So last post, I can honestly say I'm a little sad. Well, that's enough sentiment let's get down to it!
Where will my interest in reading and writing take me? That is quite the spring board. I can certainly tell you where I hope to go. The classroom first and foremost. I am an educator. I think I was born to be one. Any gift of phrase that I possess, I fully intend to use for the benefit of others. I think reading will lead me to a place of insight that I may be able to better describe certain concepts than someone else. If that becomes the case then I will use that description so someone else might better understand me.
Writing is as always more of an exploration of self than anything else. As I grow older and wiser my knowledge of myself is bound to become more accurate. And hell, I'm such a great guy that if I can perfectly describe my self I know it will be a best seller. All kidding aside I do want to write another "great American novel" and feel like the potential to do so is within me, so long as I have a first class editor <--- Wish I were kidding.
So professional writer during the summer and High school teacher the rest of the year is my short answer. But that's hardly how I want to cap off such a fantastic assignment from one of my favorite classes thus far in my collegiate career. So to expound, Reading is going to take me a lot of places. I can foresee it taking me deeper into the realm of poetry. I love the intensity of it, the seeming urgency to find underlying meaning within a few short stanzas. Eventually I'm sure I'll have to find a passion for non-fiction. Otherwise research is going to be a bitch for the rest of my life. Can't have that now can we? I don't think that will be as hard as it sounds. There's always a lot of interesting stuff in history, it's just getting into the minute details that I've yet to conquer. Already this semester my reading has broadened my horizons learning a great deal about the middle-east and enough about Kierkegaard to spell his name right without looking it up. I will always continue to read because it is always humbling to find out that there is always so much more to the world than you first thought.
As I said Novelist is the eventual goal, but before I get there I'm thinking there are a few stops I'll be forced to make along the way. Short-stories, poetry, journals, diaries, screenplays (probably never developed into movies, but whatever) a part of me wants to write at least one of everything; this would be the non-lazy part. But the first and most vital step I feel I have only just started to take: I need to find my own voice. I need to first realize what I want to express about me. What do I think is worth writing about, and in such a way that will flow or make sense to my intended audience. For that matter who is my intended audience. So I have much to learn. This of course means more reading. Life certainly does have it's poetry.
Well sense this isn't by any means a formal writing, I think I'll conclude in a way that plenty of teachers have told me not to.
IN CONCLUSION, (lol probably funny to no one but me) reading and writing have taken me a long way and are bound to take me much farther. The reason is this: I have devoted my life to them, and if I put my best efforts into any endeavor, I will without fail, excel. Sounds cocky, but... Well, there is no but to that, it just sounds cocky. If this were any kind of a truthful essay I would just have to say I have no idea where I'm going with all of this but I'm enjoying myself along the way, won't you all join me?
Loved this class, gonna try my damnedest to take careers in writing!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Elizabeth Bishop
I don't get her. I tried my best and just don't get her. She is very descriptive and I enjoy the language, but try as I might I can't seem to read into her poetry. when we're talking about it in class I've got a bit more to go on, but when I'm alone... well, there isn't anyone else's thoughts to play off of. However, since this so far has been a totally unsatisfactory posting; I feel obligated to give it the old college try at least once more.
First, a few observations. In the beginning, I was trying to find a common link between the poems. Some unifying bond that the poet might have put down within the collection that might make the title make sense. So I never could figure out what the focus on time and place was about. The geography of the poems was wide and varied. Although the focus is obvious the meaning escapes me. In Crusoe in England the location is given and clearly of some importance since it is included in the title. Just speculation, but I would guess that the emphasis on location is of paramount importance to the reader rather than the speaker. Throughout the poem the speaker, presumably Robinson Crusoe, narrates in a dissatisfied manner. For example: "My island seemed to be/ a sort of cloud-dump. All the hemisphere's left over clouds arrived and hung..." Notice the negative diction. cloud-dump, left over clouds, these words indicate a deep seeded grievance with the situation the speaker finds himself in. I think that the circumstance transcends the location. Just as we sometimes travel abroad to escape our personal delimnas, and we then find the same problems haunting us where ever we go. The same goes for Crusoe. It doen't matter what island he is on, his trouble is that of the soul. A dissatisfaction with himself rather than his surroundings. I think that Bishop is trying to establish this to the reader. Until the self is sufficient, life will never be fulfilling.
There that was my dead level best, and I hope you all enjoyed it.
First, a few observations. In the beginning, I was trying to find a common link between the poems. Some unifying bond that the poet might have put down within the collection that might make the title make sense. So I never could figure out what the focus on time and place was about. The geography of the poems was wide and varied. Although the focus is obvious the meaning escapes me. In Crusoe in England the location is given and clearly of some importance since it is included in the title. Just speculation, but I would guess that the emphasis on location is of paramount importance to the reader rather than the speaker. Throughout the poem the speaker, presumably Robinson Crusoe, narrates in a dissatisfied manner. For example: "My island seemed to be/ a sort of cloud-dump. All the hemisphere's left over clouds arrived and hung..." Notice the negative diction. cloud-dump, left over clouds, these words indicate a deep seeded grievance with the situation the speaker finds himself in. I think that the circumstance transcends the location. Just as we sometimes travel abroad to escape our personal delimnas, and we then find the same problems haunting us where ever we go. The same goes for Crusoe. It doen't matter what island he is on, his trouble is that of the soul. A dissatisfaction with himself rather than his surroundings. I think that Bishop is trying to establish this to the reader. Until the self is sufficient, life will never be fulfilling.
There that was my dead level best, and I hope you all enjoyed it.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Seamus Heaney- Opened Ground
Seamus Heaney would be a master story teller if he hadn't been a poet. A lot of his poems read like a good story. They have a nice steady pace with interesting language and a lot of plot development, (for a poem anyway.) Much of the rhythm he creates is within his language, all of which sounds Irish somehow. That really boggles my mind actually. How do you make something written sound like it has an accent? I'm not really sure how he does it, but it works. I think it has a lot to do with his word choice.
"Nightly, naturally/swimming towards the lure/Of warm lit-up places,/the blurred mesh and murmur/Drifting among glasses/In the gregarious smoke."
This selection from Casualty is a good example of what I'm talking about. He has these short matter-of-fact statements that wonderfully describe the path of a drunk to a pub rather than a fish to the line. Maybe it only sounds Irish since it's talking about drinking, but I can kind of just hear the lyrical quality of the language shining through. The word "gregarious" really stands out to me. Not a "big" word but not a small one either. It doesn't sound like elevated language, because to me that would imply arrogance. Instead it sounds educated and approachable especially in the context it's being used.
I think that's what I like most about his poetry. It's a) very good and b) sounds conversational. It's like I could meet a guy in a pub that would talk like this, and over a few pints of Guinness we might have the most interesting conversation I've ever had with a stranger.
Another thing about his poetry I'd like to touch on is that his subject matter is so multi-faceted. I like the way he blends political, social, and even archaeological history with metaphor. In the Tollund Man he compares the ancient motives for execution with the modern ones and finds them equally pointless. His writing reflects his unease about the political situation as well as his attempts to reconcile his beliefs with his torrential upbringing. It makes for good drama. That poem in particular paints an ugly picture of humanity's seedy underbelly, while at the same time eloquently describing the distress that an individual might feel against the insurmountable quality of the situation.
"Nightly, naturally/swimming towards the lure/Of warm lit-up places,/the blurred mesh and murmur/Drifting among glasses/In the gregarious smoke."
This selection from Casualty is a good example of what I'm talking about. He has these short matter-of-fact statements that wonderfully describe the path of a drunk to a pub rather than a fish to the line. Maybe it only sounds Irish since it's talking about drinking, but I can kind of just hear the lyrical quality of the language shining through. The word "gregarious" really stands out to me. Not a "big" word but not a small one either. It doesn't sound like elevated language, because to me that would imply arrogance. Instead it sounds educated and approachable especially in the context it's being used.
I think that's what I like most about his poetry. It's a) very good and b) sounds conversational. It's like I could meet a guy in a pub that would talk like this, and over a few pints of Guinness we might have the most interesting conversation I've ever had with a stranger.
Another thing about his poetry I'd like to touch on is that his subject matter is so multi-faceted. I like the way he blends political, social, and even archaeological history with metaphor. In the Tollund Man he compares the ancient motives for execution with the modern ones and finds them equally pointless. His writing reflects his unease about the political situation as well as his attempts to reconcile his beliefs with his torrential upbringing. It makes for good drama. That poem in particular paints an ugly picture of humanity's seedy underbelly, while at the same time eloquently describing the distress that an individual might feel against the insurmountable quality of the situation.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Glengary Glen Ross
Woo. I don't know where to start. Well, I can't really think of anybody else playing Roma except Pacino after seeing the movie for one thing. "Hey, I'll buy ya a pack of gum. Let me show ya how to chew it." ...Awesome. Yeah, in fact seeing the movie made such an impression on me that I can't really even think about what I thought when I read it through. Probably because the language just doesn't translate near as well when just reading it.
I really liked where Mamet was going with the characters as well. Not a single one of them had any redeeming qualities, except Aaronow, and yet they were all likable, except Aaronow. I, of course loved Roma the best. It's funny how charisma can transcend integrity, (see politicians for further reference). In a cut-throat sales world, the only way to be successful is to be a scumbag-Alec Baldwin. It seems the less morality you possess the more money you can make, it's freaking silly.
But let's get back to Aaronow. He is boring, indecisive, and doesn't seem all that bright. Although, he is smart enough not to go along with Moss on the robbery. Of course, I think that had less to do with intelligence and more to do with morality. That's the thing though, he's the least entertaining character in the play, but at the same time he is the only one that has any redeeming qualities. I almost can't stand the fact that the one guy who manages to do the right thing gets subtly castigated the whole time as an impotent idiot. What's the point of that exactly? Sales=evil? I don't know about that. occasionally deceptive maybe. In this play however, it is most definitely the malicious manipulation of other individuals. And if you can't do that then you aren't a real man.
So what's underneath the statement? the best I can come up with right now is maybe it's an attack on capitalism. It breeds evil and ill-treatment of your fellow man etc. One possibility, I don't think it's a very good one though, it seems too easy. I guess it could be that Aaronow's attitude toward himself is a result of having the moral fortitude to refuse to emulate the other characters. Thus he thinks he can't close because he won't do the dishonest things the others do. So his strength is a weakness without the confidence to back up the morality. If Aaronow had the confidence that Roma has, he wouldn't need to be dishonest. He'd be able to sell himself, and in turn the real estate as well.
I really liked where Mamet was going with the characters as well. Not a single one of them had any redeeming qualities, except Aaronow, and yet they were all likable, except Aaronow. I, of course loved Roma the best. It's funny how charisma can transcend integrity, (see politicians for further reference). In a cut-throat sales world, the only way to be successful is to be a scumbag-Alec Baldwin. It seems the less morality you possess the more money you can make, it's freaking silly.
But let's get back to Aaronow. He is boring, indecisive, and doesn't seem all that bright. Although, he is smart enough not to go along with Moss on the robbery. Of course, I think that had less to do with intelligence and more to do with morality. That's the thing though, he's the least entertaining character in the play, but at the same time he is the only one that has any redeeming qualities. I almost can't stand the fact that the one guy who manages to do the right thing gets subtly castigated the whole time as an impotent idiot. What's the point of that exactly? Sales=evil? I don't know about that. occasionally deceptive maybe. In this play however, it is most definitely the malicious manipulation of other individuals. And if you can't do that then you aren't a real man.
So what's underneath the statement? the best I can come up with right now is maybe it's an attack on capitalism. It breeds evil and ill-treatment of your fellow man etc. One possibility, I don't think it's a very good one though, it seems too easy. I guess it could be that Aaronow's attitude toward himself is a result of having the moral fortitude to refuse to emulate the other characters. Thus he thinks he can't close because he won't do the dishonest things the others do. So his strength is a weakness without the confidence to back up the morality. If Aaronow had the confidence that Roma has, he wouldn't need to be dishonest. He'd be able to sell himself, and in turn the real estate as well.
As You Like It
Shakespeare is always fun to write about for me. I enjoy the reading, and for the most part I can keep up with the language. However, he loses me on occasion. This being said it is sometimes difficult to come up with an intelligible analysis, so bear with me folks. At the risk of treading over the beaten path, I think the gender issues are the most interesting thing about this play. I think the ultimate thing to do would be to have Eddie Izzard play Rosalind. Not a particularly serious attempt at making the play make sense but hey, it's a comedy. That was the main issue for me: is there any way any woman could actually pull this off? I guess it's called a "suspension of disbelief" for a reason. The whole conversation about whether or not Orlando knows that Ganymede is Rosalind, I found to be pretty fascinating. Unfortunately it all depends on who's directing. The themes behind the gender confusion are intriguing as well though. It seems that Rosalind is the heroine of the play and along with her prominent role the forest of Arden also represents the feminine. Consequently Arden is nearly equated with paradise and Rosalind's actions bring about the idealistic ending of the farce. So we have two major feminine forces doing most of the work setting right all of the things that masculinity and the concepts equated with it have messed up. The court life (i.e. society) corrupting Duke Frederick and Oliver for example.
I'm not certain that's the message Shakespeare wanted to get across but it seems a viable interpretation to me. He does make the concession that life in Arden can't go on forever. I guess this is the reconciliation of the to opposing forces, that is instigated on the part of the feminine. That's not really a stretch. Sometimes in a relationship the guy does something inconsiderate and overt and the woman graciously offers to reconcile and the guy then proceeds to feel like an ass for the next couple of days. In the best case scenario he also behaves extra nice to make up for his unseemly behavior. I guess it's a microcosmic example. The whole play deals with relationships in the first place; so saying it's one big allegory for a romantic rapport with many varied and buried asides is an accurate statement. The asides are always more fun in Shakespeare than the main plot to me. Which is why I like Jaques. His "life's a stage" speech is a lot of fun. It is of course a quite melancholy view, but not altogether distorted. No, not distorted just bleak. The part about old age I don't think he does justice though. A second childhood perhaps, but what's so bad about that? Growing up is way more fun than being a grown-up, not only that you have all the acquired wisdom throughout life as well. Sounds like a good deal to me. I plan on being extremely childish in my golden years. I'll pull pranks on my kids and spoil their kids rotten. Speed in front of cops, pretend I'm slower than I really am in the supermarket, things of that nature. It'll be a gas.
I'm not certain that's the message Shakespeare wanted to get across but it seems a viable interpretation to me. He does make the concession that life in Arden can't go on forever. I guess this is the reconciliation of the to opposing forces, that is instigated on the part of the feminine. That's not really a stretch. Sometimes in a relationship the guy does something inconsiderate and overt and the woman graciously offers to reconcile and the guy then proceeds to feel like an ass for the next couple of days. In the best case scenario he also behaves extra nice to make up for his unseemly behavior. I guess it's a microcosmic example. The whole play deals with relationships in the first place; so saying it's one big allegory for a romantic rapport with many varied and buried asides is an accurate statement. The asides are always more fun in Shakespeare than the main plot to me. Which is why I like Jaques. His "life's a stage" speech is a lot of fun. It is of course a quite melancholy view, but not altogether distorted. No, not distorted just bleak. The part about old age I don't think he does justice though. A second childhood perhaps, but what's so bad about that? Growing up is way more fun than being a grown-up, not only that you have all the acquired wisdom throughout life as well. Sounds like a good deal to me. I plan on being extremely childish in my golden years. I'll pull pranks on my kids and spoil their kids rotten. Speed in front of cops, pretend I'm slower than I really am in the supermarket, things of that nature. It'll be a gas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)