Religion has always been a part of my life.
My dad was a perfect example of a born-again Christian when he was a kid. He used to get into all sorts of trouble - you name it. He then was pursuing a certain young lady, and she was involved with the church so he kind of just fell into it - much like Cheryl and Jason's story in Hey Nostradamus! She only joined Youth Alive because Jason was there, but ended up being more into the group and into religion than Jason ever was.
So my dad got into it the same sort of way... and I'm glad he did. He needed something to turn to, something to hold onto, something that gave him hope. He has stuck with his beliefs throughout his whole life, even the hardest times. He never ever pulled a Reg on my sisters and I though; we've never had God crammed down our throats or drilled into our heads. He educated us as much as he could when we were young, and now he allows us to make our own decisions... which I am forever grateful for. We don't even go to church. We have before, on Easter or Christmas some years, but it's never been a huge influence. It's been there, but nothing too extreme.
My dad threw out all his non-Christian music, and didn't hang out with any non-Christian people really after that either.
I can't even imagine doing that! I can't imagine devoting that much of myself to Christianity. I wouldn't even call myself a Christian for that reason... how can I be? I've never read the bible, I don't go to church, I don't sacrifice anything for God. I can't really wrap my head around it enough to do so. I do pray once in awhile, I have donned a cross around my neck, and I do believe in God... some form of God. I sacrifice for others, I would do anything for my friends and family, but the motivation is different. Coupland's novel made me cherish my dad's lenience. Even though he is really into his religion, he allows me to choose for myself without making me feel guilty or worthless because I don't agree with him. I have the perfect amount in my life. The guidance I need at times, without some hardcore extremist forcing me to believe. I would be much less likely to believe if somebody told me to. I thank God I don't have to deal with that.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Hey Satan!
A guy I used to be best friends with grew up a Muslim. His parents were devout Muslims, and he practiced to a certain extent as well. Somewhere along the line though he started questioning and doubting his religion. He couldn't find any answers until he went to see a priest. From then on he started to believe in God and Christianity. Great! Good for him, he seemed happier, he had some sort of understanding and even a fascination with his religion instead of living in uncertainty. I was happy for him.
Pretty soon though, he got really frightened: his parents, his sister, his whole family is going to Hell. Simply put, in his new-found religion, people who don't accept Jesus as their savior go to Hell, and well, there's no Jesus in Islamic faith. In his mind, all of his loved ones were now doomed. It became a HUGE problem in his life.
We grew apart for one reason or another, but I never really thought about his situation again until after reading Hey Nostradamus! His doubt turned into a complete shift of values, which turned into a mind-blowing revelation about Heaven and Hell and the people he loves. I have never taken religion to that extreme in my mind... but then again I am not a religious extremist.
By the same logic, and from a Christian standpoint, the majority of people on Earth are already checked in for eternal damnation. That doesn't seem right. Christianty as a whole seems more and more to me like 'Youth Alive!' Members are automatically regarded as VIPs by some divine being. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Catholics - they all have their own views on the afterlife... who decides which is right and which is wrong? Why is there a wrong answer? I guess these are questions of faith, faith in one's own beliefs. How about this one: If Christianity is about love and compassion, acceptance and forgiveness, how can it damn everyone who doesn't believe in God? It's a conditional compassion. What about the people who have never heard of Jesus? What about the wars that have been fought over this and many other religions? Where does a person (or army) draw the line? I could go on and on.
Coupland has accomplished his goal: he's instilled some doubts in me. I'm not doubting my own faith however, I'm doubting faith in general. I don't have answers, just many, many more questions... but what is literature's purpose if not to raise questions? I don't think the answers even exist.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Douglas Rocks
Douglas Coupland’s book, Hey Nostradamus is one of the best books that I have ever read. The way that Coupland presents his religious theme is commendable; he can somehow show the flaws and highlight the strengths of religion at the same time. Coupland presents characters that anyone can relate to, no matter one’s background, this being a major strength of the novel.
The way the book was written, one gets a real sense that the characters have a personal relationship with their religious beliefs. The characters, in each of their respective chapters, examine and intensely reflect upon their beliefs, allowing us to experience their personal and spiritual evolutions. Each of these chapters lets us have a glimpse inside a specific character’s head showing us their doubts, fears and affirmations. This lends a reality to the characters which helps us relate to them because everyone knows what it is like to question ourselves and our beliefs.
Douglas Coupland is using his characters to control the reader’s emotions. By making his characters tap into their doubt he gets us to question our own beliefs; he’s trying to create a resonance between the reader and the characters in the book. By having each part of the book dedicated to one character and their paradigm at a time, we get to devote quite a bit of time exploring one character’s world-view. Taking a look at the world from four different perspectives increases the probability that the reader’s paradigm will be addressed. From this we follow the characters into a re-examination of their beliefs and therefore our own.
This story has made me re-examine my own way of looking at religion and its effect in people’s lives. This is a hard thing for a novel to do illustrating the skill of Douglas Coupland.
The way the book was written, one gets a real sense that the characters have a personal relationship with their religious beliefs. The characters, in each of their respective chapters, examine and intensely reflect upon their beliefs, allowing us to experience their personal and spiritual evolutions. Each of these chapters lets us have a glimpse inside a specific character’s head showing us their doubts, fears and affirmations. This lends a reality to the characters which helps us relate to them because everyone knows what it is like to question ourselves and our beliefs.
Douglas Coupland is using his characters to control the reader’s emotions. By making his characters tap into their doubt he gets us to question our own beliefs; he’s trying to create a resonance between the reader and the characters in the book. By having each part of the book dedicated to one character and their paradigm at a time, we get to devote quite a bit of time exploring one character’s world-view. Taking a look at the world from four different perspectives increases the probability that the reader’s paradigm will be addressed. From this we follow the characters into a re-examination of their beliefs and therefore our own.
This story has made me re-examine my own way of looking at religion and its effect in people’s lives. This is a hard thing for a novel to do illustrating the skill of Douglas Coupland.
An All Too Common Occurance: The Accessibility of a High School Shooting as Subject Matter
Douglas Coupland’s decision to use a high school shooting as a central idea in Hey Nostradamus! is genius. This tragic, previously foreign and shocking concept has become a cultural reference, one that is understood and recognized. Similarly, “Chick flicks” (or lit!) sprung from the likes of Pride and Prejudice, and what once must have been a little known concept has formed its own niche as a fictional genre. High school shooting is now just as familiar; Columbine has expanded into a well-known tragedy. Like “chick flicks”, where you don’t have to see the movie to know that boy meets girl, there’s a conflict, and they get together at the end, you know immediately from the mention of “high school shooting” in the novel’s description that a handful of alienated teenagers decide to get revenge and make a point by massacring their classmates. This familiarity, the way high school shootings are now globally recognized, makes Coupland’s decision to use this theme as a vessel for the messages he is trying to get across a brilliant one. Yes, it’s pretty sickening how this scenario is now internationally identified, not only itself as a whole, but its individual parts as well: estranged students, their reaction to their isolation, their destruction- but that’s what makes this topic so perfect for Coupland’s cause. He has chosen a perfect medium to appeal to the widest spectrum of people, to pique the interest of the general public, in the way that a compilation of essays with the same purpose couldn’t. By making the high school shooting a central aspect, he can almost guarantee the general public’s interest- a massacre in their own backyard? Looks interesting…
Once he’s captured interest on a large scale, he can easily get his messages across; the need for open minds, the call for reducing cynicism, and increasing doubt. By choosing a fictional high school shooting to play on reader’s emotions, and giving them something they can relate to and recognize, Coupland displays his views perfectly, and he has chosen the ideal method to do so.
Once he’s captured interest on a large scale, he can easily get his messages across; the need for open minds, the call for reducing cynicism, and increasing doubt. By choosing a fictional high school shooting to play on reader’s emotions, and giving them something they can relate to and recognize, Coupland displays his views perfectly, and he has chosen the ideal method to do so.
Technology More Harm Than Good?!
By reading All Tomorrow's Parties by William Gibson we get a little insight into our possible future. This made me think about whether technology is all good and beneficial. Of course we would not be able to do half the research the we do and have the amount of knowledge that we possess but it can also cause problems.
In the novel Rei Toei is created as being the perfect woman. She is stunningly beautiful and sweet. Men fall in love with her even though they know that she is unattainable. But this is the problem because although she exemplifies this perfection she is not real. She is simply a series of digital images. What good is it creating something that is so perfect that is it impossible in the real world. Being in the presence of such perfection will make everything else seem inadequate. Nothing that is real will ever been good enough. No other woman could ever live up to the same standards as Rei Toei.
What good is it having this creation when it will just make the real world more difficult. Wrapping ourselves in a digital world is not a good idea because its not real. This form of technology definitely has a negative aspect because it prevents us from living what is real because real is hard. It allows us to take an easy way out because we don't have to face the hardships that we are surrounded by.
Another harmful part of technology is presented in a 2006 movie called Idiocrasy with Luke Wilson. This movie shows the world 500 years into the future. Although the movie is quite ridiculous is shows the effects of technology on human intelligence. There are outstanding machines and programs that are invented but as a consequence no one can think for themselves. Machines can do anything and everything so there is no need to even use the brain. As obscure as this thought may sound it is not that unrealistic.
Already we are creating things that prevent us from using our full mental capacity. Things such as spell check and calculators minimize the amount of work we have to do. This technology makes things faster and simpler but i already notice that i cannot spell well and i cannot do mental math. Then again why would i even bother if i have something that can do it for me? These things are minimal but the more creative that we get with technology the less work we will have to do. Therefore the technology that William Gibson is so wrapped up in may cause end up causing us quite the amount of harm.
In the novel Rei Toei is created as being the perfect woman. She is stunningly beautiful and sweet. Men fall in love with her even though they know that she is unattainable. But this is the problem because although she exemplifies this perfection she is not real. She is simply a series of digital images. What good is it creating something that is so perfect that is it impossible in the real world. Being in the presence of such perfection will make everything else seem inadequate. Nothing that is real will ever been good enough. No other woman could ever live up to the same standards as Rei Toei.
What good is it having this creation when it will just make the real world more difficult. Wrapping ourselves in a digital world is not a good idea because its not real. This form of technology definitely has a negative aspect because it prevents us from living what is real because real is hard. It allows us to take an easy way out because we don't have to face the hardships that we are surrounded by.
Another harmful part of technology is presented in a 2006 movie called Idiocrasy with Luke Wilson. This movie shows the world 500 years into the future. Although the movie is quite ridiculous is shows the effects of technology on human intelligence. There are outstanding machines and programs that are invented but as a consequence no one can think for themselves. Machines can do anything and everything so there is no need to even use the brain. As obscure as this thought may sound it is not that unrealistic.
Already we are creating things that prevent us from using our full mental capacity. Things such as spell check and calculators minimize the amount of work we have to do. This technology makes things faster and simpler but i already notice that i cannot spell well and i cannot do mental math. Then again why would i even bother if i have something that can do it for me? These things are minimal but the more creative that we get with technology the less work we will have to do. Therefore the technology that William Gibson is so wrapped up in may cause end up causing us quite the amount of harm.
All Tomorrow's Parties: The Not-Too-Distant Future?
William Gibson's All Tomorrow's Parties is about a futuristic world, but one that is really not too far into the future. The new technologies described in it, the dystopic society where capitalism and consumerism have gone to the extreme, and the merging of various cultures into one are all a little foreign to us, yes, but still foreseeable. This makes the novel realistic, for it is not hard to imagine such a world.
There are numerous examples in the novel of the combining of cultures, such as "Dirty is God"(Gibson 67), the restaurant that serves Mexican food while playing Japanese music. This is simply an extension of our current "global village" idea, of bringing the world closer together. The Internet is supposed to do this; it gives us access to news and information from around the world, allows us to chat and communicate with people from distant countries, and serves as a universal database, where anyone with a set-up can access the same things as anyone else.
Ironically, what was meant to bring people closer together has in many ways alienated us further from each other. People spend hours alone in a dark room staring at a computer screen instead of interacting with "real" people. We can send e-mails instead of seeing others in person, or even instead of hearing their voice over the phone. This cold alienation is evident in Gibson's novel, in the dystopic society he depicts. The world he describes seems very detached and cold. It is a world based even more on capitalism, consumerism and technology than our world today, but it is not so far exaggerated that we cannot fathom such a place existing. The Lucky Dragon convenience stores, for example, which are the same worldwide, are only a slight exaggeration of our 7-11's and other globalized companies.
Even the major advancements in nanotechnology in the novel are not inconceivable. In last Monday's Vancouver Sun, the headline on front page article read, "Welcome to the world of nanotechnology." The story is about advancement in the science being made at a new facility in Alberta. "It's reasonable to say it's the next technological revolution," one of the physicists says in the article, adding that it could take as little as ten to forty years. This is not referring to the exact advancements Gibson describes, of course, but the idea of nanotechnology creating major changes, and soon, is evident.
It seems that Gibson's All Tomorrow's Parties shows us a highly possible future. His "tomorrow" could come sooner than we think.
There are numerous examples in the novel of the combining of cultures, such as "Dirty is God"(Gibson 67), the restaurant that serves Mexican food while playing Japanese music. This is simply an extension of our current "global village" idea, of bringing the world closer together. The Internet is supposed to do this; it gives us access to news and information from around the world, allows us to chat and communicate with people from distant countries, and serves as a universal database, where anyone with a set-up can access the same things as anyone else.
Ironically, what was meant to bring people closer together has in many ways alienated us further from each other. People spend hours alone in a dark room staring at a computer screen instead of interacting with "real" people. We can send e-mails instead of seeing others in person, or even instead of hearing their voice over the phone. This cold alienation is evident in Gibson's novel, in the dystopic society he depicts. The world he describes seems very detached and cold. It is a world based even more on capitalism, consumerism and technology than our world today, but it is not so far exaggerated that we cannot fathom such a place existing. The Lucky Dragon convenience stores, for example, which are the same worldwide, are only a slight exaggeration of our 7-11's and other globalized companies.
Even the major advancements in nanotechnology in the novel are not inconceivable. In last Monday's Vancouver Sun, the headline on front page article read, "Welcome to the world of nanotechnology." The story is about advancement in the science being made at a new facility in Alberta. "It's reasonable to say it's the next technological revolution," one of the physicists says in the article, adding that it could take as little as ten to forty years. This is not referring to the exact advancements Gibson describes, of course, but the idea of nanotechnology creating major changes, and soon, is evident.
It seems that Gibson's All Tomorrow's Parties shows us a highly possible future. His "tomorrow" could come sooner than we think.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Playing Into the Sterotype
William Gibson has taken the easy way out with All Tomorrow’s Parties. He has played perfectly into the stereotypical science fiction novel, which must have been simple, techno geek that he is. So, he likes technology—we could probably go so far as to say that he’s obsessed with it. So why then, is All Tomorrow’s Parties written with a obsessively pessimistic outlook on this technology that he supposedly loves and respects? If he loves technology, where does he get this dystopia of what we are going to become from? While he is playing into this stereotypical sci-fi genre, he’s taking the simple route, the one where humanity falls into chaos. When he created Rei Toei, he played on the innate desire of humanity for perfection, but in doing so, he unintentionally implied that humanity in its natural state, with its imperfections, is useless. And, while we are in pursuit of this perfection, we are destroying ourselves. Gibson isn’t challenging himself by stepping off the beaten path and finding the potential happy balance between nature and technology. We don’t need another sinister, chaotic portrayal of where the world is headed, with technology at the helm. What does it do for us, make us feel depressed when we read a very feasible scenario for our planet? That’s how I felt when I read this novel. What’s the point? Instead, lets see a scenario where there is a natural balance between the preoccupation with achieving perfection, and the appreciation of things that aren’t perfect, but are instead original and beautiful that way. Show us how to achieve that, a feasible utopia, and then I will be impressed. I don’t want an unoriginal novel, full of unoriginal, copied gadgets; I want something new, something inspiring- I want something more.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Hey Nostradamus! and the Capacity for Evil
"I believe that what separates humanity from everything else in this world - spaghetti, binder paper, deep-sea creatures, edelweiss and Mount McKinley - is that humanity alone has the capacity at any given moment to commit all possible sins" (Coupland 3).
The opening sentence of Douglas Coupland's Hey Nostradamus! sets up an important theme: the capacity we all have for evil. Everyone has the ability to commit violence, as we see many times throughout the novel. In the school shooting, a group of students in the cafeteria kill one of the gunmen by laying a table flat on him and jumping up and down, crushing him to death. Jason, who, as Cheryl says, is generally "gentle" and "forgiving" (p.28), throws a rock at the head of one of the gunmen, killing him. Heather gets so frustrated and angry at the psychic, Allison, that she says, "I'm ready for murder" (p.184). Barb wants so badly to have a baby with Jason that, when a man in Las Vegas seems to get in the way, she murders him.
These people are not psychopaths or serial killers; they are average, "normal" people. And yet there is this darkness that comes out of them when they are pushed to the brink. As Cheryl says, "We're all equally on the brink of all sins" (p.34). We all have the potential to commit violent, savage acts at any given moment, because of the underlying darkness that exists within us all.
Coupland, however, is not saying that all of humanity is evil. We must realize that darkness is there, for otherwise we are being naive. But the fact that we all share this trait of always being just one step away from evil, this "capacity for slipping at any moment into great sin and eternal darkness" (p.33), makes us the same. It makes us equal.
This quotation from Chery sums up this topic nicely:
...the sun may burn brightly, and the faces
of children may be plump and achingly sweet,
but in the air we breathe, in the water we
drink and in the food we share, there will
always be darkness in this worl d.
(p. 42)
There will always be darkness in the world, for there will always be this darkness in us.
The opening sentence of Douglas Coupland's Hey Nostradamus! sets up an important theme: the capacity we all have for evil. Everyone has the ability to commit violence, as we see many times throughout the novel. In the school shooting, a group of students in the cafeteria kill one of the gunmen by laying a table flat on him and jumping up and down, crushing him to death. Jason, who, as Cheryl says, is generally "gentle" and "forgiving" (p.28), throws a rock at the head of one of the gunmen, killing him. Heather gets so frustrated and angry at the psychic, Allison, that she says, "I'm ready for murder" (p.184). Barb wants so badly to have a baby with Jason that, when a man in Las Vegas seems to get in the way, she murders him.
These people are not psychopaths or serial killers; they are average, "normal" people. And yet there is this darkness that comes out of them when they are pushed to the brink. As Cheryl says, "We're all equally on the brink of all sins" (p.34). We all have the potential to commit violent, savage acts at any given moment, because of the underlying darkness that exists within us all.
Coupland, however, is not saying that all of humanity is evil. We must realize that darkness is there, for otherwise we are being naive. But the fact that we all share this trait of always being just one step away from evil, this "capacity for slipping at any moment into great sin and eternal darkness" (p.33), makes us the same. It makes us equal.
This quotation from Chery sums up this topic nicely:
...the sun may burn brightly, and the faces
of children may be plump and achingly sweet,
but in the air we breathe, in the water we
drink and in the food we share, there will
always be darkness in this worl d.
(p. 42)
There will always be darkness in the world, for there will always be this darkness in us.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Is Religion Being Taken Too Literally?
Religion is a big aspect in the lives of many people. Since I was raised a Catholic, and spent nearly 13 years of my life at a Catholic school, religion is definitely a part of my life. But after reading Hey Nostradamus I realised that sometimes people take religion to literally. The view of religion is beginning to become a fundamentalist view. Once someone has this view they start to believe that only their beliefs are the correct ones and that everyone else is bound to hell. They also begin to look down upon people who are not religious. These traits are not good ones to have and they are far from religious. The effect of taking religion to this drastic literal level actually accomplishes the opposite of what is intended.
The character Reg from Hey Nostradamus is a prime example of taking religion to a negative level. Reg wants everyone around him to be religious, not only in the way they are but in the way he wants them to be. He shuns people that do not follow his ideal type of person. Therefore the only person he did not shun is his eldest son Kent, because everyone else does not fit into his ideal mold. He is unbelievably stubborn and close minded. By taking religion to his level, Reg is left alone and hated by everyone. It is not till the end of the book that he realises how wrong he is. In realising this he does not loose his sense of faith he simply develops a deeper understanding of compassion, understanding and forgiveness, which are basically aspects of religion.
Having a character like Reg helps Douglas Coupland inflict more doubt into people because it shows the audience the negative affects of a fundamentalist view. It is very important that Coupland does inflict doubt because religion is not meant to be taken that literally. Religion is ultimately a guideline on how to live our lives as good people. When taken too literally, like with Reg, the outcome is not positive. The more doubt that can be inflicted on people the less fundamentalist views there will be and the world has a potential being filled with more open minded accepting people. Yes, this does sound cheesy, but a chain effect will happen and it could possibly become the case.
The character Reg from Hey Nostradamus is a prime example of taking religion to a negative level. Reg wants everyone around him to be religious, not only in the way they are but in the way he wants them to be. He shuns people that do not follow his ideal type of person. Therefore the only person he did not shun is his eldest son Kent, because everyone else does not fit into his ideal mold. He is unbelievably stubborn and close minded. By taking religion to his level, Reg is left alone and hated by everyone. It is not till the end of the book that he realises how wrong he is. In realising this he does not loose his sense of faith he simply develops a deeper understanding of compassion, understanding and forgiveness, which are basically aspects of religion.
Having a character like Reg helps Douglas Coupland inflict more doubt into people because it shows the audience the negative affects of a fundamentalist view. It is very important that Coupland does inflict doubt because religion is not meant to be taken that literally. Religion is ultimately a guideline on how to live our lives as good people. When taken too literally, like with Reg, the outcome is not positive. The more doubt that can be inflicted on people the less fundamentalist views there will be and the world has a potential being filled with more open minded accepting people. Yes, this does sound cheesy, but a chain effect will happen and it could possibly become the case.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Why I don't like Poetry
Poetry, I don’t get it! I don’t get it and really, I don’t think I ever will. I came to this conclusion reading select poems from Margaret Avison’s collection of poems and I’m alright with this. I’m okay with not spending my time delving into the intricacies of one person’s take on a simple yellow hydrant like in her poem “Cement Worker on a Hot Day”. In actuality, that type of poetry goes against what I think language is about. I think that language is a tool, to get meaning across to other people, not an end-point in and of itself; to marvel and confuse other people. There is a place for it in the world, like all art, but just not in my world.
I think that’s what poetry really is, art. It is language that is taken beyond its utilitarian function as a tool and gone beyond that to become its own entity, to become the end instead of the means to an end. I think that to really understand a poem one has to know who is writing it and why they’re writing it; the context. Because we don’t usually have this information readily available this makes poetry a rather inefficient way of communicating.
As long as people keep this in mind, that poetry is a form of art, we can enjoy it for what it is. If one goes too far, however, and takes it too seriously then we have lost the purpose of the art.
I think that’s what poetry really is, art. It is language that is taken beyond its utilitarian function as a tool and gone beyond that to become its own entity, to become the end instead of the means to an end. I think that to really understand a poem one has to know who is writing it and why they’re writing it; the context. Because we don’t usually have this information readily available this makes poetry a rather inefficient way of communicating.
As long as people keep this in mind, that poetry is a form of art, we can enjoy it for what it is. If one goes too far, however, and takes it too seriously then we have lost the purpose of the art.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
like taking diction from a small child
When Ethel Wilson wrote The Innocent Traveller she was old. She was elderly; so far over the hill that she passed through the valley on the other side and was almost over the next hill. Compared to us 'younguns' she was practically ancient... a dinosaur, a relic, a brittle artifact! Okay, maybe not that old... but much older than her main character Topaz Edgeworth, and yet she wrote through children's eyes with flawless accuracy and believability. This became especially noticeable in "The Dark House and Detested Wife" when Topaz is writing a letter home to her parents. This was probably the only time I was fully engaged in the world of the novel, and it was because I really felt the voice of a little girl in that letter. Wilson's regular writing style contrasts like black and white with Topaz's letter as soon as it begins:
"I hope you are very well. Thank you very much for the 2/6 for me and for Hannah. Hannah's cold is still bad so Mrs. Porter kept her in bed. I like it here. Every afternoon we have a walk. The waves are lovely..." and so on.
It continues like that for the whole letter, but you only need two and a half lines to see he difference: instant grammatical errors, short sentences - sentences that don't seem to have any flow or strong connection, and just a youthful vibe. In other parts of the letter there are jumps from subject to subject, but the entire thing is one giant paragraph.
My favourite part is her cute little spelling mistakes; the kind you read in journal entries or on projects from elementary school and think, 'Was I that ridiculous?' Just enough of these gems show up in Topaz's letter, including 'amewsing'(amusing), 'plannets'(planets), and 'cruley'(curly). Wilson doesn't overdo it - after all, Topaz is a bright young lady, and too many or too few deliberate errors would be an actual error on Wilson's part.
Lastly, some of the best child-like elements of this letter are the run-on sentences. I remember doing that a lot when I was younger, just adding countless 'and's to connect my thoughts rather than commas or periods. That's how we talk when we're young, why not write that way as well? The best example of this is on page 38:
"Eliza Pinder said that Topaz Edgeworth was very fond of the sound of her own voice and I said I was thankful indeed that i hadn't a Yorkshire accent to listen to and she said I was a rude cow with no manners from Staffordshire and I said no one should say such a thing to me unscathed and I slapped Eliza Pinder and Mrs. Porter came in."
I think the most amazing part is that she spells something like 'unscathed' properly but can't get 'curly'...
But I digress! The point is that there is an obvious age gap between Ethel Wilson and her character Topaz. Wilson masterfully fills this gap however, using this letter a metaphorical gap-filling device of some sort.
That last part sounded better in my head.
"I hope you are very well. Thank you very much for the 2/6 for me and for Hannah. Hannah's cold is still bad so Mrs. Porter kept her in bed. I like it here. Every afternoon we have a walk. The waves are lovely..." and so on.
It continues like that for the whole letter, but you only need two and a half lines to see he difference: instant grammatical errors, short sentences - sentences that don't seem to have any flow or strong connection, and just a youthful vibe. In other parts of the letter there are jumps from subject to subject, but the entire thing is one giant paragraph.
My favourite part is her cute little spelling mistakes; the kind you read in journal entries or on projects from elementary school and think, 'Was I that ridiculous?' Just enough of these gems show up in Topaz's letter, including 'amewsing'(amusing), 'plannets'(planets), and 'cruley'(curly). Wilson doesn't overdo it - after all, Topaz is a bright young lady, and too many or too few deliberate errors would be an actual error on Wilson's part.
Lastly, some of the best child-like elements of this letter are the run-on sentences. I remember doing that a lot when I was younger, just adding countless 'and's to connect my thoughts rather than commas or periods. That's how we talk when we're young, why not write that way as well? The best example of this is on page 38:
"Eliza Pinder said that Topaz Edgeworth was very fond of the sound of her own voice and I said I was thankful indeed that i hadn't a Yorkshire accent to listen to and she said I was a rude cow with no manners from Staffordshire and I said no one should say such a thing to me unscathed and I slapped Eliza Pinder and Mrs. Porter came in."
I think the most amazing part is that she spells something like 'unscathed' properly but can't get 'curly'...
But I digress! The point is that there is an obvious age gap between Ethel Wilson and her character Topaz. Wilson masterfully fills this gap however, using this letter a metaphorical gap-filling device of some sort.
That last part sounded better in my head.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Use of Pathos In Emily Carr's "Sophie"
Aristotle felt that the use of Pathos was a key tool in his “Trivium” of literature. Pathos is the passion within the writing, the feelings and sense of experience fused into the piece. It appeals to the reader’s heart and emotions. Emily Carr’s short story “Sophie” uses this concept of Pathos to build emotive power and manipulate the reader’s emotions to reflect those in the story.
The reader can’t help but empathize with little Sophie, who “chatters like a sparrow” to her trusted friend Emily, but becomes shy and self-conscious around her own husband. This is a woman who endures unimaginable tragedy over the course of this story. The loss of twenty-one children is an unbearable concept, yet this woman, with her “soft little body, and a back as straight as honesty itself” has borne this burden.
Pathos is strongly apparent at the funeral for one of Sophie’s children. The hurt that these women feel comes across explicitly: “torrents of tears burst from their eyes and rolled down their cheeks. Sophie and Sara and Susan did it too. It sounded terrible- like tortured dogs”. The reader feels the torture and pain emanating from these words. He or she doesn’t have to be a mother, father, sibling, or friend of Sophie to empathize with her; Emily Carr has captured and created these emotions in the reader by applying Pathos as a literary tool.
Emily Carr’s utilization of Pathos here is definite. Her own empathy and feeling towards Sophie as a character in the story herself is felt and shared by the reader, a bystander simply watching their story unfold.
The reader can’t help but empathize with little Sophie, who “chatters like a sparrow” to her trusted friend Emily, but becomes shy and self-conscious around her own husband. This is a woman who endures unimaginable tragedy over the course of this story. The loss of twenty-one children is an unbearable concept, yet this woman, with her “soft little body, and a back as straight as honesty itself” has borne this burden.
Pathos is strongly apparent at the funeral for one of Sophie’s children. The hurt that these women feel comes across explicitly: “torrents of tears burst from their eyes and rolled down their cheeks. Sophie and Sara and Susan did it too. It sounded terrible- like tortured dogs”. The reader feels the torture and pain emanating from these words. He or she doesn’t have to be a mother, father, sibling, or friend of Sophie to empathize with her; Emily Carr has captured and created these emotions in the reader by applying Pathos as a literary tool.
Emily Carr’s utilization of Pathos here is definite. Her own empathy and feeling towards Sophie as a character in the story herself is felt and shared by the reader, a bystander simply watching their story unfold.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Is Topaz Novel Worthy?
A hearty debate came about in class on Monday on whether the character Topaz from Ethel Wilson's The Innocent Traveler is worth an entire novel. Looking at it from one perspective she did not do anything extraordinary. As a matter of fact she was completely ordinary. The novel seemed like it was merely a synopsis of a person's life, just like any other person's. We might as well get our nieces to publish books on our life stories since it would amount to the same thing. All of us have some interesting events that occurred in our lives that can be easily scribbled onto a couple of pages. So why in this case did this rather simple woman deserve a novel?
Just the concept that Topaz did not change from the time she was five to the age of 95 is astonishing. The idea is so surreal and far fetched that its difficult to even grasp. I changed since last year and I have changed countless times since I was five. Most people do not even live till the age of 95 let alone stay the exact same person for all those years. It does not seem possible for someone to never grow up.
This is especially true in today's society because there is such a pressure to grow up, and act mature. That is why Topaz's character seems so unrealistic. Once you are at a certain age, usually around 12, it is no longer appropriate to act childish. Adulthood takes over and it is all about responsibilities, pulling your weight, hardships and a serious nature. This concept of being a child forever is not realistic and does not seem attainable.
Even the idea of being free-spirited is easier said than done. Everything in our world is rush, rush, rush; just about making ends meet. We do not leave time to live and enjoy things anymore. The way most of us live our lives is exactly what Topaz always stood against. So many times I catch myself saying " it would be nice to go back to being a child because everything was easy and happy." It is true I would love to go back to the days where I was a naive little girl and that is where i am jealous of Topaz because even at age 95, she still is that free-spirited, happy, naive girl.
Topaz's personality is very different from what we are used to seeing and in a way the novels shows us what life would be like if we actually could go back to being six again or if we could stay six forever. When looking at it from this perspective I do believe that her life is novel worthy.
Just the concept that Topaz did not change from the time she was five to the age of 95 is astonishing. The idea is so surreal and far fetched that its difficult to even grasp. I changed since last year and I have changed countless times since I was five. Most people do not even live till the age of 95 let alone stay the exact same person for all those years. It does not seem possible for someone to never grow up.
This is especially true in today's society because there is such a pressure to grow up, and act mature. That is why Topaz's character seems so unrealistic. Once you are at a certain age, usually around 12, it is no longer appropriate to act childish. Adulthood takes over and it is all about responsibilities, pulling your weight, hardships and a serious nature. This concept of being a child forever is not realistic and does not seem attainable.
Even the idea of being free-spirited is easier said than done. Everything in our world is rush, rush, rush; just about making ends meet. We do not leave time to live and enjoy things anymore. The way most of us live our lives is exactly what Topaz always stood against. So many times I catch myself saying " it would be nice to go back to being a child because everything was easy and happy." It is true I would love to go back to the days where I was a naive little girl and that is where i am jealous of Topaz because even at age 95, she still is that free-spirited, happy, naive girl.
Topaz's personality is very different from what we are used to seeing and in a way the novels shows us what life would be like if we actually could go back to being six again or if we could stay six forever. When looking at it from this perspective I do believe that her life is novel worthy.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
What Makes “Forgiveness in Families” Interesting, and “The Innocent Traveller”...Not
Alice Munro’s “Forgiveness in Families” is a short work of only a few pages, but within those pages the main character, Val, goes through more change than does Topaz, the main character in “The Innocent Traveller,” throughout Ethel Wilson’s entire novel. This makes “Forgiveness” interesting and compelling, and “The Innocent Traveller” rather boring.
Topaz is a static character, hardly changing throughout her life. We are not given much insight into what she thinks; there is not enough depth to her to keep us interested for the duration of the novel.
In “Forgiveness,” Val realizes that it is herself, not her brother, that is the cause of her problems. She reflects on the nature of life and death, realizing that the seemingly insignificant things, which “don’t seem that much like life,” are in fact what we yearn for when faced with death. She makes the startling confession that, in some part of her, she was disappointed when her mother did not die.
This revelation is shocking, it is personal, it makes us feel something... These are the things which “The Innocent Traveller” largely fails to do. Characters die in the novel, family dynamics change, Topaz moves to a new city halfway around the world, but none of this is related in a way which makes us feel much excitement, compassion, or emotion in general. We get mostly only the surface of things, and for a work of more than two hundred pages, this is not enough.
Topaz is a static character, hardly changing throughout her life. We are not given much insight into what she thinks; there is not enough depth to her to keep us interested for the duration of the novel.
In “Forgiveness,” Val realizes that it is herself, not her brother, that is the cause of her problems. She reflects on the nature of life and death, realizing that the seemingly insignificant things, which “don’t seem that much like life,” are in fact what we yearn for when faced with death. She makes the startling confession that, in some part of her, she was disappointed when her mother did not die.
This revelation is shocking, it is personal, it makes us feel something... These are the things which “The Innocent Traveller” largely fails to do. Characters die in the novel, family dynamics change, Topaz moves to a new city halfway around the world, but none of this is related in a way which makes us feel much excitement, compassion, or emotion in general. We get mostly only the surface of things, and for a work of more than two hundred pages, this is not enough.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Let's see if this works :)
Life as a narrative is a thought that is echoed in stories that tout realism as their main theme. Stories like “In Vancouver” are an example; these stories illustrate how one can look at life as one giant story. They depict storied events as being real, and they do this by adding in details of events.
The sign in “In Vancouver” advertising the different type of workers needed lends a certain amount of realism to the story by virtue of the detail presented on it. This was added detail in the story to lead us to recreate the event of walking down Grainger’s Vancouver’s streets in our minds; this is unlike how memory works.
I attest that the human mind does the reverse; that all people remember is the narrative or the story part of an event, not he details. When we recall events in our lives the details get washed out and we are left with the who, what, when, where and why but not the specifics, such as a sign’s details. Therefore realism seems to want to recreate an event rather than the memory or story of the event; bring us to that place let us imagine those events happen to us. This is the intent of Martin Grainger, to bring us to his Vancouver, as real as he can make it, so that we can make our own, fictional memories of it. That seems to be his intent, making it real enough, that when we recall the story it looks enough like a memory to be indistinct from the real thing; that when we remember back we have the memory of the sign that was hanging in the street advertising for the different tradesman.
The sign in “In Vancouver” advertising the different type of workers needed lends a certain amount of realism to the story by virtue of the detail presented on it. This was added detail in the story to lead us to recreate the event of walking down Grainger’s Vancouver’s streets in our minds; this is unlike how memory works.
I attest that the human mind does the reverse; that all people remember is the narrative or the story part of an event, not he details. When we recall events in our lives the details get washed out and we are left with the who, what, when, where and why but not the specifics, such as a sign’s details. Therefore realism seems to want to recreate an event rather than the memory or story of the event; bring us to that place let us imagine those events happen to us. This is the intent of Martin Grainger, to bring us to his Vancouver, as real as he can make it, so that we can make our own, fictional memories of it. That seems to be his intent, making it real enough, that when we recall the story it looks enough like a memory to be indistinct from the real thing; that when we remember back we have the memory of the sign that was hanging in the street advertising for the different tradesman.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)