Have you ever read something and when you were finished thought 'what the heck just happened?' That was pretty much what this was for me. I have read Shakespeare's tragedies before and know that death is common throughout the plays and especially in the final act. However, it still strikes me as funny that suddenly the majority of the cast is dying and we never see how most of it happens. For instance, we are suddenly alerted to the fact that Goneril has poisoned Regan and she is in fact dying. What I want to know is when did we ever discuss poisoning anyone and when did this even happen? On top of that, after Regan dies Goneril does too; apparently by her own making. Why did she do this again? Did she not want to be prosecuted? Did she suddenly feel guilty about everything she'd done? So few questions answered about that. Of course, then we also have the "confrontation of brothers" and Edmund ends up fatally wounded, but stays alive long enough to participate in conversation and alert everyone to his plans to have Lear and Cordelia executed. Of course, it's already too late and after Edmund dies, we find Cordelia also dead. In grief, Lear announces he killed the one who did it and later kills himself. How he managed THAT I haven't the slightest idea. The body count of this play was all in all, pretty funny.
I really liked the play. Even though I am a little biased when it comes to Shakespeare, I thought it was quite emotional and sad. It is easy to see why this play has so many renditions of it. Although I think plays, especially Shakespeare's, are hard to understand without the visual aids. Or if someone is not familiar with the language. Getting sidetracked by footnotes isn't fun and can easily lose the mood of the entire piece. Not to mention the fact that most earlier works are notorious for having very little stage direction or scene description and, if you're not used to this idea, it can be hard to get involved in the play. Some people just don't respond easily to the thought of coming up with the entire interpretation on their own. However, the beauty in Shakespeare's works is that almost everything is up to interpretation. So many people can receive the wonder of the language and story with the emotion and images of their own minds. For those reasons alone I don't think that Shakespeare is for everyone. That's not to say that only superior readers or certain people would understand and appreciate it more, it's just not a genre that everyone can easily adapt to. Plays, unfortunately, seem to suffer for that reason.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Persepolis
I actually wasn't as big a fan of Persepolis as I was for The Moviegoer. I had read a little of Persepolis last year and I had liked it then, but when I read the entire first part as a whole it seemed a little irritating. I enjoyed the story itself; I would have even preferred it to stand on its own as a novel. It was really the sense of humor and the artwork that sometimes bothered me. I would be reading the novel and would be really into it then all of a sudden there'd be a joke thrown in and I'd think "well THAT killed the mood." On top of that, whenever a response to an emotional scene was drawn, the crying of the characters always seemed so exaggerated and over-the-top to me. I personally have always had an aversion to crying so I suppose that could be a part of my criticism, but I don't believe that everyone falls to the ground heaving and sobbing when they cry either. However, I don't write any of this to draw away from Satrapi's obvious talents. I do believe that she is a strong artist and writer, but I still would not choose to read it on my own time.
*EDIT*
The conversations with God in the novel were something that I held a particular fondness for. However, I didn't look at it as a religious reflection; more of the naivety of a child. As the novel progresses she loses the ability and desire to have those open conversations with God. Which is really a reflection of human beings in general. Usually, the more tragedy someone experiences the less likely he or she is to hold strong to any religious beliefs. Tragedy has a tendency to bring a person's faith into question. Humans are historically regarded as very curious in nature; hence the creation of many gods/goddesses/religions/etc. It was caused by our innate desire to search for explanations about the things around us. That being said, it is reasonable for a person to try to find the reason and cause for a tragedy if only to have something or someone to blame. Often times the person blamed is a religious figure. Once Marji loses her beloved uncle, she banishes God from her life. Even though expressed through cartoons, it is a very realistic topic. The novel then jumps in her age. Which could be a metaphorical way of expressing her need to grow up really fast. All-in-all I think it was a very good way to discuss a sensitive topic.
*EDIT*
The conversations with God in the novel were something that I held a particular fondness for. However, I didn't look at it as a religious reflection; more of the naivety of a child. As the novel progresses she loses the ability and desire to have those open conversations with God. Which is really a reflection of human beings in general. Usually, the more tragedy someone experiences the less likely he or she is to hold strong to any religious beliefs. Tragedy has a tendency to bring a person's faith into question. Humans are historically regarded as very curious in nature; hence the creation of many gods/goddesses/religions/etc. It was caused by our innate desire to search for explanations about the things around us. That being said, it is reasonable for a person to try to find the reason and cause for a tragedy if only to have something or someone to blame. Often times the person blamed is a religious figure. Once Marji loses her beloved uncle, she banishes God from her life. Even though expressed through cartoons, it is a very realistic topic. The novel then jumps in her age. Which could be a metaphorical way of expressing her need to grow up really fast. All-in-all I think it was a very good way to discuss a sensitive topic.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The Moviegoer
I actually liked the book. Which is kind of surprising considering if I had been given the choice I would not have picked it up on my own. Although my tastes for reading are pretty limited when it comes to "reading for enjoyment" so it's nice to read things that are out of character for me. The overall book was interesting especially for a book where there isn't really any action. I mean the book really is about character analysis and finding a person's meaning or purpose in life. Which seems to say that each person's purpose in life is different depending on the person. So then the key question was really to find out what Binx's purpose in life was. It was really one of those "you go around the world looking for something only to end up back home and realize it's been there all along" type of stories. I believe I read something like it from Edgar Allen Poe once...
I found the main characters all rather interesting; especially Kate and Binx. They were both arrogant and socially awkward yet acknowledged their own flaws in an almost dismissive way. Yet that almost seems to make them both more realistic. There's a constant search by all the characters to find a purpose for Binx and Kate and yet their lives end up constantly revolved around the other. I actually liked how the book ended because I do think there was a certain "peace of mind" in it.
*EDIT* I've decided to do my research paper on the book. I was suddenly inspired by all the pop culture references in the book such as the references to Nieman Marcus, William Holden, etc. Though I do confess that my familiarity of these terms is mostly due to episodes of "I Love Lucy." The entirety of the book seems obsessed with making references to radio, magazines, television, movies, and other forms of popular culture and each is usually subtle in nature. What is interesting about the book is that Binx makes references to famous actors and tries to mimic them; he behaves at work in a "Gregory Peckish" kind of way. Also, Aunt Emily is obsessed with making Binx into a romantic sort of hero that one would find in a book; she is sadly disappointed with the final result.
The interactions between Kate and Binx seems to lack large pop culture references. Instead it focuses on deep introspective thought usually on the part of Binx towards Kate. She repeatedly denies any connection to him and tells him "they are not a pair of any sort." Yet, Binx tries to cling the idea of a bond between them and inevitably finds one. Kate compliments him in a way that is not obvious to those around them, but is reasonable to the two of them. At home, Kate is the distraught, frazzled one that the family worries about. However, once in Chicago is it Binx, not Kate, that panics. He fears that the "genie-soul of Chicago" will inevitably catch up to them and yet Kate is "jolly." She takes up the lead while in Chicago, but once home they both return to their former roles. I remain strongly attached to this book and hope to convey that through my work.
I found the main characters all rather interesting; especially Kate and Binx. They were both arrogant and socially awkward yet acknowledged their own flaws in an almost dismissive way. Yet that almost seems to make them both more realistic. There's a constant search by all the characters to find a purpose for Binx and Kate and yet their lives end up constantly revolved around the other. I actually liked how the book ended because I do think there was a certain "peace of mind" in it.
*EDIT* I've decided to do my research paper on the book. I was suddenly inspired by all the pop culture references in the book such as the references to Nieman Marcus, William Holden, etc. Though I do confess that my familiarity of these terms is mostly due to episodes of "I Love Lucy." The entirety of the book seems obsessed with making references to radio, magazines, television, movies, and other forms of popular culture and each is usually subtle in nature. What is interesting about the book is that Binx makes references to famous actors and tries to mimic them; he behaves at work in a "Gregory Peckish" kind of way. Also, Aunt Emily is obsessed with making Binx into a romantic sort of hero that one would find in a book; she is sadly disappointed with the final result.
The interactions between Kate and Binx seems to lack large pop culture references. Instead it focuses on deep introspective thought usually on the part of Binx towards Kate. She repeatedly denies any connection to him and tells him "they are not a pair of any sort." Yet, Binx tries to cling the idea of a bond between them and inevitably finds one. Kate compliments him in a way that is not obvious to those around them, but is reasonable to the two of them. At home, Kate is the distraught, frazzled one that the family worries about. However, once in Chicago is it Binx, not Kate, that panics. He fears that the "genie-soul of Chicago" will inevitably catch up to them and yet Kate is "jolly." She takes up the lead while in Chicago, but once home they both return to their former roles. I remain strongly attached to this book and hope to convey that through my work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)