Concepts of Time in Novels: We are All Connected

Time is one of the main themes of Bharati Mukherjee’s Holder of the World. The ping-pong/meshing of two different times in the novel, one in the early 1990s and the other in late 1600s-early 1700s is something that I find very arresting and makes for a more compelling read. Time and history is Beigh Masters’ life work, and she is connected to Hannah Easton, Salem Bibi, even though they live(d) in completely separate times. But are their times really that separate? It relates back to what Venn is trying to achieve with his machine: “he won’t call it time-travel. Neither we, nor time, will have traveled an inch.” It seems as though Mukherjee is demystifying the idea that time is a continuous line, with its events separate--they happen and are done. We are affected and influenced by history and, in turn, affect and influence history ourselves. It pertains to the trippy idea that time is really not a constant line but that it is all at once. I guess this would relate to spaces that we talked about as well. Mukherjee is not the first author I have read to bring up aspects of time like this. As an example, one of my all-time favorite books (a series actually) is Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. I should mention, this is not the Outlander that was apparently a viking vs. aliens movie, which I was informed of awhile ago.

These books are honestly spellbinding—mix of history, romance, adventure, time travel—they are great. So, if you’re looking for summer reading…and a 7th one is coming out this Sept. I heard. But anyways! If you plan to read any of the books just take my word for it that it is relevant to what I was talking about before with history/time, and don’t read the next part of my blog because I am going to spoil a few things.

Super long story short: Claire is a nurse after WWII, just got married and is in Scotland where she goes through standing stones which send her back in time to the 1700s where she falls in love with and marries Jamie Fraser, a big rugged highlander. Trust me, it’s completely believable in the book! She knows about rebellions and Stuart's war that are going to happen and tries to change history and all that but then….she finds out she is pregnant with Jamie’s baby and goes back to the 20th century and has the baby there, where time passed normally as it did in the past (3 years I think). Throughout the books, she and her daughter travel back in time multiple times, once ending up in the present earlier than when they had left. Especially great part: the creepy lady who is getting hung for being a witch tells Claire a number (1-9-6-3) and shows Claire a small pox vaccination scar on her arm right before she dies.

These ideas of history and time bring up an awareness of how we all have the power to influence each others’ spaces in both positive and negative ways. I feel like this is an important thing that I have gotten from the class.

Needed: A Dose of Professionalism

So I’m pretty aware that most love jumping on the Rachel Maddow bandwagon, yee-hawing all the way about anything poking fun at conservatives. So, it must have just been a treat getting wind of what those crazy people were up to now. The show gave us the whole scoop, and it was a grand ol’ time, full of condescending hilarity! But I’m not really sure why it’s all so hilarious—especially when the segment we watched in class was inarguably biased and completely un-professional. I really appreciated the on-camera smirks/not-so-subtle snickering as the two contributors could barely get out the phrase “tea-bagging” (apparently for its sexual connotations?) Not that the political sway of her show is any secret, but her contributor was an absolute joke, slinging insults and bemused expressions left and right. Did any left-leaners who watched this clip take any of this into consideration? And why exactly was this particular clip shown? Was it to simply inform us of current events? If so, it seems like a horrible choice of something to be taken at face-value. Was it to show an example of a tactic? Then there should have been discussion or explanation following it.

Even if one considers the aspect of tea parties to be unproductive, what can be so funny about the overall goals/strategy? From what I have seen, it appears as if the goals are about being involved and making law-makers aware of people’s feelings on taxes and big-government. This doesn’t seem ludicrous to me in the least. Their tactic was to hold rallies, or “tea parties,” and even to send tea bags in the mail to officials. Why is it so funny that concerned people are exercising their right to “protest”? Apparently only certain group’s protests are taken seriously. Luckily, I’m sure Maddow will continue to inform us of the worthiness of similar future activism. Whew.

Another tactic of the organizers was refusing RNC Chair Michael Steele’s request to speak at a rally. A possible reason for this is something Maddow and her contributor not-so-surprisingly did not mention (must have been too busy trying to make it through the darn segment without falling over from giggles or conspiratory looks—I give them credit for a valiant effort), was that this tactic was because the tea party organizers are trying to have a more united base—without any political party backing it. Especially with the current economic rut, why is it laughable to want to be active and to try to do something that could be effective for everyone?

So long story short, Maddow is not alone when she writes off the tea parties as being ridiculous tactics, but I would beg to differ.

P.S.
Today, some students on campus went shoeless (except in Gorecki, thank God). If their overall strategy was to raise awareness for those who live without shoes, I say this was a successful tactic. However, if they were attempting to live in solidarity with the shoe-less poor, I don’t think it can really be that successful, since they will be wearing shoes tomorrow…

Harvey Milk & Spaces

Last Wednesday, I went to JEC/Prism’s showing of Milk, starring Sean Penn. I thought it was an awesome movie, and I very highly recommend it—very inspirational and thought-provoking (also, extra bonus: it confirms that James Franco still looks completely beautiful even with a mustache). It follows the last eight years of the life of Harvey Milk, America’s first openly gay man to be voted into public office. Trailer:

Space seems to play a large role in this film. At the beginning, Milk turns 40 and decides to move from NY to San Francisco with his lover (James Franco). He needs new space—he knows his life should have more of a purpose. They move into the Castro district, a supposed haven for the incoming gay population, and he starts up a camera store business. A homosexual man owning his own business space just cannot be tolerated by some of the other businesses, who outwardly express their prejudice and refuse to let Harvey be a part of a committee of neighborhood businesses. This space became the headquarters for many of the later political plans and activism.
Jane Juffer, in her section on Space, writes about single mothers pooling their resources and working together to create a safe environment for their children. In this same way, Milk mobilized the gay community to act together to create an accepting environment. He and his supporters worked for each vote when he ran, not only reaching out to homosexuals, but everyone, such as the elderly and union workers. He knew the importance of all, and encouraged every gay person to come out of the closet, telling them that if people were only aware that they knew a gay person, they would be willing to vote. He was successful on his fourth attempt, and was elected to the Board of Supervisors.

Milk also was not afraid of unknown or unwelcoming spaces. In fact, he embraced them. While his opponent avoided public debates, Milk suggested having one in Orange County, where he had virtually no supporters. Proposition 6 was at stake, a referendum that would fire all gay teachers and their supporters. Harvey Milk was most interested in creating a space that everyone could equally be a part of.

Speech excerpt:

Trading Mom

So I am super-ly excited that I just found a trailer for the movie I had thought of in class. It's called "Trading Mom" and is based all around a family of three kids and their single mom. Ah, the great movies of my childhood.

A Few Film Single Moms

Most all mainstream popular movies have a man and a woman together at the end. I don’t think the majority of these have a huge amount of substance, or are the ones winning Academy Awards, but they seem to be the ones that a lot of people want to see. I could list tons of movies off the top of my head that end with the long-anticipated final kiss as the camera circles and zooms farther and farther out.

Anyways, coming back to that, my single-mom-portrayal for class tomorrow is the movie Mamma Mia. FYI, catchy songs and everything, but I didn’t love it. The single mom in this movie, Donna, played by Meryl Streep, is running her own inn on a Greek paradise island. Unfortunately, the place is falling apart. We hear about all of her worries and stress about her business in the song “Money Money Money,” in which she laments not having a wealthy man. (Who doesn’t love ABBA?!) (Here it is with the lyrics if you are interested.) But still, she’s shown as a pretty capable (walks around with a toolbelt at one point) wacky free-flying single mom. She fits Jane Juffer’s “single moms are hot” comment with her long bleach blonde hair and tight overalls (and she’s definitely over 50—more power to her). Her daughter, who is getting married, secretly sends letters to her 3 possible fathers, inviting them to the wedding. Donna is tired out, says she is lacking in the sexual gratification area, (Juffer cites that sex is seen as an “impediment which should be cleared for the single mom to function as a better mom”) and it takes the arrival of the 3 men and her two completely insane middle-aged bff’s to snap her out of it and remind her that she’s still a “Dancing Queen.” This movie is of course just about as frothy as you can get, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. She winds up with Pierce Brosnan who should never sing again in public in his life. Apparently they will be able to pick up right where they left off as teenagers and they conveniently get married right then and there in place of her daughter.

Thinking about this made me try and come up with a movie about a woman, let alone a single mom, who doesn’t have to end up with a man in the end. And then I remembered Waitress, starring Keri Russell. Her character is pregnant by her chauvinist, controlling husband Earl, and is not originally enthusiastic about the thought of the baby. She has an affair with her doctor, but refreshingly ends up without a man. The final scene shows her and her daughter walking hand in hand.

Attempt: Deconstruction

So I feel like I can understand Deconstruction at some points when we are talking about it in class but when I start thinking about trying to apply it myself, I have a much harder time. I’m just going to attempt to talk through it.

I consider myself to be affiliated with the “Pro-Life” group as opposed to the “Pro-Choice” group. I am well aware of the hypocrisies and ideologies found in this political stance, and I’m also well aware that a bunch of you reading this will disagree with some things I say so feel free. Many persons who profess themselves to be Pro-Life speak out loudly about abortion, making it the main focus, but then don’t have a thing to say about capital punishment. I started especially noticing the chasm between abortion and capital punishment after watching the movie “Dead Man Walking” with Sean Penn in high school.
It seems like even though you are dealing with completely helpless infants in one case, and completely guilty (supposedly) adults in other cases, that the stance to respect life should be unconditional for all life—who are we to pick and choose who gets a right to life? This is most likely where their problem comes in, otherwise more people would affiliate themselves with a group that emphasizes the importance of all life (nothing wrong with that); I can’t imagine that anyone considers themselves “Pro-Abortion.” Like J.Lo and her credibility at representing the Bronx—maybe they are just protesting (literally, ha!) too much to make up for some sort of lack. Many “Pro-Lifers” outside the abortion clinics often are not the same people you see protesting at the Capitol against war. But in war, not only are women and men from our own country killed, but what about civilians? I re-found this article by Jack Hunter that I had read kind of recently. A line had stuck out to me: "It's a Child Not a Choice"? How about "It's a Kid Not Collateral Damage"?


In order to deconstruct this we can make a binary opposition. However as I’m trying to write this list, it is getting more complicated because depending on how you feel on the issue, your binary oppositions would look different. So hm maybe this wasn’t the best issue to pick.

One person might say this:
Pro-Life—Not Pro-Life
Life—Death
Natural/God—Artificial
Birth—Death
Save—Kill
Human--Government

Another person might say this:
Pro-Life—Not Pro-Life
Death—Life
Misogynist—Feminist (*I think this one is absurd *)
Conservative—Liberal
Government—Human
Punish—Forgive

Maybe though, as Derrida pointed out when he talked about animals, labeling and categorizing ourselves is a violent act. We like to categorize ourselves constantly: I’m a student/ boy/ Democrat/ conservative/ Catholic…perhaps this is a big part of the problem with our politics not being able to see eye-to-eye. We have already placed too much on the label.

Help would be appreciated here—I’m not sure I got to the actually deconstructing part!

Metonymy

When you buy a Louis Vuitton bag for $4000 (I actually found one right away for $4,360 on their site by typing in "bag" in the search engine), what is occurring? What appears to be happening is that you just have to have that bag, but there is really something else going on: a displacement is demonstrated, a metonymy, because buying that bag is a reassurance of status.

In class, it was brought up that Jacques Lacan, in his “The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious” points to the idea that we are terrified that we are nothing. We are insecure and looking for assurance that we are worth something, or even worth more than everyone else. It would seem like this fear results in much of our displacement, and money demonstrates displacement in this is a pretty visible way, as with “Silk Stockings” and with the Louis Vuitton bag. It could be the fundamental reason for gluttonous consumption, and the complete saturation of our society with logos and brands that we had discussed before.

I’m still not entirely sure I know what’s going on with metonymy vs. metaphor, so I would appreciate comments letting me know if I’m on the wrong track. Thinking back to a lot of books I’ve read, it seems the displacement associated with metonymy shows up a lot. In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby uses his riches to fashion an elite lifestyle when what he wants is Daisy, who is put up on a pedestal in his mind; in Dubliners, a father abuses his small son because he gets belittled at work; even in Bridget Jones’ Diary, Bridget smokes, drinks, and eats away her body image woes and her depression of being a single woman.

We just read “Home Sweet Home” by Hannah Tinti for Creative Writing Class. I loved this short story and recommend reading it, she apparently has a book called Animal Crackers of short stories, which I saw we have at the CSB lib. Anyways, I thought that it possibly was another example of metonymy but I’ll try not to spoil too much. It begins with the line, “Pat and Clyde were murdered on pot roast night,” which is fantastic, don’t you think? It turns out that Pat and Mr. Mitchell, the neighbor, had a raunchy affair going on. Mr. Mitchell’s wife is portrayed as being a pretty saintly woman, and Mr. Mitchell is constantly worrying that she will leave him because she is too good for him, and eventually he grows to actually hate her for it. The metonymy might be present because he displaces his feelings of powerlessness and insecurity by having sex with the next door neighbor in increasingly public places like parks and movie theaters, and even on a welcome mat that says, “Home Sweet Home.”

American Flag

Well I have to just start out by saying that just finished a paper for my history class (I'm T.G.I.F'ing already). We had to watch an historical movie from a list and then write a very open-ended paper critiquing its historical accuracy. I chose The Patriot, because, well, Heath Ledger is in it, and I thought it was pretty good but the whole point of me telling this is that I wrote my essay on demystifying the our ideologies of the American Revolution!

Anyways though, that movie has a symbol in the glorious end battle scene. Mel Gibson epically rides in with the tattered American flag his son had been stitching back together. He waves it, urging those running away to go back and fight. In this case, the flag represented all of the idealisms that were fought for during the Revolution. Freedom, independence, liberty, etc. The fact that he is now waving this flag loaded with meaning shows how much his character changed since the beginning of the film. He had declined to vote for the war, only getting involved out of obligation, and his motivations were juxtaposed with his sons’ idealistic ones. Now he has taken on those same ideals and has discovered that they are worth fighting for.

The flag has a referent that evokes strong sentiments in many people at the sight of it. The signifier “American flag” is connected to the different meanings people associate with it. Some, like my grandpas, both WWII veterans look at the flag as something to respect and honor. They see it as a symbol of all of the ideals which men and women have strived to keep in our country. On the other hand, people in both our country and in others, see the flag as representational of greed, domination, bullying, or oppression. Some hold the flag up as something to be cherished and believe it almost physically embodies its signified, and some burn it in protest or demonstration of their disagreement with the meanings they associate with it. Usually people’s opinions about this subject are strong either way, and this is a great example of how a symbol can say so much more than words.

Ads

A few years ago, my grandma, usually a woman of pretty good taste, bought me a hideous yellow-plaid jacket. She said, “Well it was Tommy Hilfiger,” meaning that the brand and all of the adjectives that presumably went with it—“chic,” “hip,” I don’t’ know, made it a good choice for her teenage granddaughter. I cringe when I see my friends spend so much more money than necessary on a plain white shirt from Hollister just so that they can have the tiny seagull-type bird on the chest. Most of the time these clothes are of terrible quality, with fraying threads and mis-cut seams. I could go on an entire rant about this but I’ll refrain :) Naomi Klein echoes this when she points out how companies have become so much more concerned with ads than they are with the actual product they are churning out. How weird is it that a shirt’s whole style could be about how big the brand name is emblazoned over it?

I think it’s pretty apparent how abundant brands are in our society, and also that they contribute to superficiality. However, I never really thought too much more about brands other than in terms of clothes, writing them off as just attempts to gauge status, such as Gucci. But brands are all over the place, absolutely saturating our lives. Brands in general evoke a whole image. I find it a little disconcerting when I realize, that although I don’t like to admit it, I am very affected by brands. It’s odd because even though the brand name doesn’t necessarily equal quality, we seem to be much more comfortable with things of brand name. I might choose something that is not a brand name, but I’m still often suspicious of it primarily, whereas brand names already have a point in their favor. 30 second ads during the Super Bowl cost something like $3 million a spot, and I heard they were definitely nothing to write home about (not a football fan so I didn’t see any)—even if they were all hilarious, that amount of money on less than a minute is insane...but I guess maybe very smart considering the effect such a widely-seen ad has on the public. So is there really any way to stop the escalation of the importance of brand names? Stop buying anything with a brand? I’m interested to keep reading the rest of Klein’s research to see what see has to say.

So according to Wikipedia, our favorite trusty source, one of the most famous Super Bowl ads ever was this Macintosh one from 1984:

A girl walks by with her Uggs and NorthFace jacket. A guy comes into my history class with a NIN shirt and ripped jeans. A guy in Gorecki has plaid shorts and a Hollister shirt. One of those intriguing people swishes by on Cape Thursday. All of these people are communicating something, whether it is intended or not, or how it is interpreted (which depends on who is doing the interpreting).

I have experienced both extremes of the spectrum of interpretation/reading in classes I have taken. One teacher in high school shunned every original thought that a student would have, dismissing any new possibilities of new ways of looking at a text. He would respond to any new takes, “That’s not what the author meant.” The class eventually grew pretty mutinous, especially while reading Beloved by Toni Morrison, our main argument being, “How do you know what the author was getting at here?” He gave all authoritative power to the author on the surface, but maybe was really giving it to himself, to make us take the meaning exactly how he wanted us to.

On the other end of the spectrum, there seems to be someone with a certain tendency (we’ll call him/her in general Bob), in all of the lit classes I have taken during both high school and college. We’ll be reading a novel, and Jack will raise his hand during discussion and make a random declaration, like “Well it is obvious that this character doesn’t feel the way he says he does, and is really a homosexual but doesn’t realize it yet.” There is usually a confused silence, and the prof, if attempting to be open-minded, asks for textual evidence. And Bob will tell him that it doesn’t specifically say it anywhere, it is just implied. The prof will try to explain that we have to be able to find proof in the text to make such a claim, but Bob will just become more adamant about it.

This would be an example of the control shifting too much to the reader. We, as Barthes’ power-wielding readers, have the ability to create meanings, but as Jeff and Susan point out, not everyone’s opinions are good. I’m still wrapping my head around the idea of the readers making the meanings, but at the same time, the meanings making the readers. Things could get super-ly off kilter if we didn’t ground ourselves in the text--reading isn’t about just reinforcing a personal opinion and adjusting the text to your liking. The words do matter as a way of communicating.

The language and words matter also in everyday conversation. A single word could have a whole array of different significances or connotations. If I mention “Obama” to my friend Ana, she will begin talking about “change” and “unity,” whereas if I mention “Obama” to my grandpa, he’ll start grumbling, or to my friend Marcus, who will throw around the term “Socialist.” If I am in the interpretive community of a GOP convention, my interpretation of Obama will be different than if I am in the interpretive community of the crowd at his inaugural address. Or even if I am analyzing him in a Poli Sci class vs. on the Link.

Side note: talking about words and connotations reminded me of the new Britney Spears song that is so controversial called “If U Seek Amy”--the title is dirty if you say it fast. Have you guys heard about this? I think it’s kind of hilarious. Not that I'm a diehard Britney fan, but if you wanted to listen to it just for fun since I didn't add anything extra to my last blog:

Depersonalization, really?

Hi there,

Well I’m kind of feeling a lot of pressure with this first blog post but I’m sure they will get incredibly phenomenal as I get the hang of writing them.

Besides this Literary Theory class, I have Creative Writing this semester, something that I’ve also never had an experience with before. So at the same time that I’m trying to learn about writing in general, I’m also reading about all of these intimidating-ly philosophical questions, like, “What is an author?” and “What does it mean to write?” My prof in writing mentioned how we should begin thinking like an author, so I find myself doing that, now along with the added layer of new ideas which we talked or read about in Lit Theory. I can just feel my mind attempting to expand, which hopefully will be the result of these classes.

T.S. Eliot compares the author to a catalyst, (I had no idea what that was so I am already learning something useful!) apparently meaning that the author has to be present in order for the elements of feelings and emotions to combine, but the end result is completely separate from the author. This idea of depersonalizing the act of writing is echoed by Roland Barthes when he says, “…writing is the deconstruction of every voice, of every point of origin….[It is] the negative where all identity is lost” (in The Death of the Author).

I’m still trying to decide what I think of these sentiments. I’m trying to keep an open mind here, but how can an author combine her or his feeling and emotions and produce an impersonal piece of work? If ones’ feelings and emotions are the things combining, how can the author not really matter? The idea of acknowledging a piece of art or writing as having merit in itself is admirable and a good point, but this way of looking at things seems to take away the beauty of the act itself of producing the work. It is like saying the words are their own entity, and use the human just as a vessel to fulfill their purpose. (kind of creepy) I can see how when a writer is so engrossed in a piece that the words just seem to flow out of them, but I believe this is because of a talent or ability, maybe a purpose. I thought it was interesting because, as I think Barthes points out, by continuing to write essays on how unimportant the author is, theorists are highlighting their importance by making them the subject matter.

Just a last comment, I thought of the idea of depersonalization in Creative Writing today when we had to read an essay by Annie Dilliard, “To Fashion a Text.” She remarks about one of her books, “So another thing I left out, as far as I could, was myself.” And she is talking about a memoir—which (I was under the impression), is all about yourself! I guess she has the opinion that a certain idea is the focus and not her personally, even in a work of Non-Fiction (although obviously in non-fiction about your experiences, you would use your own personal feelings and emotions.)

This got really long and I am honestly confusing myself, so I’m very sorry group members!