Theory and Practice of the Book

[klseng101-blog]

Reaction to Evidence of Everything Exploding

To be honest, I really do not know how to react to Evidence of Everything Exploding. After finishing it late last night, I was feeling a mixture of emotions: confusion, fear, disoriented, and unease. And, about twelve hours later, I am still feeling those same emotions. And, I am not sure what I truly think of it. I found it extremely difficult to concentrate on the actual text because there were just so many different things going on at once. While the game mechanics were fairly simple, the art and the audio kept distracting me. Towards the end of Evidence of Everything, I started to stop trying to read the texts because I just wanted to hurry up and finish the game. However, I do feel like the creator of the game did intend that the player would feel all of the feelings that I felt. Though, why would he decided to make such a game is beyond me. Also, even after reading the story, I am extremely confused what the plot is supposed to be. How in the world do mysterious documents in a box, matchboxes, and a song about office supplies related to one another? Though, once again, maybe the creator of the game wanted there to be no exact plot so the player would have to decided it for themselves (hence, the "choose your own adventure" aspect of this literary game). Anyways, I personally don't like this game just because of how unsettling it is. Though, I guess I can understand why some might really enjoy Evidence of Everything Exploding.

[klseng101-blog]

Understanding Maus I by Using Understanding Comics

Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art is basically a comic book about understanding comic books.  And, even though I do not find it as enjoyable to read compared to a comic book with story, I did find that this book is a great resource for digging deeper into the world of comics.  In fact, there were many ideas in McCloud’s book that applies to Spiegelman’s Maus I: A Surviver’s Tale: My Father Bleeds History.  In the second chapter of Understanding Comics, McCloud focuses on how the simplicity of cartoon art appeals to readers.  Even though some might believe that a comic book with a realistic style would result in a stronger response from the readers, McCloud claims that readers actually connect better to a comic with simplistic artwork.  This could explain why Spiegelman’s art was so simplistic in Maus I.  There was no need for any fancy and overly detailed artwork; instead of readers focusing so much on the style of the art, Spiegelman wanted the readers to solely focus on the characters’ stories.  Though, this does not mean that the artwork is not as important as the words.  After all, the art is the factor that actually brings the content to life.  The experience of reading the story would seem completely different if the artwork was not so simplistic.  Since the art in Maus I is so generalized, readers are able to fully connect to the story because they can picture themselves as the characters, despite the fact they are drawn as animals. In reality, the anthropomorphism does help readers to go into the story with an open mind, regardless of all the previous assumptions of the Holocaust.  Like we have discussed in class, readers are able to distance themselves on the subject of the Holocaust because the characters are portrayed as animals.  Yet, the simplistic art style of Maus I does make it easy to identify with the characters.

[klseng101-blog]

Maus I - Prisoner on the Hell Planet

The specific moment from the second half of Art Spiegelman's Maus I: A Survivor's Tale: My Father Bleeds History that stood out to me the most was on pages 100-103. Mala mentions to Art how his father had found and read his comic strip, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet." Personally, I believe that the inclusion of this comic in Maus I is extremely important. After all, Spiegelman could have just mentioned that Valdek had discovered a comic about his mother's suicide. Though, instead, Spiegelman made the choice of actually including the comic strip itself in book. And, I believe that he has done this in order to share more of his mother's story before she committed suicide.

This comic strip reveals a lot about the Spiegelman family. For instance, the fact that Art had been in a mental hospital in the past was unknown. Also, despite already knowing how much Valdek loved Anja, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" really underlined how he was so dependent of his late wife. Along with the story of Valdek's Holocaust experience, this comic really does help the readers understand how Valdek became the man he is in the present-day storyline.

Most importantly, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" reveals a lot about Anja's character. Because she is not alive during the present-day timeline, Anja's personal life story; the only things we know about Anja is what Valdek has told us. Even her personal journals had been destroyed by her husband. Anja's true identity has been totally wiped off the planet; that is why Art calls his father a murderer in the very last frame of Maus I. But, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" sheds more light on her depression. From what I have gathered, Anja really depended on family. When they all died during the Holocaust, Anja clearly seemed like she was ready to give up; the only thing that kept her going was Valdek. And then, after the Holocaust was over, it appears that Anja never got that true sense of family again. For example, when she asked Art if he loved her during the fourth and fifth page on 103, Anja is devastated when her own son turns away and coldly says "Sure, Ma!" The lack of a supporting family evidently caused her depression to worsen to the point of suicide.

Finally, the actual art of the comic says a lot about Spiegelman. First off, it is important to point out that this is the only time in Maus I in which the characters are all drawn as humans. Also, the art from comic strip has a harsh, detailed, and surrealistic quality that reflects the Art's mood of the comic's topic. Because this is from Art's personal view, it makes sense why he would chose to draw in this particular style while he would draw in a different one for Valdek's story.

To conclude, because the readers get learn more about Anja and the rest of the Spiegelman family, it was essential that Art had included in"Prisoner on the Hell Planet" in Maus I.

[sumaya94]

There were many themes that I detected while reading Maus that I felt could only have been conveyed through the medium of a graphic novel (as opposed to a standard book).

The most obvious theme was the use of animal masks to depict the major ethnicities in the story: Germans as cats, Jews as mice...

[klseng101-blog]

I find it very interesting that there had been Nazi propaganda that portrayed Jews as rats. With this information in my mind, it makes more sense why Spiegelman had chosen to make all of the characters in Maus I animals instead of humans. In fact, it is as if Spiegelman is trying to give the Nazis a taste of their own medicine. As we know, the Nazis had used rats to symbolize the Jews because no one really likes rats; they are generally known as pests that should be exterminated. Because of this, the general public will start to believe that they should do away with the Jews, just like they do away with rats. But, in Maus I, Spiegelman uses the Nazi's own method against them; when portraying the classic cat-and-mouse type of situation, readers go into the graphic novel empathizing with the Jews/mice. And then, as soon as readers do progress in the story, the anthropomorphism only strengthens the evident cat-and-mouse game between the Nazis and the Jews.

[klseng101-blog]

Maus I as a Graphic Novel

Art Spiegelman’s Maus I: A Surviver's Tale: My Father Bleeds History tells the story of a man trying to understand his father’s experience during the Holocaust.  While Spiegelman could have written the story as a regular written book, he chose to write the story as a graphic novel.  Now, since Spiegelman was already a comic book artist before he wrote Maus I, it only makes sense that he would write his father’s story in the form of a graphic novel.  Also, comic book art is something that Spiegelman clearly understands since it is his profession.  Because it is a form that he is so familiar with, it seems obvious that Spiegelman would choose a comforting method to get through his father’s horrifying tale.  And, since it is clear that Art and Vladek do not have the best relationship, the art form helps Art connect to his father in his own way.

Also, the visual aspect of the graphic novel brings a lot to the table.  While the written word does tell you the story, a graphic novel shows you the story.  Plus, the form allows the portrayal of Jews as mice, Nazis as cats, and the non-Jew Polish as pigs.  To me, the fact that Spiegelman chose to draw humans as animals is hugely significant.  Now, drawing all of the characters as humans would make the book a lot more intense for readers; thus, Maus I is more available to readers.  Though, more importantly, the anthropomorphism of this book displays how feral and savage--like wild animals are--humans can act during the time of war.

[itscassandrablr]

In sonnet 127 the writer I feel was in a sad and depressed state of mind. It seems as almost someone died or death kept happening around that person or a person they know. He talked about how black was not counted fair or counted a beautiful, it was almost like the author was saying death is...

[klseng101-blog]

In order to respond to Cassandra's response, I went back and reread Sonnet 127 in Jen Bervin's Nets in order read it more closely than I did when I read it the first time around. And, I do agree with Cassandra that this sonnet is focused on appreciating a beloved's beauty. However, I also interoperated the rest of this sonnet a little bit differently.

To me, Sonnet 127 is about how people who were once thought to be ugly are now considered beautiful. Nature and genetics have always been the things that make a person physically beautiful. But now, the speaker has explained how that the people who were born ugly have  made themselves beautiful with cosmetics. Since this is so, no one is perfectly beautiful. Even people who have been considered naturally beautiful are actually ugly. However, the speaker believes fact that they make themselves beautiful also makes them artificial. Now, after explaining all of this, the speaker reveals that his beloved--the famous Dark Lady--has never been seen as a beautiful woman. However, the fact that she does not conform to make herself into something fake proves just how beautiful she actually is.

Like Cassandra, I do Bervin's words, "Beauty / borrowed /no name, no bower / so our becoming / says," are somewhat of a summary or thesis of Sonnet 127. But, I also believe her words expand from the context of Shakespeare's sonnet. I could not help be notice just how relevant Shakespeare's Sonnet 127 is still to this day. In our current society, everyone, especially woman, use cosmetics and other means to make themselves physically pleasing according to the media's perception of beauty. To me, Bervin's prose poem underlines this issue in today's day and age. The poet took Shakespeare's words from the late sixteenth century and applied them to the modern times. That is what I personally found so interesting about the relationship between Shakespeare's original sonnet and Bervin's alterations.

[klseng101-blog]

W. Scott Howard's "Roses No Such Roses" - A Review of Jen Bervin's Nets

For the most part, I have found myself agreeing with the key points of W. Scott Howard’s review of Nets by Jen Bervin.  Bervin created this book of son(nets) as a way of paying tribute to Shakespeare.  When reading both Bervin and Shakespeare’s texts, it is clear that Bervin had meant for her words to connect with the Bard’s. Bervin uses Nets as a way to personally respond to Shakespeare.  In a way, even though one of them has long past, it seems as if the two poets are having a personal conversation.  Not only that, it is a conversation that only Bervin and the Bard could ever have.  After all, Howard has pointed out that there have been many people out there who have also altered Shakespeare’s sonnets.  However, all of these alterations are different because each person who is making the alterations is different. There are people like Bronk who’s “...work formally reveres yet thematically resists those same elements [of the sonnets],” (Howard).  But when it comes to Bervin’s alterations of the sonnets, readers can tell that she does not wish contour Shakespeare.  Instead, she wants to further emphasized the principles of his sonnets by capturing their over all essence in just a few highlighted words. With all of this being said, Howard points out many instances how Nets is an example of how content and form have an intertwining relationship.  If Bervin’s prose poems (as Howard calls them) were separated from Shakespeare’s sonnets, the meaning behind them would be completely gone.  Also, the fact that Shakespeare’s words are gray and in the background while Bervin’s are bold in the foreground make a huge difference to the content of the book.  The word formatting symbolizes how Bervin’s current and modern words come from the traditional sonnets of Shakespeare. And, finally, the pocket-sized flip-like book displays just how personal and intimate this book is for Bervin.  To conclude, I found Howard's review quite intriguing to read. And, quite honestly, the review also allowed me to see Bervin's Nets in a different light.

[klseng101-blog]

Jen Bervin and Shakespeare's Sonnet 22

Shakespeare’s Sonnet 22 consists of a speaker addressing their beloved on the topic of love, age, and death.  The speaker explains how the two had exchanged their hearts to one another. Because of this exchange, the speaker also declares the both of them are as one.  This means that they are the same age. The speaker will know “..when in thee time’s furrows I behold/Then look I death my days should expiate,” (3-4).  Thus, the speaker claims that when the beloved dies, he will also die along with him/her and vice versa.  It is true that throughout the three quatrains, Shakespeare’s sonnet does portray the undying love which the speaker’s holds for the beloved.  However, once we reach the ending couplet, it appears that the speaker’s love is not as innocent as the reader might have previously thought. While the speaker does adore the beloved, his love should be classified as an obsession.  In the couplet of Sonnet 22, the speaker reveals that he will keep his beloved’s heart forever.  The speaker explains to the beloved that “...thou gav’st me thine, not to give back again,” (14).  So, if the beloved brakes the speaker’s heart in his/her possession, then the beloved should not expect that the speaker will just his/her heart back.  Ultimately, this means that the speaker will never stop loving the beloved even if the beloved stops loving him in return.  Also, it is pretty clear that this just isn’t an declaration of love to the extreme; both the tone and word choice of the couplet makes it obvious that this statement should almost be seen as a threat.  The ending couplet proves that an seemingly loving relationship could be quite unhealthy. Within this sonnet, Jen Bervin had highlighted certain words to create her own mini poem from Shakespeare’s Sonnet 22: “I am of one date in time’s furrows.”  To me, it can be a little bit difficult to decipher how Bervin’s combination of words relate back to Shakespeare’s original ones.  Though, if read by itself, it is clear that Bervin’s speaker feels quite depressed and insignificant.  He/she is expressing how in the overall grand scheme of things throughout time and space, one person--like the speaker--does not make a difference.  It is as if the speaker does not believe that he or she will ever make a noteworthy mark on this world.  Though, back to relating Bervin’s words to Shakespeare’s sonnet, both of the works kind of contradict each other.  While Shakespeare’s speaker believes he is worthy enough to hold another’s heart, Bervin’s speaker seems to not even be able to hold their own.  Other than this similarity between the two speakers, I honestly have no idea on how the content of these works connect (other than the obvious reason).  I would love to know what was going on in Bervin’s head when she highlighted those particular words in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 22 to see if there had been a method to the madness.

[sumaya94]

In this first chapter, Heginbotham synthesizes the most important scholarly analysis of Dickinson (and in particular, her fascicles) and how this diverse body of work fits into her thesis. The most important work that she cites and discusses frequently is Ralph Franklin’s Manuscript Books (1981),...

[klseng101-blog]

Sumaya, I agree that there was is no precise interpretation of Dickinson's poems. Though, I do feel like Dickinson had her own intentional explanation for each poem. After all, she must have some idea of what they mean to her since she was the one who wrote them. However, that does not at all mean that Dickinson's understanding of her poetry is the right one. After all, there are no two people who will have the same exact experience when reading the same piece of work.  A poem will mean something different for each and every person, including the author. And, none of these interpretations are wrong because they are personally right for the reader. That is the beauty of literature--prose or poetry alike. Unlike a subject like Mathematics, there is no wrong answer when it comes to the written word. Everyone has their own opinion on what a piece means to them.

[klseng101-blog]

Sir Christopher Ricks's Lecture on T.S. Elliot

Admittedly, there were many parts of Sir Christopher Ricks’s lecture that went over my head.  For one thing, before the lecture, I had never even heard of T.S. Elliot or his poetry.  However, Sir Ricks’s lecture was based on the assumption that the audience had a basic understanding of T.S. Elliot.  So, I feel like that if I known more about T.S. Elliot at the time, I would have thoroughly enjoyed the presentation a lot more then I did.  However, despite my lack of knowledge on the content of the lecture, I did end up really appreciating Sir Ricks’s passion of the subject.  It was quite obvious that he was passionate of the subject of English.  Because of this, I was hooked on Sir Ricks’s lecture even though there were times I had no idea what he was really talking about.

Despite the majority of the lecture was mainly on T.S. Elliot, Sir Ricks also discussed a the process of revision for a little bit.  This was the part of the lecture that interested me the most.  This is because his words on revision reminded me a lot of Emily Dickinson’s own revision process which we have been discussing in class.

During his lecture on T.S. Elliot, Sir Ricks mentioned how the poet had gone through revisions, specifically on The Waste Land, in order to avoid shocking and angering his family (especially, Elliot’s mother.)  Because he did made these revisions, it is clear that Elliot had intended for his poems to be read by the public; the poems were not just something that he had written for himself.  His work had meant to be shared.  Meanwhile, Dickinson had written all of her poetry privately.  It can be assumed that she had not meant for her poetry to be read by the general public. After all, her poems were not even discover--let alone published--until after she died.  This means that Dickinson’s poems were written not for anyone else in mind; she wrote the poems for herself.  So, any personal revisions done by Dickinson must have only been done for her own sake.  This shows just how personal the meanings of “They shut me up in Prose-” (445) and “This is a Poet-” (446) were to Dickinson. She did follow the general public expectations and wrote only for herself.

Finally, I just want to point out that I do not have any right to fully judge T.S. Elliot as a poet.  After all, my knowledge of T.S. Elliot is little to nothing. However, I am just pointing out how writing with an audience in mind (like Elliot) verses writing mainly for yourself (like Dickinson) will surely affect the context of work that is being written.

[klseng101-blog]

Heginbotham's "Dickinson's Aesthetics and Fascicle 21"

            Heginbotham’s exploration of Dickinson’s works focuses on the two poems, “They shut me up in Prose-” (445) and “This is a Poet-” (446), from the poet’s 21st fascicle.  Despite them appearing to be unrelated when read separately, Heginbotham notices many different similarities between the poems.  Obviously, both of the poems concern poets and poetry.  However, the poems also have similar word choice.  For example, Dickinson used words like “treason”, “pound” and “captivity” in “They shut me up in Prose-” while also including corresponding words like “arrested” and “robbing” in “This is a Poet-”.  Because of this evidence and more, Heginbotham has concluded that Dickinson had purposely placed these two poems together.  So, with all of this in mind, Heginbotham utilizes this chapter to theorize Dickinson’s reasoning behind grouping certain poems together.             In this section, Heginbotham also discusses the origin and history of Dickinson’s fascicles.  This leads to her mentioning the scholars, like Franklin, Shurr, Habegger, and others,  who have also studied the famous poet’s fascicles.  Every literary critic who has studied Dickinson’s fascicles have speculated the poet’s thought-process when she organized and wrote her poems.  While some scholars say that Emily Dickinson had no particular way of arranging the fascicles, there are others who believe that reading the poems both closely and contextually will supply evidence that proves the poet’s method for arranging her poems.             Personally, I believe that Dickinson did have some kind of system for her fascicles.  There are just too many connections between certain species of poems.  All of this evidence cannot be ignored; that is why there has been so many literary critics who have debated over Dickinson’s intentions.  Though, despite our numerous predictions, there are no exact ways of determining how Dickinson had meant her fascicles to be read.  Because she died before they were published, the fascicles will forever remain a mystery for readers.  However, this will not stop us from wondering and fantasying until the end of time.

[klseng101-blog]

Heginbotham's "Introduction: Reading Dickinson Contextually"

            Heginbotham’s “Introduction: Reading Dickinson Contextually” mainly focuses on the importance of both investigating and theorizing the reasoning behind the organization of Dickinson’s fascicles.  While she does recognize how the content of the poems are significant, Heginbotham is more fascinated with the “...intentional artistry [Dickinson] used to compile these books” (ix).  For instance, Heginbotham mentioned how Dickinson had repeatedly use the same poem in multiple fascicles; it is obvious that this was not an accident.  This means that the specific arrangement of Dickinson’s fascicles ends up giving readers a peak of “...the playful and inventive mind of Emily Dickinson at her workshop” (ix).             Now, it would have been one thing if Dickinson had just wrote a lot of random and separate poems. Though, in actuality, this is not the case.  Dickinson had organized her poems in these books for a reason.  After all, there must have been numerous combinations in which Dickinson could have arranged her poetry.  And yet, she ended up deciding on one particular arrangement.  And, because of this, readers go through a certain reading experience that they would not have undergo if Dickinson had chosen a different grouping.             Also, when individual pieces of written work are intentionally grouped together, this usually means that the works have one common theme or message.  Unlike reading a “stand-alone” poem, it seems as if a book of poetry should be read as a one whole unit.  So, while readers are reading a poem from one of Dickinson’s fascicles, there is a huge chance that they will look for the connections between that poem and the rest of the poems in the book.  That is why reading a poem from a little book is so different when compared to reading a singular poem.

[klseng101-blog]

Emily Dickinson's "They shut me up in Prose-" (445)

            Dickinson’s “They shut me up in Prose-” (445) appears to be a poem that concerns the expectations of a nineteenth century woman and the “right” away to use language.  In both of these cases, Dickinson expresses how she goes against the average norm.             First off, during the nineteenth century, women were still not equal to men.  Also, women were expected to play a certain role in society.  Dickinson shows just how she feels restrained when she says how society has “put [her] in the Closet- / Because they liked [her] ‘still’-” (3-4).  Though, despite the inequality, Dickinson is still a free spirt and does not wish to follow society’s rule.  She even goes as far as to compare herself to a bird.             Also, in the poem, Dickinson’s uninhibited nature is symbolize by her use of language.  She exclaims how society has “shut [her] up with Prose-” (1).  During the time period, prose was accepted as the customary way of using language.  Meanwhile, poetry was considered unusual and unordinary.  However, Dickinson still wrote a numerous number of poems.  This is simply because her creative and unrestricted mind could not be controlled.  Furthermore, Dickinson’s true self is shown in both the content of the poem and the poem itself.