Monday, 25 January 2010
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Information for 'unseen' test on Thursday
Been a while since I've blogged so its redemption time. I'm treating this blog post as a revision aid for the test on Thursday; basically just typing my notes into the form of legible sentences.
The first question we looked at in the elaborate 'symposium' was in reference to modernisn, James Joyce's Ulysses, and how they have no single point of view...
It's pretty clear to me that the literary work of Joyce conveys the complexion of the modernist movement that he himself pioneered. In life, and in the mind of the individual there is no single point of view, but many versions and diverse ways of looking at things. Joyce uses the narrative technique of a 'stream of consciousness' to convey this idea. It creates a de-centred narrative with no single point of view. Through the use of this form of narrative Joyce has broken free from traditional forms of literature, where the structure of beginning - middle - end rule the book. Life is not like this, it contains a vast amount of beginnings, middles, and endings, with many ways of looking at each. There is a clear Freud influence in Joyce's work, just look at the sexual content of Molly Bloom's soliloquy!
The second question was to summarize the work of Freud and his cultural impact...
The first point I think of when looking at Freud's works is his obsession with sex. Freud detailed that all of our actions were revolved around sex, with motivations defined through sexual desires. He noted that many of his patients had sexual hang ups and he stated that this caused mental issues. He viewed that civilisation causes people to suppress their natural urges, which damages the individual. For example, a young child wishes to defecate freely, but society creates rules that this is unacceptable. Also, there is a masturbation taboo, when it is a natural human desire.
Freud's analysis method was to interpret peoples dreams. He said that 'dreams are the royal highway to the sub-conscious'. He stated that in each human mind there was a constant conflict between the conscious and sub-conscious which caused mental distress.
The cultural impact Freud's work has had is huge. His work has been viewed as sexist (he stated that women are hysterical because they have 'penis envy') and thus he has had a great impact of the debate of gender politics. Also the impact of Freud in advertising is highly significant. Companies have used Freud's work as a guide of how to appeal to consumers desires.
The third question we looked at was how the control of language can control behaviour and thought with reference to George Orwell's 1984...
In '1984' Orwell suggests that the control of language by an authoritarian government is such a powerful notion to the extent that if they were to remove a word, they remove the idea. For example, without the word 'rebellion' there can be no action of rebellion. Through the control of language, the government in the novel are able to control the thoughts and actions of the people. The new edition of the Newspeak dictionary in the novel is described as 'going to be tiny', clearly showing the eradication of words, and thus the ability to think about the meanings behind the words. The government also changed meanings of words to control the thoughts of people, for example, 'love is hate' and 'peace is war'. This Orwellian idea can be seen in modern terms. For example, the British Army used to be ruled by the Ministry of War, but now the exact same ministry is known as the Ministry of Defence. The use of language changes the implication of meaning.
The fourth question was a look at Steinbeck's great novel The Grapes of Wrath and whether it was a work of journalism...
Steinbeck's novel was a very controversial book, with some people criticizing Steinbeck accusing him of exaggerating the conditions of the migrants in the book. The book itself was born from a photojournalism project for Life magazine. Steinbeck wrote the book as a journalistic campaign to highlight the experience he had seen through his research into the plight of the migrating people. It is a very political book, a propaganda book even. A campaign for massive state aid in the wake of the Great Depression which resulted in worldwide economic meltdown and mass unemployment.
It is a journalistic book, written in a very journalistic style. In fact it has been used as a guide for journalists to write in the correct style. It is clear to see the journalistic style research Steinbeck conducted before writing the book in his dialogue, with quotes conveying a journalistic form. The novel gives a voice to the voiceless, which is what all good journalism should do.
The fact that the book won the Nobel Prize conveys it in a literary light, not a work of journalism.
The fifth and final question was an extremely long winded question about Emile Zola's Germinal, social inequality, violence and realism...
Zola's novel is an example of the movement of realism. The vivid descriptions within the book are like none I have ever read, with many moments of genuine breathlessness. The best example is when the miners are escaping from the flooded mine, with the only means of escape through a rusty metal ladder which sliced through them like razors. The book is an incredibly crude metaphor of people with different political outlooks dropped under ground like seeds that germinate. It is a sensational and phenomenally violent book describing the politics of anarchism and the embracing of violence - a very Nietzsche idea, with violence being good.
Woman are described in the novel much more realistically than had previously been seen in much of literary works. They are described as pillars of strength, keeping society going in the most inhumane conditions.
Now I just have to remember all this for Thursday...
The first question we looked at in the elaborate 'symposium' was in reference to modernisn, James Joyce's Ulysses, and how they have no single point of view...
It's pretty clear to me that the literary work of Joyce conveys the complexion of the modernist movement that he himself pioneered. In life, and in the mind of the individual there is no single point of view, but many versions and diverse ways of looking at things. Joyce uses the narrative technique of a 'stream of consciousness' to convey this idea. It creates a de-centred narrative with no single point of view. Through the use of this form of narrative Joyce has broken free from traditional forms of literature, where the structure of beginning - middle - end rule the book. Life is not like this, it contains a vast amount of beginnings, middles, and endings, with many ways of looking at each. There is a clear Freud influence in Joyce's work, just look at the sexual content of Molly Bloom's soliloquy!
The second question was to summarize the work of Freud and his cultural impact...
The first point I think of when looking at Freud's works is his obsession with sex. Freud detailed that all of our actions were revolved around sex, with motivations defined through sexual desires. He noted that many of his patients had sexual hang ups and he stated that this caused mental issues. He viewed that civilisation causes people to suppress their natural urges, which damages the individual. For example, a young child wishes to defecate freely, but society creates rules that this is unacceptable. Also, there is a masturbation taboo, when it is a natural human desire.
Freud's analysis method was to interpret peoples dreams. He said that 'dreams are the royal highway to the sub-conscious'. He stated that in each human mind there was a constant conflict between the conscious and sub-conscious which caused mental distress.
The cultural impact Freud's work has had is huge. His work has been viewed as sexist (he stated that women are hysterical because they have 'penis envy') and thus he has had a great impact of the debate of gender politics. Also the impact of Freud in advertising is highly significant. Companies have used Freud's work as a guide of how to appeal to consumers desires.
The third question we looked at was how the control of language can control behaviour and thought with reference to George Orwell's 1984...
In '1984' Orwell suggests that the control of language by an authoritarian government is such a powerful notion to the extent that if they were to remove a word, they remove the idea. For example, without the word 'rebellion' there can be no action of rebellion. Through the control of language, the government in the novel are able to control the thoughts and actions of the people. The new edition of the Newspeak dictionary in the novel is described as 'going to be tiny', clearly showing the eradication of words, and thus the ability to think about the meanings behind the words. The government also changed meanings of words to control the thoughts of people, for example, 'love is hate' and 'peace is war'. This Orwellian idea can be seen in modern terms. For example, the British Army used to be ruled by the Ministry of War, but now the exact same ministry is known as the Ministry of Defence. The use of language changes the implication of meaning.
The fourth question was a look at Steinbeck's great novel The Grapes of Wrath and whether it was a work of journalism...
Steinbeck's novel was a very controversial book, with some people criticizing Steinbeck accusing him of exaggerating the conditions of the migrants in the book. The book itself was born from a photojournalism project for Life magazine. Steinbeck wrote the book as a journalistic campaign to highlight the experience he had seen through his research into the plight of the migrating people. It is a very political book, a propaganda book even. A campaign for massive state aid in the wake of the Great Depression which resulted in worldwide economic meltdown and mass unemployment.
It is a journalistic book, written in a very journalistic style. In fact it has been used as a guide for journalists to write in the correct style. It is clear to see the journalistic style research Steinbeck conducted before writing the book in his dialogue, with quotes conveying a journalistic form. The novel gives a voice to the voiceless, which is what all good journalism should do.
The fact that the book won the Nobel Prize conveys it in a literary light, not a work of journalism.
The fifth and final question was an extremely long winded question about Emile Zola's Germinal, social inequality, violence and realism...
Zola's novel is an example of the movement of realism. The vivid descriptions within the book are like none I have ever read, with many moments of genuine breathlessness. The best example is when the miners are escaping from the flooded mine, with the only means of escape through a rusty metal ladder which sliced through them like razors. The book is an incredibly crude metaphor of people with different political outlooks dropped under ground like seeds that germinate. It is a sensational and phenomenally violent book describing the politics of anarchism and the embracing of violence - a very Nietzsche idea, with violence being good.
Woman are described in the novel much more realistically than had previously been seen in much of literary works. They are described as pillars of strength, keeping society going in the most inhumane conditions.
Now I just have to remember all this for Thursday...
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Citizen Kane
"Rosebud." - The last word of a dying man that starts an intrusive investigation into that man's extraordinary life.
'Citizen Kane' is a remarkably significant film that conveys many themes and motifs. It offers a damning verdict of the 'American Dream' and materialism while also mourning the loss of childhood and innocence.
I have read that 'Citizen Kane' was one of the first movies to oppose the traditionally positive view of the 'American Dream' to gain financial prosperity and material luxury. Kane's accumulation of wealth and material goods is done for love and control, not happiness. For Kane the 'American Dream' is seen as a hollow one. He is depicted as a happy child playing in the snow during his childhood where his family were poor and had no elements of materialism. This is in stark contrast to his death where his seen as an lonely isolated figure, surrounded not by the love he craves, but by his material possessions that symbolize all that is wrong about the perception of the 'American Dream'.
I wonder whether Kane's obsession with acquiring statues and other possessions portrays his want, his need perhaps, to control people. He is able to control them whereas in the real world he found difficulty controlling things the way he wanted. His mother sending him away, his failed political career, and Susan's failure as an opera singer. In his lavish palace Xanadu, he is able to exert control over everything.
I believe the fact that Kane's last words 'rosebud' represents his realization that the life he has led hasn't given him the happiness or love he craved. It conveys the loss of his childhood innocence, where he was happy, playing in the snow with his sled 'rosebud'. This is contrasted with his lonely existence in the grand palace of Xanadu. The significance of 'rosebud' to Kane is of paramount importance. It is the only love he truly encountered.
'Citizen Kane' is a remarkably significant film that conveys many themes and motifs. It offers a damning verdict of the 'American Dream' and materialism while also mourning the loss of childhood and innocence.
I have read that 'Citizen Kane' was one of the first movies to oppose the traditionally positive view of the 'American Dream' to gain financial prosperity and material luxury. Kane's accumulation of wealth and material goods is done for love and control, not happiness. For Kane the 'American Dream' is seen as a hollow one. He is depicted as a happy child playing in the snow during his childhood where his family were poor and had no elements of materialism. This is in stark contrast to his death where his seen as an lonely isolated figure, surrounded not by the love he craves, but by his material possessions that symbolize all that is wrong about the perception of the 'American Dream'.
I wonder whether Kane's obsession with acquiring statues and other possessions portrays his want, his need perhaps, to control people. He is able to control them whereas in the real world he found difficulty controlling things the way he wanted. His mother sending him away, his failed political career, and Susan's failure as an opera singer. In his lavish palace Xanadu, he is able to exert control over everything.
I believe the fact that Kane's last words 'rosebud' represents his realization that the life he has led hasn't given him the happiness or love he craved. It conveys the loss of his childhood innocence, where he was happy, playing in the snow with his sled 'rosebud'. This is contrasted with his lonely existence in the grand palace of Xanadu. The significance of 'rosebud' to Kane is of paramount importance. It is the only love he truly encountered.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
More Ulysses...
I have just read Molly Bloom's soliloquy in the final chapter of Joyce's and I feel it really conveys the groundbreaking modernist aspect of Joyce's novel. It is an enormous section of interior monologue narrative, with minimal use of punctuation. In fact it is split into eight 'paragraphs', with just two marks of punctuation.
Alongside the narrative technique and distinct lack of punctuation, Joyce makes use of sexually explicit language and vulgar phrases. For example:
Alongside the narrative technique and distinct lack of punctuation, Joyce makes use of sexually explicit language and vulgar phrases. For example:
- 'Ill let him know if thats what he wanted that his wife is I s l o fucked yes and damn well fucked too up to my neck nearly not by him 5 or 6 times handrunning theres the mark of his spunk on the clean sheet I wouldnt bother to even iron it out'
- 'if he wants to kiss my bottom Ill drag open my drawers and bulge it right out in his face as large as life he can stick his tongue 7 miles up my hole as hes there my brown part'
- 'I know every turn in him Ill tighten my bottom well and let out a few smutty words smellrump or lick my shit '
It was this use of language that found Joyce's work banned in many countries over the world. It was too different, too modern for the audience of its time. It is a mark of the change of times that nowadays people, myself included, can read this passage and feel offended. The text will always have the shock factor, but in this modern age, taboo is becoming a thing of the past. Most products are sold by sex, beit newspapers such as The Sun, The News of The World or men's deodrant. This is the age where sex sells, and Molly's sexually vibrancy would produce millions!
Modernism and Freudism
I have to admit to being slightly disappointed that we were not shown a screening of James Joyce's Ulysses as scheduled for the lecture of week 4. I was looking forward to seeing a cinematic represenation of Joyce's great work. (I guess I'll have to watch it in my own time.) However, I must also state that the material shown in its place was of high interest.
Intrigued would be the best word to describe how I felt after reading Chris warn us that the lecture would contain 'SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL OF AN ADULT NATURE INCLUDING SEXUAL CONTENT OF A POTENTIALLY DISTURBING OR OFFENSIVE NATURE.' Now if you want people to attend a lecture, this is the way to do it! Offer a group of young adults a lecture containing sexual material and more than likely they will turn up!
However, this wasn't just some big screen porn show (although I did take down some notes on how Chris has an average sized member, potentially a homosexual, and something about a nazi disco!), this was a lecture of interesting observations in reference to psychoanalysis and modernism.
Early on in the lecture Chris commented on the fact that with todays technology we can use incredible advanced machines to see how each and every one of our brains and bodies function. Through the advancement of science we can literally see inside someones brain, which is essentially what Sigmund Freud set out in doing. His machine was mythological literature and comparing ancient myths with patients' problems in his practice. The most classic example of this is the Oedipus complex. Wikipedia explains:
The complex is named after the Greek mythical character Oedipus, who (albeit unknowingly) kills his father and marries his mother. According to Sigmund Freud, the Oedipus complex is a universal phenomenon, built in phylogenetically, and is responsible for much unconscious guilt.
So basically, within our subconscious, we all want to kill our fathers and have sex with our mothers. On the face of it this seems a truly rediculous theory. Who in their right mind has ever even considered this act? Freud maintained that the supression of this subconscious desire could result in neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality.
I think it is interesting to compare Freud's reading of the brain with some of the material Chris showed us in the lecture. The fact that the parts of the brain called the Amygdaline and the Hippocampus light up when sex, rage, fear; emotions are engaged shows Frued's work as mere speculation. It conveys my earlier point that scientific breakthroughs in neurology seem to undermine Freud's methods and theories. You cannot aruge with this sort of high level science, but people have been arguing over Freud for years.
Intrigued would be the best word to describe how I felt after reading Chris warn us that the lecture would contain 'SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL OF AN ADULT NATURE INCLUDING SEXUAL CONTENT OF A POTENTIALLY DISTURBING OR OFFENSIVE NATURE.' Now if you want people to attend a lecture, this is the way to do it! Offer a group of young adults a lecture containing sexual material and more than likely they will turn up!
However, this wasn't just some big screen porn show (although I did take down some notes on how Chris has an average sized member, potentially a homosexual, and something about a nazi disco!), this was a lecture of interesting observations in reference to psychoanalysis and modernism.
Early on in the lecture Chris commented on the fact that with todays technology we can use incredible advanced machines to see how each and every one of our brains and bodies function. Through the advancement of science we can literally see inside someones brain, which is essentially what Sigmund Freud set out in doing. His machine was mythological literature and comparing ancient myths with patients' problems in his practice. The most classic example of this is the Oedipus complex. Wikipedia explains:
The complex is named after the Greek mythical character Oedipus, who (albeit unknowingly) kills his father and marries his mother. According to Sigmund Freud, the Oedipus complex is a universal phenomenon, built in phylogenetically, and is responsible for much unconscious guilt.
So basically, within our subconscious, we all want to kill our fathers and have sex with our mothers. On the face of it this seems a truly rediculous theory. Who in their right mind has ever even considered this act? Freud maintained that the supression of this subconscious desire could result in neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality.
I think it is interesting to compare Freud's reading of the brain with some of the material Chris showed us in the lecture. The fact that the parts of the brain called the Amygdaline and the Hippocampus light up when sex, rage, fear; emotions are engaged shows Frued's work as mere speculation. It conveys my earlier point that scientific breakthroughs in neurology seem to undermine Freud's methods and theories. You cannot aruge with this sort of high level science, but people have been arguing over Freud for years.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
BNP Fiasco
"Anti-fascist protesters broke into BBC Television centre ahead of British National Party leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time."
Today my friends is a sad day in British politics, and NOT because the BBC scheduled the BNP leader Nick Griffin to attend Question Time, but because of the actions of the 'anti-fascist' protesters. The actions of those people plays straight into the BNP's hands.
In using violence and force to protest against the BNP these people are in fact making themselves appear no better than the party they are opposing. Why are they trying to deny the BNP the chance to show themselves and their politics to a widespread audience on BBC? By allowing Nick Griffin to speak, there is the opportunity for him to highlight the pathetic, ridiculous, and racist views of the far-right party.
It is a golden opportunity for the people of Britain to fully understand the extreme and dangerous opinions of the BNP, why give them a chance to make the accusation of people attempting to silence them? The main way the BNP have been damaged is when they have been interviewed in detail. This is when their true colours are shown and they make themselves look laughably stupid.
I have read much about the protesters saying that people died in the Second World War to oppose fascism and its views. But these heroes also died for our freedoms, and one of the main freedoms we have as British citizens is freedom to thought and expression. By attempting to stop a man air his views (albeit disgusting views) they are guilty of doing exactly what the fascists our forefathers died to stop did sixty years ago.
Let this man speak. Let him dig his own grave.
Today my friends is a sad day in British politics, and NOT because the BBC scheduled the BNP leader Nick Griffin to attend Question Time, but because of the actions of the 'anti-fascist' protesters. The actions of those people plays straight into the BNP's hands.
In using violence and force to protest against the BNP these people are in fact making themselves appear no better than the party they are opposing. Why are they trying to deny the BNP the chance to show themselves and their politics to a widespread audience on BBC? By allowing Nick Griffin to speak, there is the opportunity for him to highlight the pathetic, ridiculous, and racist views of the far-right party.
It is a golden opportunity for the people of Britain to fully understand the extreme and dangerous opinions of the BNP, why give them a chance to make the accusation of people attempting to silence them? The main way the BNP have been damaged is when they have been interviewed in detail. This is when their true colours are shown and they make themselves look laughably stupid.
I have read much about the protesters saying that people died in the Second World War to oppose fascism and its views. But these heroes also died for our freedoms, and one of the main freedoms we have as British citizens is freedom to thought and expression. By attempting to stop a man air his views (albeit disgusting views) they are guilty of doing exactly what the fascists our forefathers died to stop did sixty years ago.
Let this man speak. Let him dig his own grave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
