Sunday, April 17, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
"Lord Jim" and (accidentally) Modernism
It's been a few years since I last read Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," but it's one of my favorite books and I had been looking forward to reading "Lord Jim." I was excited to discover that Marlow the narrator returns ... and, upon reading the introduction, that Conrad was actually Polish. For years I thought the guy was British. Not only that, but "Lord Jim" is considered in some circles to be THE beginning of modernist literature, moving away from Victorian themes.
My immediate question: "Wait, what does this modernist thing mean?"
Modernist lit generally concerns the "isolation of consciousness" (Seeley, "Conrad's Modernist Romance"), subjective narrators, possibly a nonchronological structure, and a theme of indeterminacy. Georg Simmel elaborates on the central concern "to preserve the autonomy and individuality of [the character's] existence in the face of overwhelming social forces, of historical heritage, of external culture, and of the technique of life" ... i.e., how to make sense of the world.
Modernism tends to be pessimistic, but Conrad's "Lord Jim" is also vividly romantic-- pirates! heroism! adoring natives! So, keeping this in mind, back to the actual book.
As far as Marlow and the fragmented storytelling structure go: On Lord Jim by Adam Roberts
Though parts of the book leap around in time and place, the story's bound tightly with Jim and the Patna incident, in which he abandons what he thinks is a sinking ship. Embarrassingly, the ship doesn't sink-- and Jim must face his cowardly act in court, as well as through the rest of his life. Thus, "Lord Jim" deals with his sense of self and "problems of conduct" (see Thorburn "Conrad's Romanticism"). As Thorburn notes, the story begins and ends with external disasters provoking psychic collapse, or illustrating the "antipathy of the world toward human aspirations" (Matin's introduction). Marlow, the seasoned narrator, seems to grasp this idea- after all, he's witnessed Colonel Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness."
Jim is alternately portrayed in great detail, down to his posture, and also remains vague as some kind of almost secondary character (recall the theme of indeterminacy) -- Jim's presumed lines of thought are told through Marlow, so the reader is never really clear on what's "right." Plus, Jim is a less than eloquent speaker. Significantly, at the end of the novel he is unable to write a letter explaining himself, and competing points of view on his death/suicide are offered by Stein, Jewel and Marlow.
Regarding Jim's voluntary meeting with Doramin (whom he knows will shoot him), Jim wants to prove he values his honor over life-- which is essentially what he's been trying to do ever since the Patna incident. Whether he needs to prove this to himself or others is a complex issue. Probably both. Now that I think about it, definitely both -- to resolve his own psychic/ego crisis and to have witnesses that validate his action. It's clearly a selfish move, as he leaves Jewel and the villagers to fend for themselves, and based on the idealistic & romantic nature of his character. Going back to Simmel's quote, Jim spends most of the book trying to escape a society that defines him through his worst moment. Even in Patusan, the appearance of Gentleman Brown throws a wrench into his careful fortifications and Jim is only able to preserve his individual existence through death (see! I AM honorable and heroic!). At least, that's the best theory I can muster.
I really didn't think "Lord Jim" was that pessimistic. Yeah, the guy dies in the end, and his life is haunted by the stupid Patna disaster, but I didn't find it to be this huge downer of a book. Then again, I'm a sucker for romantic idealism, so maybe I do see a noble aspect in Jim's death. Marlow says it was "the call of his exalted egoism" that led to "his pitiless wedding with a shadowy ideal of conduct" ... but he also calls Jim "one of us." No doubt Jim's a tragic figure, but I don't think the story's depressing.
I want to touch base on one more interesting thing from the introduction (and how often does that happen?): the comparison between Jim and Colonel Kurtz. In many ways, "Lord Jim" is the foil to "Heart of Darkness" ... but! It's "another tale that focuses on [Marlow's] complicated relationship with an idealistic white man who uses an imperial territory to live out his own grandiose fantasies."
Two favorite moments:
"And do you know how many opportunities I let escape; how many dreams I had lost that had come in my way? ... It seems to me that some would have been very fine- if I had made them come true." -Stein
"Are not our lives too short for that full utterance which through all our stammerings is of course our only and abiding intention?" -Marlow
Bottom line: this book had way more layers than I expected. Plus, Conrad is Polish and I learned what modernist literature was!
Next up is a brief break from my canon list, with Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God." Then probably some philosophical essays on love, some Kundera and Sondak, and likely "Mansfield Park" by Jane Austen to get back to the list.
My immediate question: "Wait, what does this modernist thing mean?"
Modernist lit generally concerns the "isolation of consciousness" (Seeley, "Conrad's Modernist Romance"), subjective narrators, possibly a nonchronological structure, and a theme of indeterminacy. Georg Simmel elaborates on the central concern "to preserve the autonomy and individuality of [the character's] existence in the face of overwhelming social forces, of historical heritage, of external culture, and of the technique of life" ... i.e., how to make sense of the world.
Modernism tends to be pessimistic, but Conrad's "Lord Jim" is also vividly romantic-- pirates! heroism! adoring natives! So, keeping this in mind, back to the actual book.
As far as Marlow and the fragmented storytelling structure go: On Lord Jim by Adam Roberts
Though parts of the book leap around in time and place, the story's bound tightly with Jim and the Patna incident, in which he abandons what he thinks is a sinking ship. Embarrassingly, the ship doesn't sink-- and Jim must face his cowardly act in court, as well as through the rest of his life. Thus, "Lord Jim" deals with his sense of self and "problems of conduct" (see Thorburn "Conrad's Romanticism"). As Thorburn notes, the story begins and ends with external disasters provoking psychic collapse, or illustrating the "antipathy of the world toward human aspirations" (Matin's introduction). Marlow, the seasoned narrator, seems to grasp this idea- after all, he's witnessed Colonel Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness."
Jim is alternately portrayed in great detail, down to his posture, and also remains vague as some kind of almost secondary character (recall the theme of indeterminacy) -- Jim's presumed lines of thought are told through Marlow, so the reader is never really clear on what's "right." Plus, Jim is a less than eloquent speaker. Significantly, at the end of the novel he is unable to write a letter explaining himself, and competing points of view on his death/suicide are offered by Stein, Jewel and Marlow.
Regarding Jim's voluntary meeting with Doramin (whom he knows will shoot him), Jim wants to prove he values his honor over life-- which is essentially what he's been trying to do ever since the Patna incident. Whether he needs to prove this to himself or others is a complex issue. Probably both. Now that I think about it, definitely both -- to resolve his own psychic/ego crisis and to have witnesses that validate his action. It's clearly a selfish move, as he leaves Jewel and the villagers to fend for themselves, and based on the idealistic & romantic nature of his character. Going back to Simmel's quote, Jim spends most of the book trying to escape a society that defines him through his worst moment. Even in Patusan, the appearance of Gentleman Brown throws a wrench into his careful fortifications and Jim is only able to preserve his individual existence through death (see! I AM honorable and heroic!). At least, that's the best theory I can muster.
I really didn't think "Lord Jim" was that pessimistic. Yeah, the guy dies in the end, and his life is haunted by the stupid Patna disaster, but I didn't find it to be this huge downer of a book. Then again, I'm a sucker for romantic idealism, so maybe I do see a noble aspect in Jim's death. Marlow says it was "the call of his exalted egoism" that led to "his pitiless wedding with a shadowy ideal of conduct" ... but he also calls Jim "one of us." No doubt Jim's a tragic figure, but I don't think the story's depressing.
I want to touch base on one more interesting thing from the introduction (and how often does that happen?): the comparison between Jim and Colonel Kurtz. In many ways, "Lord Jim" is the foil to "Heart of Darkness" ... but! It's "another tale that focuses on [Marlow's] complicated relationship with an idealistic white man who uses an imperial territory to live out his own grandiose fantasies."
In short, Marlow has already seen how a megalomaniac who arrogates to himself dictatorial powers based on racial prestige can lose sight of the putatively ethical basis of imperialism, and Jim is evidently not exempt from such tendencies, no matter how benevolent his rule in Patusan may appear.Dangerously similar situations and personalities! While I recognized the strains of racial superiority from "Heart of Darkness" (worship the white man, because colored people can't govern themselves!), I would have never thought to compare Jim and Kurtz. I guess I was too busy trying to sympathize with Jim. Hmm.
Two favorite moments:
"And do you know how many opportunities I let escape; how many dreams I had lost that had come in my way? ... It seems to me that some would have been very fine- if I had made them come true." -Stein
"Are not our lives too short for that full utterance which through all our stammerings is of course our only and abiding intention?" -Marlow
Bottom line: this book had way more layers than I expected. Plus, Conrad is Polish and I learned what modernist literature was!
Next up is a brief break from my canon list, with Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God." Then probably some philosophical essays on love, some Kundera and Sondak, and likely "Mansfield Park" by Jane Austen to get back to the list.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Artaud, Briefly
Had the pleasure of seeing EgoPo's production of Artaud Unbound tonight, featuring stagings of his radio scenarios, black-and-white scenarios, and "Spurt of Blood" with readings from "Theater and its Double". Quite the treat, to understate it.
When you will have made him a body without organs,
then you will have delivered him from all his automatic reactions
and restored him to his true freedom.
Then you will teach him again to dance wrong side out
as in the frenzy of dance halls
and this wrong side out will be his real place.
- To Have Done with the Judgment of God
Monday, February 7, 2011
Adventures with Plato and "The Republic"
It really was an adventure, what with the single worst translation moment in history ("a shabby sort of thing") and the discovery of Franklin O. Loveland, III (Dartmouth Class of 1964, the last person to read this copy). Beyond that, I was pleased to discover that "The Republic" was not only readable, but directly relevant to current events! The chapters on despotism coincided with Egypt's anti-Mubarak protests this past week-- which also almost (almost) made me want to take a second look at "The Prince".
Anyway, moving on to the meat of it ... Plato puts forth a ridiculously difficult hypothesis: Morality is in the interest of the individual. In other words, it pays to be just. He clarifies that this doesn't mean only acting morally (external justice) but being moral (internal justice, which begets external). For example, giving to charity for the sake of garnering favorable opinions but not for the sake of the charity's work, that would be external justice. I seem like a great person.
Mini-note: the word ontology means the study of existence and being. (What is real?)
Mini-note #2: Plate defines philosophy as the desire for TOTAL knowledge and Truth, beyond the desire/curiosity for new experiences like travel and culture ... Plato is all about getting at absolutes, not relative appearances
Plato begins with the Social Contract theory, summed up as "Hey, let's agree not to murder or steal from each other and everything'll be great." BUT, imagine the suspension of law and that Social Contract ... if I have to the power to do so without punishment, wouldn't I steal? (I believe this might be called looting.) Do morality and justice have worth beyond appearances?
Plato says: Being just is success in itself -- a virtue by its intrinsic effect on a person.
Amid this main argument, Plato seeks to describe an ideal city state in order to relate back to an ideal individual. This city state (hence, the republic) is governed by a Philosopher-King, who has wisdom of the true Good -- as best as I can tell, this ultimate Good described by Plato is more or less the meaning of life.
At this point, everyone in the dialogue wants to know how to get this "wisdom" of the Good ... which leads to the famous Allegory of the Cave. The true Good of knowing is similar to the Sun (= enlightenment!). Plato also introduces his theory of Forms. For example: I'm in a dark room and I discover there's a chair in the room; I can feel around the edges and it exists. But then say I turn on the light. There's still the chair in the room, only now I know what the color and shape is all together, and should I turn off the light again I still know what it really looks like (its' Form). The absolute Form is in contrast to the world of appearances (in the dark, maybe I think it's an ugly chair ... my friend might think it's a beautiful chair ... how can it be both ugly and beautiful?).
Random movie connections: "The Matrix" (waking from the dream of the world of appearances into the Real world of Forms) & "American Beauty" (plus note the contrast between the "beautiful" girl and the Beauty of the plastic bag) ... I guess 1999 was a good year for Plato.
The philosopher in a way gets the best of all worlds. He is wise and therefore just, and is able to show moderation and restraint in his gains and ambitions (self-control). Whereas a man who is ambitious and rich but not wise will not be fully satisfied in his soul.
The big argument against the unjust man is that he is haunted by FEAR, and therefore ultimately a slave (always guarding property, paranoia, avoiding the law). Plato argues that injustice also throws off the balance of the soul (psychological strain).
I thought it was interesting that, in describing the education of philosophers and the just man, Plato shows glimmers of a concept later explored by Foucault -- the social norm.
Continuing with modern connections ... Plato agrees with Susan Sontag that in art, aesthetics is linked with ethics. From my earlier Sontag entry: "The qualities which are intrinsic to the aesthetic experience ... are also fundamental constituents of a moral response to life." The moral pleasure in art in intelligent gratification ... one gains knowledge (WISDOM) through experiencing art! Both also stress emotionally-free, undramatic responses to art.
Plato's issue with art and specifically Homer's epics is that it reproduces conventional ideas and appearances of beauty, honor and justice, while indulging the emotions. Rather than against healthy catharsis, he seems to be more against trashy sentimentalism a la the soap opera and Jerry Springer.
Wrapping up briefly ...
My issues with Plato:
- endorsement of censorship (noble lie vs. control of information)
- communism in the ideal city (unity vs. sharing wives)
- totalitarianism in the ideal city (Philosopher-King knows best vs. political self-determination)
Bottom line: I'm glad I read this; overall inspiring and relevant.
Anyway, moving on to the meat of it ... Plato puts forth a ridiculously difficult hypothesis: Morality is in the interest of the individual. In other words, it pays to be just. He clarifies that this doesn't mean only acting morally (external justice) but being moral (internal justice, which begets external). For example, giving to charity for the sake of garnering favorable opinions but not for the sake of the charity's work, that would be external justice. I seem like a great person.
Mini-note: the word ontology means the study of existence and being. (What is real?)
Mini-note #2: Plate defines philosophy as the desire for TOTAL knowledge and Truth, beyond the desire/curiosity for new experiences like travel and culture ... Plato is all about getting at absolutes, not relative appearances
Plato begins with the Social Contract theory, summed up as "Hey, let's agree not to murder or steal from each other and everything'll be great." BUT, imagine the suspension of law and that Social Contract ... if I have to the power to do so without punishment, wouldn't I steal? (I believe this might be called looting.) Do morality and justice have worth beyond appearances?
Plato says: Being just is success in itself -- a virtue by its intrinsic effect on a person.
Amid this main argument, Plato seeks to describe an ideal city state in order to relate back to an ideal individual. This city state (hence, the republic) is governed by a Philosopher-King, who has wisdom of the true Good -- as best as I can tell, this ultimate Good described by Plato is more or less the meaning of life.
At this point, everyone in the dialogue wants to know how to get this "wisdom" of the Good ... which leads to the famous Allegory of the Cave. The true Good of knowing is similar to the Sun (= enlightenment!). Plato also introduces his theory of Forms. For example: I'm in a dark room and I discover there's a chair in the room; I can feel around the edges and it exists. But then say I turn on the light. There's still the chair in the room, only now I know what the color and shape is all together, and should I turn off the light again I still know what it really looks like (its' Form). The absolute Form is in contrast to the world of appearances (in the dark, maybe I think it's an ugly chair ... my friend might think it's a beautiful chair ... how can it be both ugly and beautiful?).
Random movie connections: "The Matrix" (waking from the dream of the world of appearances into the Real world of Forms) & "American Beauty" (plus note the contrast between the "beautiful" girl and the Beauty of the plastic bag) ... I guess 1999 was a good year for Plato.
The philosopher in a way gets the best of all worlds. He is wise and therefore just, and is able to show moderation and restraint in his gains and ambitions (self-control). Whereas a man who is ambitious and rich but not wise will not be fully satisfied in his soul.
The big argument against the unjust man is that he is haunted by FEAR, and therefore ultimately a slave (always guarding property, paranoia, avoiding the law). Plato argues that injustice also throws off the balance of the soul (psychological strain).
I thought it was interesting that, in describing the education of philosophers and the just man, Plato shows glimmers of a concept later explored by Foucault -- the social norm.
"Is not the public itself the greatest of all sophists [teachers], training up ... into the most accomplished specimens of the character it desires to produce? ... He accepts all their notions of right and wrong."The danger of conformity! Society creating identity! Ahh!
Continuing with modern connections ... Plato agrees with Susan Sontag that in art, aesthetics is linked with ethics. From my earlier Sontag entry: "The qualities which are intrinsic to the aesthetic experience ... are also fundamental constituents of a moral response to life." The moral pleasure in art in intelligent gratification ... one gains knowledge (WISDOM) through experiencing art! Both also stress emotionally-free, undramatic responses to art.
Plato's issue with art and specifically Homer's epics is that it reproduces conventional ideas and appearances of beauty, honor and justice, while indulging the emotions. Rather than against healthy catharsis, he seems to be more against trashy sentimentalism a la the soap opera and Jerry Springer.
Wrapping up briefly ...
My issues with Plato:
- endorsement of censorship (noble lie vs. control of information)
- communism in the ideal city (unity vs. sharing wives)
- totalitarianism in the ideal city (Philosopher-King knows best vs. political self-determination)
Bottom line: I'm glad I read this; overall inspiring and relevant.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
John Updike is Pennsylvanian
And yet I've managed to live in this state 23 years without hearing a single thing about him. Kind of like my stunned realizations that Walt Whitman lived in New Jersey and Poe had a house in Philly. Also amazing is that he wrote "Rabbit, Run" when he was 28.
I took a break from 1800s Russia and revisited 1960s/80s America with "Beloved" by Toni Morrison and "Rabbit, Run" by Mr. Updike, both of which were listed by the New York Times as the best fiction of the past 25 years. They sort of cheated by including the Rabbit 'series'.
Briefly on "Beloved" - it scared the crap out of me at several points (ghost story) and was extremely shocking at others (chain gangs, Sweet Home) but overall I enjoyed Morrison's voice and especially the dialogue. Favorite character = Stamp Paid. I'd like to read one of her novels set in more modern times.
"Rabbit Run" was also shocking, but mostly at the selfishness of Harry Angstrom. This book was on my good ol' canon list. It actually reminded me of the movie "American Beauty" if it happened to a guy half Kevin Spacey's age and forty years earlier. Even more relevant, "Revolutionary Road" with a gender role reversal. Which brings up the weirdest thing about this book - I kept envisioning Harry and Janice as a middle-aged couple, even though they were like mid-twenties. Possibly because most mid-twenties people I know today don't have a family and a house.
Updike succeeds in capturing the essence of domestic discontent and restlessness (Rabbit runs .. constantly) and managed to do this in such a way that a situation written in 1961 is still equally true today. I'm not sure if that speaks to the quality of the writing or the lack of quality in American family life. Probably both. It's horrific visions like these that lurk in the back of my mind, and probably in the mind of any twentysomething approaching that invisible line between eligible single and old maid. The trendy thing to do is travel abroad for a few months ... and hopefully it's more successful than Harry driving to the Gulf.
Bottom line is: Updike was able to capture a particular American truth (if that's the word?) in "Rabbit, Run", and I enjoy being surprised when I see the copyright date.
Things that finally happened:
- watched "Last Year at Marienbad" and "Muriel" by Alain Resnais (more on that later)
- started reading through Kundera's "Encounter"
I took a break from 1800s Russia and revisited 1960s/80s America with "Beloved" by Toni Morrison and "Rabbit, Run" by Mr. Updike, both of which were listed by the New York Times as the best fiction of the past 25 years. They sort of cheated by including the Rabbit 'series'.
Briefly on "Beloved" - it scared the crap out of me at several points (ghost story) and was extremely shocking at others (chain gangs, Sweet Home) but overall I enjoyed Morrison's voice and especially the dialogue. Favorite character = Stamp Paid. I'd like to read one of her novels set in more modern times.
"Rabbit Run" was also shocking, but mostly at the selfishness of Harry Angstrom. This book was on my good ol' canon list. It actually reminded me of the movie "American Beauty" if it happened to a guy half Kevin Spacey's age and forty years earlier. Even more relevant, "Revolutionary Road" with a gender role reversal. Which brings up the weirdest thing about this book - I kept envisioning Harry and Janice as a middle-aged couple, even though they were like mid-twenties. Possibly because most mid-twenties people I know today don't have a family and a house.
Updike succeeds in capturing the essence of domestic discontent and restlessness (Rabbit runs .. constantly) and managed to do this in such a way that a situation written in 1961 is still equally true today. I'm not sure if that speaks to the quality of the writing or the lack of quality in American family life. Probably both. It's horrific visions like these that lurk in the back of my mind, and probably in the mind of any twentysomething approaching that invisible line between eligible single and old maid. The trendy thing to do is travel abroad for a few months ... and hopefully it's more successful than Harry driving to the Gulf.
Bottom line is: Updike was able to capture a particular American truth (if that's the word?) in "Rabbit, Run", and I enjoy being surprised when I see the copyright date.
Things that finally happened:
- watched "Last Year at Marienbad" and "Muriel" by Alain Resnais (more on that later)
- started reading through Kundera's "Encounter"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)