Theory and Practice of the Book @sumaya94 - Tumblr Blog

I agree on the thoughts of it as an artistic medium— perhaps these can relate to it as a non-hierarchical text. Because it is so difficult to read and play the game at the same time, I think that it is safe to assume that we all would have read entirely different small portions of text from the game, and hence created our own understanding of what it was about?

sumaya94

I haven't thought of it that way but I agree. In our class discussions, it was clear that we all had generally the same reaction but different things stood out to each of us. That was even more the case with Building Stories because we all read different parts of it and so got a different sense of the characters and plot.

Thoughts on "Evidence of Everything Exploding"

I found myself unable to follow the plot of this game, if there was one. As I reached higher and higher levels, I found myself understanding it less and less. After reading the description and looking up "Dadaism," which is defined by dictionary.com as being "founded on principles of irrationality, incongruity, and irreverence towards accepted aesthetic criteria," I found it easier to place it within an artistic context but this did not help me understand the meaning of the game. Most levels were a mixture of historical facts, random unconnected events, strange sketchings and explosions with voiceovers from real news reports or speeches overlaid on some sort of document. As others have noted, it was hard to pay attention to the messages popping up on the screen because of the general confusion of the game. Overall, it made me feel uncomfortable and unsettled as others have also reported feeling.

Maus & Understanding Comics

After reading the first three chapters of Understanding Comics, The Invisible Art, I have a much better understanding of where Maus fits into the history of comics. I was fascinated by the very ancient history McCloud was able to trace comics back to. McCloud's observation on p. 16 that "popular tastes haven't changed much" from the past helps explain why it makes sense to create a graphic novel about the Holocaust. Just as in the past, we are fascinated with depictions of human experience, which includes drama, war, daily life, family, and romance (all of which are present in Maus).

Humans are very visual and emotional creatures and as McCloud points out, ego-centric. His observation that we recognize facial features no matter how simply they are drawn, and even tend to find meaning in inanimate objects when there is none, explains why Spiegelman's choice to depict his characters as animals was so effective. McCloud claims that “By stripping down an image to its essential ‘meaning,’ an artist can amplify that meaning in way realistic art can’t”(p. 30). He describes that by drawing himself in a simple style, he becomes a blank slate or a voice in our heads which helps keep us focused on the story he is telling rather than speculate about him as a person which would distract from the story (p. 37). I found this to be true and it goes along with our discussions in class about why, in some ways, Maus was more relatable to our experiences than other books about the Holocaust. We focus on the information that Speigelman has given us, not our own preconceived ideas or knowledge of the Holocaust.

On p. 36, McCloud ascertains that as children, “we don't just observe the cartoon, we become it." McCloud connects this to the idea that when we eat, our utensils are an extension of our hands, when we talk on the phone, the phone acts as an extension of our ears and when we drive, we act as if the car is an extension of our bodies, and so on (p. 38). Similarly, while reading comics, he claims that we become part of the story. Of course, this happens in regular books as well, but the emphasis on visual images aids this process. I would agree with this idea as relates to Maus. While reading, I felt myself being deeply affected by the emotions of the characters and pulled into their lives.

I don't think this any of these principles discussed can be applied to all graphic novels/comics, just as certain observations or principles of literature cannot be applied to all books. The fact that Spiegelman is a particularly talented author and artist capable of weaving his family's past and present into a coherent and compelling story does not mean that this is always the case. Just as with other forms of art or literature, analysis must be done on a case by case basis.

klseng101-blog

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.

sumaya94

I agree with this analysis of Prisoner on the Hell Planet. I felt that Anja's suicide was foreshadowed many times throughout the book, especially on the page where she is crying that she has lost her entire family. It seemed unfair of Art to call his father a murderer because Vladek obviously has been wracked with guilt and depression from the loss of so many people in his life. The act of destroying his wife's diaries was obviously not out of malice but depression. This situation really showed the long-lasting effects of such damaging experiences can have on a family.

"He was a millionaire, but even this didn't save him his life." Maus I, p. 115

I loved Maus and found the story compelling and deep on many levels but there is one moment that I will never forget reading. While describing his father-in-law being taken away, Vladek remarks that “he was a millionaire, but even this didn’t save him his life.” It is amazing how this sentence combined with the image of Vladek contemplating this can create such a deep emotional reaction in the reader. Even with a mouse mask covering his human features, his body language is easily understood. He stands with his hands behind his back and his eyes cast down in contemplation. This statement comes in the very last panel of the page and acts as a moment of silence in the narrative. There is no banter between father and son and Artie doesn’t ask any questions or for clarification. We are simply left with the image of a forlorn Vladek, alone with his memories. As readers, we also must pause to turn the page and so are left reflecting on this thought. Beyond the context of the Holocaust, the horror of the camps and aside, even, from this particular story, we must face the simple fact that no matter how our life ends, in death we are all made equal. Class, religion, ethnicity or any other distinction become irrelevant after death. All that is the left of us is the legacy we leave behind us. Maus is one of those relatively few books whose truths transcend the particular time or situations in which it is set.

Analysis of Maus: A Survivor's Tale

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 and Poles as pigs. In Nazi propaganda, Jews were often depicted as rats. Spiegelman reverses the hateful and distasteful imagery that the Nazis used in their propaganda and depicts the Jews not as rats but as terrorized mice, forced into hiding to avoid extermination by powerful, predatory cats. This is a creative and insightful way of depicting a war which we are all familiar with.

Throughout the book, there were moments made profound by the conjunction of words and imagery used. An example of this is on page 51, in which the Polish Jewish prisoners of war are separated from their compatriots and made into targets of mistreatment by Germans. The figures of the thin, downcast Jewish soldiers are visually contrasted with that of the large and bullying German cat who is yelling, "It's all your fault, this war!" The picture reveals the almost humorous absurdity of the German soldier’s statement in a way that would be less manifest if it were just the text alone.

Another theme that was incorporated into the story was the relationship between father and son and how the scars of the war affect both their lives even after so many years of peace in a new country. These interruptions of Vladek’s memories to discuss his current health or marriage include some of the most heart-wrenching parts of the story. This seemed to be a deliberate choice on the part of the author and was very effective in terms of understanding how a war can damage generations of survivors.

klseng101-blog

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

I also would like to know more about what Bervin was thinking when she decided on particular words and how she meant the poems to be read. It seemed to me that creating an "altered text" requires as much creativity and skill as writing the original because it is almost like working backwards. Instead of starting out with a blank page and creating something that comes from your mind, you are charged with creating a new work out of a limited number of words and ideas. This must have been incredibly challenging. Another question I had was why Bervin only made "nets" of 60 out of the 150 original sonnets. I wondered if she discarded some after realizing they did not fit her purpose and if this might this give credence to the idea that all her "nets" combined are a poem in and of themselves.

Response to W. Scott Howard's Review of Jen Bervin's Nets

The topics covered this review are similar to those that we discussed in class, particularly whether she meant to be writing her own poetry by using some of Shakespeare's words or if she was attempting to make a point about the original sonnet. He focuses on Son(net) 15 and how it might be interpreted. The fact that she has kept the poem on the page adds to the argument that she meant them to be connected in some way and Howard notes that "Bervin's emphasis exactly matches Shakespeare's secular outlook." He briefly goes over Son(net) 137, which I found to be one of the most interesting in the book. "Anchored," is the only word in the poem that is highlighted and because a word alone does not constitute a poem, the only way to read this word choice, in my opinion, is that Bervin considered this to be the "sonnet's defining conceit," as Howard describes it.

Howard made an insightful observation on the physical aesthetics of the book itself. He notes that because the poems are placed in the same place on each page, when flipping through the book quickly it creates the illusion of an animation which brings to life the words that are bolded. In the last paragraph of his review, he speculates on how all of Bervin's "nets" put together would read. He includes a short excerpt of this, "in order to rouse curiosity." This is a fascinating possibility that I had not thought of before. Similar to Dickinson's fascicles, Bervin's Nets can be difficult to interpret. This is compounded by the fact that Shakespeare's original sonnets are also cloaked in mystery. Despite this, Howard does a thorough job of analyzing both.

Nets, Jen Bervin, Sonnet 52

Jen Bervin's project of altering the text of Shakespeare's sonnets reminded me of Sir Christopher's assertion that "revision turns talent into genius." This is not to say that Shakespeare's sonnets needed any help, but only that the idea of altered text in general operates by a similar principle. By highlighting certain words to create a new poem, Bervin adds new meaning to the original, as well as highlighting the most striking part of Shakespeare's own word choices and meanings. As I progressed through the book, I increasingly detected a thread linking the ideas together, perhaps similar to the original poems being seen as story. This being said, although I found many profound or enlightening, others I found as baffling as Shakespeare's sonnets themselves, which I find are difficult to interpret without guidance.

The sonnet that stood out to me the most was Sonnet 52. "So solemn and so rare you, who had to hope." Bervin had taken almost an entire line from the original sonnet (line 5: “There are feasts so solemn and rare”) and the line from which she had gotten the other words from seemed to eerily echo the meaning of the new poem, especially lines and 13 and 14 which in the original, read: “Blessed are you whose worthiness gives scope, Being had, to triumph, being lack’d, to hope.”

Many scholars have interpreted this sonnet as being replete with sexual innuendo as well as comedic irreverence that would not have been acceptable in Shakespeare’s time. Like Dickinson's fascicles, scholars disagree and continue to debate the meaning of the sonnets, especially 52. Bervin has kept herself out of this endless debate, yet has given the sonnets the ultimate commentary and the most thoughtful criticism. By pulling out certain words, she created her own profound meaning, entirely separate from the original. As a reader, it was fascinating to perceive the dialogue between Shakespeare, Bervin and my own mind. This was a natural occurrence while reading. Shakespeare’s words were like gray shadows, swimming around the new meanings, at times complementing and at other times contradicting the original. While reading, certain words seemed to naturally suggest themselves to me, yet Bervin chose others and this intrigued me.

For anyone looking for them. :)

klseng101-blog

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.

sumaya94

This distinction is very important in interpreting and comparing Eliot's and Dickinson's poetry. I agree that writing for yourself is much different than writing for publication. An apt example of this is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle feeling pressured to continue writing the Sherlock Holmes series after his readers rebelled against Doyle killing Holmes off. He reluctantly obliged his readers and "resurrected" Holmes from the dead. Doyle's readers' feedback controlled his writing in a very powerful way. His writing would have been very different if he had been writing the novels for himself and kept them unpublished. This is not to say that Eliot felt any pressure from his audience, per se, but certainly anticipating the reaction to his work would have been a consideration before publication.

Sir Christopher Ricks Talk

To be in the presence of such an eminent scholar as Sir Christopher Ricks is both inspiring and slightly intimidating. His articulation of complicated ideas and extensive vocabulary was incredible, although admittedly difficult to follow at times. This type of discussion is an encouragement to all avid readers and those with an interest in literature to become more well-read and practiced in articulating their ideas.

Some of the ideas he laid out that I found most notable from the talk include:

The idea that "Revision is the move from terrific talent to genius."(Sir Christopher Ricks).

I found this idea very interesting and I agree with this statement. There are many stages to writing. When writing a paper, I first make an outline, then a rough draft, then my first draft, etc. I would assume that many authors employ a similar process, including poets. Sir Ricks pointed out that Eliot rarely revised after publication, yet this does not stop critics from harshly analyzing his pre-publication revisions. To me, this seems to limit and question the author’s right over their own creation.

2. The idea that the best interpretation of a poem is all of the elements that people have noticed combined.

As he was discussing Eliot's Wasteland and the various meanings people have found, I was struck with the power that poetry has to spark interest and encourage speculation. As Sir Ricks pointed out, there is no one way to interpret a poem and to limit the meaning of a poem is both unfair and presumptuous. This idea can definitely be applied to Dickinson, as well as most poetry, literature and art, in general.

3. The idea that "Art gives us pause."

This wonderful observation seemed to be the key point of the lecture and perfectly describes the effect that T.S. Eliot and Emily Dickinson’s poetry has on people. Interestingly, Dickinson literally uses dashes as pauses in her poetry, forcing the reader to pause and reflect on the statement she is making, at each line.

Overall, I was very impressed with Sir Christopher Ricks's talk and felt lucky to experience this once in a lifetime event.

Response to "Dickinson's Aesthetics and Fascicle 21"

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), which was the first time Dickinson’s fascicles were published. The main issue the chapter discusses is how the poems within a given fascicle relate to each other, if at all, and how the fascicles as a group relate to each other. Opinions on this subject are wildly varied and furiously debated. Heginbotham carefully dissects many arguments posited by critics or scholars and seems to come to the reasonable conclusion that “Dickinson must have planted or at least recognized most of the surprises that await the reader”(p. 16). She goes on to give the most persuasive evidence of this point of view, which happens to be the simplest possible: “The poems exist on the page. Emily Dickinson put them there”(ibid). Much of the chapter is devoted to analysis of Fascicle 21, especially of the two poems “They shut me up in Prose” and “This is a poet.” These two so called “paired poems”(p. 16) seem to be author’s main focus of research (at least in this chapter). Some of the evidence given for their relationship seems well-founded and well-researched. A fascinating example of convincing evidence in this chapter the many words that appear to be paired with each other in these two poems: prose/poet, sense/incense, still/distill. The interpretation given is not only convincing but backed by extensive knowledge of Dickinson’s patterns as a writer.

Although the author makes some interesting point, it is clear that no interpretation of Dickinson is definitive, regardless of how well-researched it may be. Her work will most likely always prove to be contentious, which would likely have pleased her. She deliberately wrote her poetry to be open to interpretation and elusive in its meaning. In conclusion, this chapter alone proves little about Dickinson or her fascicles, although it is inadvertently a very interesting insight into the world of literary critique.

nickolas-bray

sumaya94

nickolas-bray:

"I can easily relate this in terms of music. One can see meaning in one individual song. But, when all the songs of an album are listened to from start to finish a whole new meaning and appreciation for the songs can be discovered."

I love this comparison and I agree.

Response to the Introduction of Reading the Fascicles of Emily Dickinson by Eleanor Elson Heginbotham

Heginbotham describes Dickinson’s fascicles as having "the wildness of bottled genius" and goes on to describe how researching the fascicles not only “convinces the reader that Dickinson is not only one of the great poets of the English language but one of the craftiest editors as well.”(xiii). In addition to doing this, the fascicles reveal Dickinson’s character and personality as a writer. The fact that her method of publication was so personal and painstaking shows that she craved and cultivated an intimacy and friendship with her readers that most writers do not insist on. Although all good writers pour their heart and soul into their craft, few writers make their writing so thoughtfully individualized. In most published works, there are countless unseen “middlemen.” This means that as readers, we do not get to read the same manuscript that the editor does. In most cases, we do not know which parts are cut out or which parts were suggested by an editor in the first place. By the time a book is published, there has been an entire hidden process that does not involve the reader.

As humans, one of the most enthralling experiences is the opportunity to enter into inner workings of another's mind. For this reason, museums are full of historical artifacts and fragments of ancient texts and for the same reason, libraries are full of biographies and autobiographies of famous and ordinary people, alike. This would explain the fascination many people have with reading the private letters or journals of authors from Nietzsche to Jane Austen. The difference between an ordinary book and one of Dickinson’s fascicles can be compared to the difference in receiving a handwritten letter rather than an email. We can intuit much from an individual’s handwriting, and more than this, we consciously or unconsciously take note of any personal quirks of penmanship, the legibility of the writing, even the size and type of paper. In an email, this is all “sanitized." With all of this in mind, imagine you are a recipient of one of Dickinson’s fascicles. Armed with the knowledge that Dickinson hand-printed and sewed together the copy you are holding in your hands, would not this mere thought stir your emotions and alter your interpretation of its contents before your eyes even have a chance to read the first word?

Response to Emily Dickinson’s poem “They shut me up in Prose”

In this poem, Emily Dickinson is asserting autonomy over her intellect and by doing so, rebelling against those who would metaphorically lock her up in a closet. Although it is a short poem, it is incredibly powerful. By capitalizing key words and repeating the word "still" in the first and second stanzas, she adds depth and emotion to otherwise simple lines. The first time she uses the word still, it is meant to convey that this is how the adults like her: quiet and causing no trouble or fuss. The second time is it used, she is scoffing at the folly of this idea. She knows that no one will ever be able to still her mind, if only they could see her "Brain go round" they would realize how ridiculous their attempts are. After comparing her situation to a bird unjustly suffering its loss of freedom, she that declares that all the bird has to do is "will" itself free. Although anyone can a similar fate, it is implied that Dickinson feels her gender to be a factor in her "captors" treatment of her. This is revealed in the first stanza, where after comparing her current situation (of presumably being dissuaded from writing poetry and told to stick to prose) to being locked up as a little girl, it is implied that the reason for both cases was because "they liked her 'still.'" This poem contains sound advice for anyone who is feeling oppressed, either by an outside force such as society, or a negative internal fear that they are trying to combat.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Theory and Practice of the Book