemed to be a good life. Then things went wrong by age 21 he had a massive stroke which crippled his legs and for a couple years. He was at a loss he had no control over what was happening in his life. I think that sometimes we forget how much control over life we do not have and how fragile life and health are. He however didn't sit in pity for himself he believed that he would get through it and his resolve came from a higher purpose. He survived through his faith. Through this tragedy something bigger happened it caused this man(Joey) to build more character and be thankful for the important things in life.

In life their are unexplainable tragedies that happen and as Aristotle says on page 2 "The tragedies of modern poets fail in the rendering of character; and of poets in general is often true." He also says "For tragedy is an imitation not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality. Now character determines men's qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or the reverse." What I got from this is that tragedies are unavoidable but it is how we deal with them that defines character of a man or woman. The actions we take in response to a tragedy can either make or break who we are and who we can be. Do you accept that you have no control over tragedies, take control of your own behaviors and learn? I don't want to seem heartless, there is a time for grieving but there is a time to learn, grow and move on.

Nightmare in the Jungle

In a recent Marie Claire, September 2009 issue, they had a story covering the abduction of Clara Rojas, who was taking in the middle of the day and was held prisoner for six years in a Colombian jungle. During this time, Rojas had gotten pregnant but had her baby boy taken away from her when he was just eight months old. This article talks about her time in the jungle and how she is doing with her life back in order today. The FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia) did absolutely barbaric and brutally disgusting things to these prisoners during their captivity, that I honestly wonder why there is not more people trying to help save the prisoners that are still being held against their will. The FARC kidnaps "high-profile" citizens to use as "bargaining chips" to get things in exchange from the Colombian government. Rojas tells reporter Catherine Castro about some of the tragic happenings that went on during her six years in captivity and how she came out still such a strong role model.

After reading Aristotle's Poetics and the article on Nightmare in the Jungle, I saw things that I normally would have not seen had I just read it like a normal, every day article. Aristotle points out that "Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude..." (Poetics, pg. 2). This article is composed of both a tragedy and a success. However, when focusing on the "tragedy" part of this story, Aristotle has it exactly correct. This specific tragedy was and still is an extremely serious matter, that the FARC are completing with an enormous magnitude. This so-called "imitation" is being deliverd with a precise degree that is both being actually successful and a failure. Aristotle also shows that "Character is that which reveals moral purpose, showing what kind of things a man chooses or avoids" (Poetics, pg. 3). In this article, it is clear that Clara Rojas never dismisses her morals and shows what kind of true character she is in this particular real life story by choosing to take care of herself through out her kidnapping and keep her head high with believing that she will come out alive and once again see her baby boy. This article and the article from Aristotle showed me that there are certain things that make something so in depth and discrete to look for and acknowledge when reading and listening to stories.

"It Came from Wasilla" - The response...

The September, 2009, issue of Vanity Fair featured a lengthy article about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin which, not unexpectedly, painted her national election campaign for Vice President, her personal life, and her Gubernatorial exertions in a light that might be called unfavorable by a lefty such as myself; the same article might be called slanderous, or, possibly libelous by Governor Palin - depending on what the truth really is. The October, 2009, issue published some of the letters to the editor in response to Todd Purdum's article, one in particular disturbed me:

"I didn't even like Sarah Palin that much, but after reading Todd S. Purdum's article I'm crazy about her. I've never come across anything so vicious and cruel, sarcastic and unsupported."

Ronda Pullen, Dallas, Texas

In "Poetics" Aristotle states "Tragedy, then is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgatioon of these emotions." (2) While the play and the tragedy which has been the story of Sarah Palin is not yet completed, the striking part of the entire process, for me, has been watching this person slowly hang her career out to dry. Not in many years have the American people seen a person with a bright future turned into the laughable and decimated skeleton of a future which now remains.

"The plot , then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy..." (2). While nobody can predict the end of this tragedy, Sarah Palin is finished as a political force. Except in the same vein as a Rush Limbaugh, appealing to and offering advice to rabid and unteachable supporters of the extreme right, Sarah Palin is a tragic figure that is Oedipal scope and magnitude. The plot, however, still unfolds. The discursive practices of our political debate fascinate me in the same way coming alongside a major car accident does: I know there is suffering and tragedy present, but I just can't look away. I listen, I read, I watch, I am attracted and repelled in almost equal measure (favoring repulsion, slightly).

One may suppose that I feel some sympathy for Palin from the framing of my words, but nothing could be further from the truth; I am more than happy to see this politician removed from the world stage, if only temporarily; it is in the nature of the fall where I find myself feeling some sadness. The national stage in the United States is unforgiving, this is not unknown to anyone who has aspirations for national office, but there is a spitefulness and a cruelty that has been applied to Governor Palin's bid. This candidate was set out in the desert tied to a stake and left to dry out. Even her running mate could not distance himself from her quickly enough, once he found out that she could not debate, interview, or even speak coherently about any national or international policy. I do not feel sorry for Senator McCain or his staff - they had their chance; but just as I would not hesitate to walk up to a horse with a broken leg, draw my sidearm and shoot the horse, to end its suffering, so would I have liked to have seen the Palin horse put out of its misery; compassion is what we lack in politics today.

Ideological polarization and ad hominem rhetoric have become the rule. Tragedies like those seen in the rise and fall of Governor Palin are sad to see, but I am much more disturbed by the letter sent to Vanity Fair, has a new supporter of Palin been created by this article? How many more might have been created?

Overhearing Obama

This week, while I was finishing my accounting homework at the table in my apartment, I was eavesdropping on my roommates as they listened to Obama's Healthcare Reform Speech on Wednesday after our first session. While I am not a hardcore political activist, like all three of my roommates are, it moved me to hear them all so passionate about one subject: the fact that all of them want universal healthcare. While this is a very controversial topic, they all had different reasons for backing up the same opinion. It made me realize that while I might not want to have incredibly strong opinions on any given subject, I should at least be able to converse with my roommates on something so important to them. They could have sat talking for hours, if homework and life had not stopped them. And overhearing there debates and discussions, I realized that I wanted to participate, even if it was for the smallest side comment. I wanted to have a small snippet of information that I could offer the conversation.

One of the passages that made me think about how this conversation impacted me was stated that "the objects of imitation are men in action." This directly correlates to my desire to be one of my roommates: to imitate them and be a "man of action," or in my case, be of some use to their conversation and reaction to Obama's Healthcare Plan. Because of my eavesdropping and consequential motivation to know more about this one subject, maybe I am on my way to becoming a man of action. Hopefully, this feeling to participate will not abate in the near future, and help me on my way to learn something useful to say in the next apartment discussion.

A incredibly more relevant passage to my eavsedropping is the one that simply states that thought is "the faculty of what is possible and pertinent in given situations." I wanted to be able to comment and question and listen and reflect and be a "pertinent" part of their conversation. I was heald back not only by need to finish my accounting, but by my lack of useful information that pertained to the subject. My thoughts were unable to convey any sort of thinking that was useable to the conversation I wanted to join.

Though the converstation may have been brief, and I may have only halfheartily been paying attention to what my friends and apartment mates were saying, it obviously made enough of an impact for me to reflect on it here. And hopefully, as I pointed out above, in the near future I will be able to say something of consequence the next time I have the urge to participate.

Obama shrugs off political 'circus' over healthcare

The article that I read can be found at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-obama-60minutes14-2009sep14,0,7413399.story

This article describes the issues that have come up concerning the contriversial debate of healthcare reform. In particular it addresses the heated and not always productive debates that have occured.

I think that there are a couple of points from Aristotle's "Poetics" that relate to this article and why it made an impression on me. First is the idea that Aristotle brings up about Recognition (pg. 4 "Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from ignorance to knowledge..."). In this article, Senator Wilson made a heated comment but then later realized what he did was not called for. I think that in making that heated comment and being forced to face his own immaturity, Senator Wilson was brought to recognize that his actions were innappropriate.

I think that the event that this article talks about could also be seen as a Scene of Suffering as Aristotle talks about. At the apex of this event when the Senator Shouts at the president, it is obvious that both parties are frusterated that such a serious debate is getting nowhere.

Nixon

http://watergate.info/nixon/checkers-speech.shtml

Nixon's "Checkers" speech is one speech that has always moved me. I was required to read it last year for english, but it meant so much more to me than just an assignment. Nixon appealed to people by relating to them. In case you do not know, this speech was when Nixon was to be impeached for stealing money from the government, but was declaring his defense. Through his defense he did not call out or make the audience liars, just proved himself worthy by audits proving his expenditures and by sharing his entire financial record to the country. Aristotle says that in order to express character that "It must be good. Now any speech or action that manifests moral purpose ... will be expressive as character" (5). By declaring his own debt to the nation, Nixon was relating with people, which is moral purpose. It is also said by Aristotle that consistency is key. By defending himself against the nation and selling out the people whom blamed him, he proved to be "consistently inconsistent" (5). Now my main point: At the end of the speech, Nixon reads aloud a letter from a 19 year old woman living on her own with her baby her husband was serving in the war. She sent 10 dollars to him to help with his campaign, and that she had all the faith in him. By reading this aloud, he brought attention to the audience what truly mattered to the country, the troops fighting in the war and how he will help keep the U.S. focused on the correct affairs. By doing this, the nation went all in support for him with over a million people calling his office to tell him to keep campaigning. I believe this entire speech with this ending is an example of Aristotle's expression of "Thought." "Thought, on the other hand, is found where something is proved to be or not to be" (3). Nixon proved himself not guilty as well as worthy to be the next president of the United States.

42

I was reading parts of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy again. The tome in question is not exactly short and I've ploughed my way through it a few times already but this time I was hunting for a specific part of the story with very little luck. The main character Arthur Dent is thrown into a number of ridiculous events after earth is demolished to make way for an intergalactic expressway.

In one part of the book which I failed to find, Arthur makes his way to a distant planet in search of some direction in his life. After some treacherous travels he arrives at a filthy cave. Supposedly the universe's greatest life coach lives there and Arthur is in desperate need of some coaching. A hideously disfigured and very smelly character appears pushing out a solar operated xerox. The life coach makes a copy of his biography and hands it over. He explains that the biography outlines every major event and decision he ever made which led to life in said filthy cave. He suggests that Arthur looks long and hard at all the choices the life coach made and when in a similar situation do the opposite.

The entire book has been a source of much enjoyment over the years and I'm sure Aristotle would agree for many reasons. Most of the characters in Adams' book are neither good nor evil in any of their archetypal forms. A better description would be antiheroes. On page 4 of poetics Aristotle claims the perfect tragedy should [...]excite pity and fear. [...P]ity is aroused by unmerited misfortune. The effect is greater if we can associate with the character and the misfortune is brought through some personal error or frailty.

Aristotle calls all art forms an imitation of nature and that which is known to man. On page one he explains why people enjoy such likenesses. It gives the beholder an opportunity to find themselves learning and inferring. Even when the original is not known from nature there is much to learn from such imitations, which is where the Hitchhikers Guide shines. I don't know any aliens who habitually travel with little more than a towel, and yet reading Adams' tale I learned much about myself and in some instances was subjected to a different view of things that turned out to be highly applicable in everyday run-ins with my co-humans.

On page six Aristotle reminds us that the greatest thing by far is to have command of metaphor. Adams has that command and yields it like a flamingo would be yielded in croquet. When describing giant planetary bulldosers, Adams paints us his nature defying image saying they hung in the sky the way bricks don't. As Aristotle reminds us, With respect to the requirements of art, a probable impossibility is to be preferred to a thing improbable and yet possible.

Hannah Mayer

Excerpts from: Hatch’s Order of Magnitude: Methodical Rankings of the Commonplace and the Incredible for Daily Reference, by a Man of Extraordinary Genius and Impeccable Taste, by Michael Hatch.

Introvertedness to Extrovertedness:

1. Mute

2. Introverted

3. Quiet

4. Average

5. Open

6. Friendly

7. Outgoing

8. Gregarious

9. Life of the party

10. Raving lunatic

Intelligence:

1. Somatic death

2. Vegetable

3. Slow learner

4. Feeble-minded

5. Obtuse

6. Average

7. Astute

8. Perceptive

9. Bright

10. Gifted

11. Genius

12. Prodigy

Pleasure to Pain:

1. Orgasm

2. Euphoria

3. Bliss

4. Pleasurable touch

5. Comfort

6. Numbness

7. Discomfort

8. Irritation

9. Pain

10. Torment

11. Agony

Times to Eat:

1. Farm breakfast

2. Breakfast

3. Second breakfast

4. Brunch

5. Elevens

6. Tiffin

7. Lunch

8. Afternoon snack

9. Tea

10. Sundowner

11. Dinner

12. Supper

13. Late dinner

14. Dessert

15. Late-night snack

16. Midnight snack

17. Dead-of-night bite

This text made me feel a number of emotions. First and most powerfully, I felt humor. The author’s use of odd and clever words made me laugh out loud a number of times. I also felt a bit inferior because there were so many words I did not recognize and had to look up online. The text not only made me feel different emotions, but it made me think. I wondered how the author decided the order in which he put the words and what standards he used to compare with.

The text was so effective making me think and feel because it followed some of the guidelines laid out by Aristotle in “Poetics.” First of all, on page 3, Aristotle stressed the importance of a plot, and that plot should have a beginning, middle and end. Hatch (the author of the text above) uses this in each of his “poems” (comparisons/lists). He starts at the beginning with one concept and works towards the end where the concept changes (either to the opposite meaning, or on a scale from weak to strong). The middle of his poems is the transition period, where the difference between the first concept and the last are neutral.

Also under the category of plot, Aristotle says (on page 4) that “Reversal of the Situation is a change by which the action veers round to its opposite.” Hatch uses this model of reversal in every one of his poems. He starts with one idea (such as “stupid” or “pleasure”), and by the end of the poem he has made his way around the opposite idea (“smart” or “pain”).

Another important part of a poem or tragedy that Aristotle stresses is the character. He states that the character must be true to life (page 5). Hatch uses this suggestion in each of his poems, and that is why they are so funny to me; because everything is true!