Group 1: Jonathan, Kieran, Ashley, Lauren.
As far the question "does technology have a positive effect on literature" goes, I think it does. I think literature will just adapt to reflect the technological world that we live in. I think troughout history literature provides us with descriptions of the setting in which that history took place. The books we read could provide examples for that. All of Vancouver Short Stories gives the reader a glimpse into the circumstances and culture that was prevalent at that time. Someone also mentioned the fact that our language is changing as a result of technology, but I think languages are only as good as what they can communicate, and now that we have news things that haaven't existed in the past, we need new words to refer to them.
As far as the question of literature becoming obsolete because it is being replaced with technology, I dont think this is happening. Maybe people read less, but I don't think reading will ever really be replaced by technology. I know lots of people who actually prefer reading over watching tv. I think reading has one major advantage too; there's no noise invoved, seriously sometimes I get sick of listening to the radio, and commercials and everything on tv.
Group 3: Betty, Sydney, Erin, Cindy.
Each person in this group discussed what they thought was the main theme. One per son thought that the main theme was love and relationships, and someone else thought it was peer pressure and alienation. I thought that both of these were themes in the book, but I guess as far as the main theme goes I'll have to agree with the professor on this one. I didn't think it was not just religion, but belief and doubt, and I think most importantly humility in one's beliefs. I think this was especially evident in Reg, and I think there is significance in the fact that the author ends with the his account, once Reg had become a real person and was able to challenge what his version of truth, especially about himself, he said that he was such a hypocrite. I also think that the narratuve style that showed four points of view also could support this view because it allows the reader to see all the beliefs that the characters held as true, but in fact they weren't.
Group 4: Brazil, Nathan, Fahad, Francesca.
One person in this group mentioned the fact that the four viewpoints elimintated biases. Like I said for my response to group three, I definititely agreed with this and think it was intentionally done by the author in order to convey the theme of questioning one's doubts. Someone else mentioned that they thought that irony was overplayed in the novel, and while I definitely think there was a lot of irony in the unfortunate events that afflicted Jason, I think this kind of reinforced the theme of doubt in the book. I think the very fact that Jason was victim to an unusually high amount of tragic events was significant, because this is exactly the thing that spurs doubt in their beliefs, its the kind of thing that makes people ask "why me?".
20070323
responses. gosh, i'm creative.
I'm such a sheep. In the same vein as my dear fellow bloggers, my responses. For convenience.
Group 1 (Ashley Chow, Kieran Heralall, Jonathan Yee, Lauren Robinson)
Is technology having a positive effect on literature? Probably. It's a great deal easier to write a novel with a keyboard than pen and paper, that much we know.
But is technology having a positive effect on the reader? Who even reads nowadays? I was once guilty of this myself, but I was able to convince myself to read more often. Don't lie; you're guilty of using sparknotes, or just not immersing yourself in the literature at all. It's a shame that this quick fix form of entertainment new technology offers us has taken the culture out of our lives, and mass produced a mass-produced McCulture. Viva la revolucion.
Group 2 (Team Awesome)
Does awesome even begin to describe our, well...awesomeness? Jesus, I'm not in a very poignant mood here. Wesley.
Group 3 (Cindy Chu, Erin Siu, Sydney Boucher, Betty Cao)
I'm actually a little surprised anyone felt that way. I, myself, am a staunch atheist, and believe that
religion is the root of all the world's problems, but I'm getting ahead of myself here. That said, I still
found the implications of religion central to the novel, and necessary to the development of the characters.
In Cheryl's chapter especially, the prayers randomly inserted added a level of intensity and desperation to
the scene that could only be triggered by calling upon god.
Group 4 (Francesca Lott, Fahad Yasin, Nathan Ng, Brazil Pejvack)
Two things:
1) I just wanted to mention that Nathan's feelings of Reg totally mirrored mine. I hated Reg initially, but I grew to love him. I hope we weren't the only ones.
2) Kate, I see what you're getting at, and I think this is the big point of what Francesca is getting at. His actions which he cannot recall aren't the actions that are being judged. Get ready for it, this part is important:
Jason has completely let go of himself. He has no control. He has no sense of self, only a fading sense of knowing what he wants. This is the action being judged.
Deep stuff, eh?
That, to me, is why the quote Francesca brings up is so pivotal. He can't help it himself, but he could help losing himself in the first place.
Besides, when was life ever fair?
Group 1 (Ashley Chow, Kieran Heralall, Jonathan Yee, Lauren Robinson)
Is technology having a positive effect on literature? Probably. It's a great deal easier to write a novel with a keyboard than pen and paper, that much we know.
But is technology having a positive effect on the reader? Who even reads nowadays? I was once guilty of this myself, but I was able to convince myself to read more often. Don't lie; you're guilty of using sparknotes, or just not immersing yourself in the literature at all. It's a shame that this quick fix form of entertainment new technology offers us has taken the culture out of our lives, and mass produced a mass-produced McCulture. Viva la revolucion.
Group 2 (Team Awesome)
Does awesome even begin to describe our, well...awesomeness? Jesus, I'm not in a very poignant mood here. Wesley.
Group 3 (Cindy Chu, Erin Siu, Sydney Boucher, Betty Cao)
I'm actually a little surprised anyone felt that way. I, myself, am a staunch atheist, and believe that
religion is the root of all the world's problems, but I'm getting ahead of myself here. That said, I still
found the implications of religion central to the novel, and necessary to the development of the characters.
In Cheryl's chapter especially, the prayers randomly inserted added a level of intensity and desperation to
the scene that could only be triggered by calling upon god.
Group 4 (Francesca Lott, Fahad Yasin, Nathan Ng, Brazil Pejvack)
Two things:
1) I just wanted to mention that Nathan's feelings of Reg totally mirrored mine. I hated Reg initially, but I grew to love him. I hope we weren't the only ones.
2) Kate, I see what you're getting at, and I think this is the big point of what Francesca is getting at. His actions which he cannot recall aren't the actions that are being judged. Get ready for it, this part is important:
Jason has completely let go of himself. He has no control. He has no sense of self, only a fading sense of knowing what he wants. This is the action being judged.
Deep stuff, eh?
That, to me, is why the quote Francesca brings up is so pivotal. He can't help it himself, but he could help losing himself in the first place.
Besides, when was life ever fair?
Reposted: The Journey of a Blog Comment
Isabelle had a good idea going for this... because odds are all these comments are going to be a tad difficult to locate. So I'll post them twice, once here and they're already posted on the respective pages. (note: I'm using all the names as posted on Jodie's blog... so please don't be mad if they're wrong. Thank you for your time)
Group #1: Ashley Chow, Kieran Heralall, Jonathan Yee, Lauren Robinson
"While I totally agree that the way many of we "Generation-Y"ers is, basically, an afront to the english language. I also can't help but think that this may just be a fad. If you recall in the late 1990s, 70s fashions and the catchphrase "Waaasssuuuuppp" (how I still loathe that... no, I can't even call it a word. It's a thing) were all the rage. And now they've disappeared, gone the way of Penny-loafers and Tab soda. So, hopefully, just maybe, all of this ROFLCOPTERing will pass.
Yet what can't be ignored is the fact that speech has gotten so lazy beyond the regular BRBs and HAGS, so much so that the words "like" and "umm" have become so common-place it's disgusting. You cannot listen to a single sentence without hearing "And I was like ______" or "it's was, like, ______". I know I, myself am guilty of this crime and I find that sickening. Screw smoking, we need to have a speech therapy patch."
Group #2: Team Awesome
note: Team Awesome needs no blog post because:
a) Team Awesome is too awesome to even bother with comments
b) Team Awesome has ADD, Wesley. STAMOS! (That's for you, Adam)
c) I'm in Team Awesome and apparently we're not supposed to comment on our own blog presentation...
d) This was really just an excuse to write "Team Awesome" atleast frice (not once, not twice, not even thrice... but frice. think about it)
Group #3: Cindy Chu, Erin Siu, Sydney Boucher, Betty Cao
"I can totally see where you're coming from with this post in the fact that you didn't feel a connection to all of the religion brought up. However, where many people felt indifference, I actually felt largely guilty that I wasn't more religious... For some reason which I have yet to pin-point. I suppose it may come from the fact that part of my family is fairly religious and I don't connect to them on that level. Either way past experience with the "Man Upstairs" shows me that religion and I just don't mix.
Regardless of this rambling, well done on your presentation!"
Group #4: Francesca Lott, Fahad Yasin, Nathan Ng, Brazil Pejvack
"Although this was, so far, my favourite book that we've covered in this course. There was something that has been nagging at me for a while, and it has to do with the quote of Cheryl's that you mentioned: "In the end, we are judged by our deeds, not our wishes. We're the sum of our decisions." And it also has to do with Jason and pretty much the construction of his section of the book.
Ok, so Jason suffers from blackouts, right? And after he, i guess, "comes to" he finds himself in some crazy, often dangerous senario that most Hollywood screen-writers couldn't even think of. Anyhow, we're never given a clue as to what happens during these black outs per se, but I'm sure we can all come to the conclusion that something either scandalous or stupid (or, hey! maybe a little of both) has occured. This would then be placed in the category of Jason's "actions". Yet he "wishes" he didn't have these blackouts and from what he's gathered of his actions taken aside from these blackouts, he's a pretty upstanding guy... just a little messed up is all. But if he were to know what he did during these blackouts, would he still consider himself an alright guy? I doubt it. To think that Jason is to be judged for something he doesn't really have any control over doesn't seem fair to me. Does it seem fair to anyone else?"
I hope you enjoyed reading this, or in some cases re-reading. To which I say, why would you re-read this I already told you that I was repeating the exact thing I wrote in the second sentence? My word. Questions aside, I hope this either enlightened you or gave you a little chuckle. If I succeeded in the latter, then my work is done. Up, up and awaaaaaaaaayyyy...
Group #1: Ashley Chow, Kieran Heralall, Jonathan Yee, Lauren Robinson
"While I totally agree that the way many of we "Generation-Y"ers is, basically, an afront to the english language. I also can't help but think that this may just be a fad. If you recall in the late 1990s, 70s fashions and the catchphrase "Waaasssuuuuppp" (how I still loathe that... no, I can't even call it a word. It's a thing) were all the rage. And now they've disappeared, gone the way of Penny-loafers and Tab soda. So, hopefully, just maybe, all of this ROFLCOPTERing will pass.
Yet what can't be ignored is the fact that speech has gotten so lazy beyond the regular BRBs and HAGS, so much so that the words "like" and "umm" have become so common-place it's disgusting. You cannot listen to a single sentence without hearing "And I was like ______" or "it's was, like, ______". I know I, myself am guilty of this crime and I find that sickening. Screw smoking, we need to have a speech therapy patch."
Group #2: Team Awesome
note: Team Awesome needs no blog post because:
a) Team Awesome is too awesome to even bother with comments
b) Team Awesome has ADD, Wesley. STAMOS! (That's for you, Adam)
c) I'm in Team Awesome and apparently we're not supposed to comment on our own blog presentation...
d) This was really just an excuse to write "Team Awesome" atleast frice (not once, not twice, not even thrice... but frice. think about it)
Group #3: Cindy Chu, Erin Siu, Sydney Boucher, Betty Cao
"I can totally see where you're coming from with this post in the fact that you didn't feel a connection to all of the religion brought up. However, where many people felt indifference, I actually felt largely guilty that I wasn't more religious... For some reason which I have yet to pin-point. I suppose it may come from the fact that part of my family is fairly religious and I don't connect to them on that level. Either way past experience with the "Man Upstairs" shows me that religion and I just don't mix.
Regardless of this rambling, well done on your presentation!"
Group #4: Francesca Lott, Fahad Yasin, Nathan Ng, Brazil Pejvack
"Although this was, so far, my favourite book that we've covered in this course. There was something that has been nagging at me for a while, and it has to do with the quote of Cheryl's that you mentioned: "In the end, we are judged by our deeds, not our wishes. We're the sum of our decisions." And it also has to do with Jason and pretty much the construction of his section of the book.
Ok, so Jason suffers from blackouts, right? And after he, i guess, "comes to" he finds himself in some crazy, often dangerous senario that most Hollywood screen-writers couldn't even think of. Anyhow, we're never given a clue as to what happens during these black outs per se, but I'm sure we can all come to the conclusion that something either scandalous or stupid (or, hey! maybe a little of both) has occured. This would then be placed in the category of Jason's "actions". Yet he "wishes" he didn't have these blackouts and from what he's gathered of his actions taken aside from these blackouts, he's a pretty upstanding guy... just a little messed up is all. But if he were to know what he did during these blackouts, would he still consider himself an alright guy? I doubt it. To think that Jason is to be judged for something he doesn't really have any control over doesn't seem fair to me. Does it seem fair to anyone else?"
I hope you enjoyed reading this, or in some cases re-reading. To which I say, why would you re-read this I already told you that I was repeating the exact thing I wrote in the second sentence? My word. Questions aside, I hope this either enlightened you or gave you a little chuckle. If I succeeded in the latter, then my work is done. Up, up and awaaaaaaaaayyyy...
20070319
Blog Presentation Replies!
(I've posted these comments on the individual blog posts that each group used, but I'm re-posting them here for convenience).
Group #1: ~ Jonathan, Ashley *sorry, I can't remember who else!*:
Yay! I just did a 500-word blog post about this! My answer to your question is yes, I do think that technology is a positive thing in the reading world because when you consider for example cinematography, which lets people know about different kinds of books in existance by turning them into movies, or websites that let you order online and therefore increase the accessibility of books, technology really does seem to be helping today's reading culture. (I elaborate more on this in my blog post if anyone's curious...).
Group #2 ~ Team Awesome (us)
Group #3 ~ Betty, Cindy, Erin, Sydney:
Each member of this group gave their own opinion of what the theme in Hey Nostradamus! is. Personally, I think one of the most dominant themes in the novel is forgiveness. When you think about it, all throughout the novel you've got people asking to be forgiven, examples being Jeremy (one of the gunmen), Cheryl's parents in their letters to Jason, and Reg at the end of the novel. What I find interesting is that Coupland doesn't really say whether of not these people are forgiven. I guess he leaves it up to interpretation: it's up to us to decide where the line is drawn between when you can still be forgiven and when your sins are so deep that forgiveness is no longer possible.
Group #4 ~ Brazil, Nathan, Fahad, and Francesca:
Nathan mentioned the importance of the prayers that appear in Cheryl's portion of the novel. I just wanted to add to that in how I thought it was interesting that Professor Ogden didn't mention them in lecture, considering how they strongly support the Belief/Doubt parallel that he brings up so often. The prayers are, well, prayers, so obviously praying to God is an act of believing in Him. Yet like Nathan said, most if not all of the prayers mention something along the lines of losing faith, or doubting, the existance of God. For example:
"Dear Lord, [...] Cheryl [...] wrote [...] "God is nowhere". Maybe she was right." (25)
So there you go! To believe (pray) is to doubt (lose faith). I think that would have been really strong proof for Ogden's argument!
Cheers!
Group #1: ~ Jonathan, Ashley *sorry, I can't remember who else!*:
Yay! I just did a 500-word blog post about this! My answer to your question is yes, I do think that technology is a positive thing in the reading world because when you consider for example cinematography, which lets people know about different kinds of books in existance by turning them into movies, or websites that let you order online and therefore increase the accessibility of books, technology really does seem to be helping today's reading culture. (I elaborate more on this in my blog post if anyone's curious...).
Group #2 ~ Team Awesome (us)
Group #3 ~ Betty, Cindy, Erin, Sydney:
Each member of this group gave their own opinion of what the theme in Hey Nostradamus! is. Personally, I think one of the most dominant themes in the novel is forgiveness. When you think about it, all throughout the novel you've got people asking to be forgiven, examples being Jeremy (one of the gunmen), Cheryl's parents in their letters to Jason, and Reg at the end of the novel. What I find interesting is that Coupland doesn't really say whether of not these people are forgiven. I guess he leaves it up to interpretation: it's up to us to decide where the line is drawn between when you can still be forgiven and when your sins are so deep that forgiveness is no longer possible.
Group #4 ~ Brazil, Nathan, Fahad, and Francesca:
Nathan mentioned the importance of the prayers that appear in Cheryl's portion of the novel. I just wanted to add to that in how I thought it was interesting that Professor Ogden didn't mention them in lecture, considering how they strongly support the Belief/Doubt parallel that he brings up so often. The prayers are, well, prayers, so obviously praying to God is an act of believing in Him. Yet like Nathan said, most if not all of the prayers mention something along the lines of losing faith, or doubting, the existance of God. For example:
"Dear Lord, [...] Cheryl [...] wrote [...] "God is nowhere". Maybe she was right." (25)
So there you go! To believe (pray) is to doubt (lose faith). I think that would have been really strong proof for Ogden's argument!
Cheers!
20070317
Blog Discussion Topic #i – Today’s Technology: A Help or a Hindrance?
It’s funny how nowadays the phrase, “lmao! i kno, i was like wth!? omg i cant wait 4 2moro can u? ahhh hold on brb for a sec, k?” would be considered perfectly acceptable sentences for communication between members of our generation. This mutilation of grammar and punctuation is faced everyday by anyone who commonly uses such technologies as MSN or text messaging. This decreased use of proper syntax illustrates the concern that technology is affecting the written language. If people become too habituated to constantly being exposed to very simplified grammar, will they be able to muster up the motivation to read full-lengthed, vocabulary-containing novels? Are other forms of technology threatening the culture of reading?
I personally do not think that the various forms of technology currently in our society are negatively affecting the world of reading. For one, take the concern that with cinematography, many books are presently being realized into movies. The worry is that many people do not have the time, or simply would just rather pay ten bucks to experience the book on the big screen instead of spending a weekend actually reading it. Although this habit no doubt relates many people, I am sure that for others, like myself, the opposite applies. When I find myself watching a movie that I really enjoy or find interesting, often I end up at the nearest bookstore eager to purchase the novel. The Davinci Code, for example, is a novel I had never heard of, and likely never would have, was it not showing at my hometown theatre. I know for a fact that I am not the only one who picked up a copy of the novel after hearing about it or seeing the movie. In this way, technology is clearly altering the culture of reading for the better.
Another way technology has improved today’s reading culture is by making books more accessible. I for one am forever grateful to websites that allow you to order books online. You don’t even need a creditcard; on Chapters.ca, for instance, you can use a giftcard instead, making it that much safer if you are someone who is uncomfortable with typing your Visa or Mastercard number online. This system is wonderful for someone like me, an underaged (ergo creditcard-less) girl who has a tendency to crave books not available in you average bookstore. For many others, too, I am sure that this technology has increased access to books.
Based on the examples I have given, it is clear that technology is not hindering today’s reading culture, in fact, the written world is actually profiting from it. Even though some forms of technology encourage people to communicate with disfigured language such as, “lol, nvm, jk, and ttyl”, there are so many other technologic advances that promote the opposite. And hey, we should cut technology a break. If Gutemberg had not invented the printing press back in 1445, just imagine how lacking the written world would be today!
I personally do not think that the various forms of technology currently in our society are negatively affecting the world of reading. For one, take the concern that with cinematography, many books are presently being realized into movies. The worry is that many people do not have the time, or simply would just rather pay ten bucks to experience the book on the big screen instead of spending a weekend actually reading it. Although this habit no doubt relates many people, I am sure that for others, like myself, the opposite applies. When I find myself watching a movie that I really enjoy or find interesting, often I end up at the nearest bookstore eager to purchase the novel. The Davinci Code, for example, is a novel I had never heard of, and likely never would have, was it not showing at my hometown theatre. I know for a fact that I am not the only one who picked up a copy of the novel after hearing about it or seeing the movie. In this way, technology is clearly altering the culture of reading for the better.
Another way technology has improved today’s reading culture is by making books more accessible. I for one am forever grateful to websites that allow you to order books online. You don’t even need a creditcard; on Chapters.ca, for instance, you can use a giftcard instead, making it that much safer if you are someone who is uncomfortable with typing your Visa or Mastercard number online. This system is wonderful for someone like me, an underaged (ergo creditcard-less) girl who has a tendency to crave books not available in you average bookstore. For many others, too, I am sure that this technology has increased access to books.
Based on the examples I have given, it is clear that technology is not hindering today’s reading culture, in fact, the written world is actually profiting from it. Even though some forms of technology encourage people to communicate with disfigured language such as, “lol, nvm, jk, and ttyl”, there are so many other technologic advances that promote the opposite. And hey, we should cut technology a break. If Gutemberg had not invented the printing press back in 1445, just imagine how lacking the written world would be today!
20070316
do you really believe in god?
I'm totally ripping this from a comment I just left on Kate's "Oh Mercy, and Heavens to Betsy!" post. Please forgive me.
The strength in human relationships lies within the factor of doubt.
This is, perhaps, a relatively outlandish statement when first considered. Do you really appreciate your friends because they're always there for you? Do you really love the Vancouver Canucks because you're confident they'll win the Cup this year? Do you worship/respect/whatever-it-is-you-religious-people-do your god(s) because of their omnipresence?
No. No. And no. You fear that your friends will no longer be there tomorrow. You expect the Canucks to exit in the first round, like they tend to every year. And you fear your god(s) because of their inability to create a utopia.
Before everyone tears my face off for that last one, let's back up a little. Belief and doubt are antagonistic concepts, indeed, but they feed off each other in unimaginably implicit ways. And, gosh, isn't it convenient that Margaret Avison and Douglas Coupland have made the connexion so easy for us?
There are very few blatant threads between the two: Avison is a poet, Coupland is a novelist; Avison has a whimsical style, Coupland is extremely blunt; Avison is devoutly religious, Coupland is notably indecisive. They do, however, draw attention to belief (as opposed to knowledge) and its' relationship with doubt.
In what Ogden describes as the "missing link" between Avison and Coupland, we find a poem called Absolute. Avison establishes "One Person" as the only one that knows her at "the worst there is" (92). Her use of capitalisation makes it abundantly clear that this person is, in fact, god. Avison goes on to relate her past wrong-doings to god's knowledge of herself, that she has "broken the good / lost the best / [and] gone past the most [she'd] ever ask for" (92). The tone created in this portion of the poem exudes a sense of doubt, even surprise, that she still finds solace and acceptance from god. This reaffirms what Avison states at the opening of the poem; a belief that, despite her short-comings, there is still one person that knows her and believes in her.
The relationship between belief and doubt are noticably switched around in Douglas Coupland's Hey Nostradamus!, but are nevertheless still relevant to Margaret Avison's point of view. Whereas Avison's view leans heavily towards belief, Coupland elaborates on the concept of doubt. In the fourth and final section of the novel, Reg, a character that was initially seen as an irrational, terrible, god-fearing man, describes his relationship with god in a cynical manner, whiel still affirming his system of beliefs. Near the closing of his narrative, Reg relates his belief in god to a mathematical equation; this comes as a surprise, considering the picture painted of Reg thus far was one of strict adherence to god's will. However, his life experiences have altered his belief system. Instead of full submission to god, he hammers home Coupland's concept of connecting belief with doubt; Reg "doubts [he] can ever believe with the purity of heart ... Cheryl once had" (243).
Now, consider my earlier statement; the strength in human relationships lies within the factor of doubt. Avison is able to get this point across through doubt in herself and her worthiness of god's acceptance. On the other hand, Coupland offers the idea that true belief can only occur with an objective view point on the realities of the nature of the relationship.
The strength in human relationships lies within the factor of doubt.
This is, perhaps, a relatively outlandish statement when first considered. Do you really appreciate your friends because they're always there for you? Do you really love the Vancouver Canucks because you're confident they'll win the Cup this year? Do you worship/respect/whatever-it-is-you-religious-people-do your god(s) because of their omnipresence?
No. No. And no. You fear that your friends will no longer be there tomorrow. You expect the Canucks to exit in the first round, like they tend to every year. And you fear your god(s) because of their inability to create a utopia.
Before everyone tears my face off for that last one, let's back up a little. Belief and doubt are antagonistic concepts, indeed, but they feed off each other in unimaginably implicit ways. And, gosh, isn't it convenient that Margaret Avison and Douglas Coupland have made the connexion so easy for us?
There are very few blatant threads between the two: Avison is a poet, Coupland is a novelist; Avison has a whimsical style, Coupland is extremely blunt; Avison is devoutly religious, Coupland is notably indecisive. They do, however, draw attention to belief (as opposed to knowledge) and its' relationship with doubt.
In what Ogden describes as the "missing link" between Avison and Coupland, we find a poem called Absolute. Avison establishes "One Person" as the only one that knows her at "the worst there is" (92). Her use of capitalisation makes it abundantly clear that this person is, in fact, god. Avison goes on to relate her past wrong-doings to god's knowledge of herself, that she has "broken the good / lost the best / [and] gone past the most [she'd] ever ask for" (92). The tone created in this portion of the poem exudes a sense of doubt, even surprise, that she still finds solace and acceptance from god. This reaffirms what Avison states at the opening of the poem; a belief that, despite her short-comings, there is still one person that knows her and believes in her.
The relationship between belief and doubt are noticably switched around in Douglas Coupland's Hey Nostradamus!, but are nevertheless still relevant to Margaret Avison's point of view. Whereas Avison's view leans heavily towards belief, Coupland elaborates on the concept of doubt. In the fourth and final section of the novel, Reg, a character that was initially seen as an irrational, terrible, god-fearing man, describes his relationship with god in a cynical manner, whiel still affirming his system of beliefs. Near the closing of his narrative, Reg relates his belief in god to a mathematical equation; this comes as a surprise, considering the picture painted of Reg thus far was one of strict adherence to god's will. However, his life experiences have altered his belief system. Instead of full submission to god, he hammers home Coupland's concept of connecting belief with doubt; Reg "doubts [he] can ever believe with the purity of heart ... Cheryl once had" (243).
Now, consider my earlier statement; the strength in human relationships lies within the factor of doubt. Avison is able to get this point across through doubt in herself and her worthiness of god's acceptance. On the other hand, Coupland offers the idea that true belief can only occur with an objective view point on the realities of the nature of the relationship.
20070315
Cultural Representations In Vancouver History
One of the main things I noticed while reading the texts or this course was that Vancouver was multicultural from its beginnings. The authors of these works offer insights into both the cultural heritage of of the city itself, and into the various groups residing in it.
Pauline Johnson seeks to portray the native Canadian communities in the Vancouver area as distinct from its European inhabitants, but also to affirm their value which had perhaps been overlooked by the European settlers in Vancouver. In “The two Sisters”, Pauline Johnsongives an insight into the culture of the Capilano Indian tribe by highlighting the differences in the Capilano Indian Tribe’s relationship with Vancouver’s natural surroundings. Johnson presents a people with a longstanding presence in the region, she points to the Tribe’s own religious beliefs- such as the Sagalie Tyee, the creator of the earth in their tradition. She also describes the coming of age ceremonies for women that were unique to their culture, and the history of war with other tribes in the area. But perhaps most significant, She states that the Chief was not even aware of name of “the Lions” that the British had ascribed to the twin peaks on the North Shore Mountains. It is evident that each culture’s relationship with the surroundings of Vancouver was based on their historical experience. The British ascribed the name of “the Lions” to then mountains, because of their resemblance to a monument in Britain. To the British the mountains were simply a landmark, however the Indians legend behind the mountains goes further back into their history, to the creation of the world itself, and is an integral part of their history, their beliefs, and their culture.
Wayson Choy gives us an insight into the Chinese Canadian culture in Vancouver. Wayson Choy’s account of a young boy who learns to appreciate his Chinese heritage offers us examples of elements that compose this culture, such as the grandmother’s medical concoctions, and the wind chimes that she constructed from scraps she collected in the city, and also from her stories of her childhood in “Southern Canton”. But this story moves beyond the traditions and examines those of a chinese Canadian-culture. It examines the struggle to retain one’s cultural heritage, and the challenge of balancing integration into a Vancouver lifestyle with this struggle. These issues form part of an experience and culture distinct from both China and the other inhabitants of Vancouver.
Lastly, Ethel Wilson’s the Innocent Traveller, portrays Vancouver from a protestant, European perspective, specifically British. She talks of her activities in the church, and the incident at the Minerva Club regarding Mrs Coffin and her contact with Joe Fortes seems to gives evidence of racism; a legacy of the British slave trade. Topaz’s descriptions of their “chinaman” servant is also reminiscent of that of an alien, suggesting that she had not had much exposure to non Europeans before. However, she distinguishes Vancouver from Britain in many regards, stating that one person’s house was “red, and fresh from Bricky England.” She also describes Vancouver as having it’s own face and person.
All of these authors offer different perspectives into the culture in Vancouver, however it is clear that culture even then, was one of multiculturalism.
Pauline Johnson seeks to portray the native Canadian communities in the Vancouver area as distinct from its European inhabitants, but also to affirm their value which had perhaps been overlooked by the European settlers in Vancouver. In “The two Sisters”, Pauline Johnsongives an insight into the culture of the Capilano Indian tribe by highlighting the differences in the Capilano Indian Tribe’s relationship with Vancouver’s natural surroundings. Johnson presents a people with a longstanding presence in the region, she points to the Tribe’s own religious beliefs- such as the Sagalie Tyee, the creator of the earth in their tradition. She also describes the coming of age ceremonies for women that were unique to their culture, and the history of war with other tribes in the area. But perhaps most significant, She states that the Chief was not even aware of name of “the Lions” that the British had ascribed to the twin peaks on the North Shore Mountains. It is evident that each culture’s relationship with the surroundings of Vancouver was based on their historical experience. The British ascribed the name of “the Lions” to then mountains, because of their resemblance to a monument in Britain. To the British the mountains were simply a landmark, however the Indians legend behind the mountains goes further back into their history, to the creation of the world itself, and is an integral part of their history, their beliefs, and their culture.
Wayson Choy gives us an insight into the Chinese Canadian culture in Vancouver. Wayson Choy’s account of a young boy who learns to appreciate his Chinese heritage offers us examples of elements that compose this culture, such as the grandmother’s medical concoctions, and the wind chimes that she constructed from scraps she collected in the city, and also from her stories of her childhood in “Southern Canton”. But this story moves beyond the traditions and examines those of a chinese Canadian-culture. It examines the struggle to retain one’s cultural heritage, and the challenge of balancing integration into a Vancouver lifestyle with this struggle. These issues form part of an experience and culture distinct from both China and the other inhabitants of Vancouver.
Lastly, Ethel Wilson’s the Innocent Traveller, portrays Vancouver from a protestant, European perspective, specifically British. She talks of her activities in the church, and the incident at the Minerva Club regarding Mrs Coffin and her contact with Joe Fortes seems to gives evidence of racism; a legacy of the British slave trade. Topaz’s descriptions of their “chinaman” servant is also reminiscent of that of an alien, suggesting that she had not had much exposure to non Europeans before. However, she distinguishes Vancouver from Britain in many regards, stating that one person’s house was “red, and fresh from Bricky England.” She also describes Vancouver as having it’s own face and person.
All of these authors offer different perspectives into the culture in Vancouver, however it is clear that culture even then, was one of multiculturalism.
Irony Out of Habit
Out of all the stories we read In Vancouver Short stories, Broken Teeth was my favourite, and as I'm writing this I'm still trying to figure out why. It's not particularily uplifting. I think it's because it points out a strange habit that we probably all possess; the act of acting out of habit itself. But more than that it was the tone the author used to convey this habit. The irony at the end of the story was beautiful, and yet kind of twisted and almost dark in a way. The daughter's response to her mother account of abuse, which was nothing short of horrific, was so strange, as if she didn't hear what she had just said. It actually evoked for me this strange imaginary situation of a terminally ill person who reveals to a loved one that she will probably die soon, and the response of that loved one is to burst out laughing.
I particularily was fond of the ironic note that the story ended on, with the mother admonishing her daughter to pay her respects to her grandfather, who she had effectively made a case not to respect him during the story. To me this undescored the fact that so much of what we do is out of habit
I particularily was fond of the ironic note that the story ended on, with the mother admonishing her daughter to pay her respects to her grandfather, who she had effectively made a case not to respect him during the story. To me this undescored the fact that so much of what we do is out of habit
20070314
Oh Mercy, and Heavens to Betsy!
To those bloggers out there currently reading this post, I pose a question to you: During Prof. Ogden's lectures for Hey Nostradamus! did any of you at any point have the thought of "screw homework afterwards, I need to get to a church and FAST!"?
Anybody? Anybody? I think I see a few hands in the back.
Either way, I know that's how I felt pretty much EVERY lecture. Just the mention of God, Heaven, Hell or what-have-you and inside I get all piny, maybe it's my soul trying to give me some sort of kick in the ass, or maybe I shouldn't have eaten that sixth Pop Tart. I don't know. Nor can I say with certainty that I know that I'll go to Heaven or if there even is one, nor if I'll see some of my loved ones there if I do. But either way, what I do know is that previous experience has told me that religion and I do not mix. I have nothing against religion of any sort... I just usually find a way to screw myself over and find it better just to keep my distance.
Perhaps that feeling was doubt as Prof. Ogden kept saying, but the thing was I never got it while actually reading the book, only during lecture. But, then again maybe that's because I read the book at my own pace and stayed within my comfort zone, while with lecture it's pretty much anything goes.
All this leaves me with is more questions that answers, which I suppose was Coupland and Prof. Ogden's point... but gosh darn it! I want answers!!
Anybody? Anybody? I think I see a few hands in the back.
Either way, I know that's how I felt pretty much EVERY lecture. Just the mention of God, Heaven, Hell or what-have-you and inside I get all piny, maybe it's my soul trying to give me some sort of kick in the ass, or maybe I shouldn't have eaten that sixth Pop Tart. I don't know. Nor can I say with certainty that I know that I'll go to Heaven or if there even is one, nor if I'll see some of my loved ones there if I do. But either way, what I do know is that previous experience has told me that religion and I do not mix. I have nothing against religion of any sort... I just usually find a way to screw myself over and find it better just to keep my distance.
Perhaps that feeling was doubt as Prof. Ogden kept saying, but the thing was I never got it while actually reading the book, only during lecture. But, then again maybe that's because I read the book at my own pace and stayed within my comfort zone, while with lecture it's pretty much anything goes.
All this leaves me with is more questions that answers, which I suppose was Coupland and Prof. Ogden's point... but gosh darn it! I want answers!!
The Nothing... The Nothing... : A Rope of Sand
You see that copy of The Innocent Traveller lying discarded on your bedroom floor, forgotten from only months ago? Pick it up and dust off that cover. It’s a neat little package, not too short and not too long. An adequate length and weighing in at roughly 245 pages, the timeline of which covers roughly 100 years, correct? Absolutely. Amazing, isn’t it, to think that that entire century fits neatly into 245 pages? An entire lifetime in fewer than 300 pages. Neato. And yet, what is even more amazing is that in these 245 pages and span of roughly 100 years… Nothing happens. This book was so painful to try and get through I can with safely place it alongside Andy Warhol’s movie Empire as to how exceedingly thrilling this book was. For those that haven’t endured it, Empire is a continuous shot of the Empire State Building at dusk, which clocks in at roughly EIGHT HOURS in length (I’ll give everyone the SparkNotes version: nothing happens). Hopefully that paints a clear enough picture.
What’s more, this novel is so clinical and detached when it comes to human emotion, as if this nothing just sucks the life force out of it. It makes me wonder if perhaps James Lipton left Inside the Actor’s Studio for vacation and wrote this novel for poots and giggles. Even the most “insignificant” death in this novel should cause any character to have some, even remote change in emotion… No matter how increasingly vapid they may be. Yet Topaz, our alleged protagonist and heroine, shows nothing. Instead she is resolved to only being happy and positive, and sickeningly juvenile. It even seems as she over-stepped the perspective of not wanting to grow-up, and actually resolutely denied herself the ability actually to grow-up (and we all know where the last person who “never wanted to grow-up” ended up. Neverland… Ranch). If such lack of emotion is supposed to pull off an air of comedy due to the original, uptight Victorian setting… It fails. Even Eugene Ionesco brought humour to the dry, disturbing formality of Victorian Brits. However Ethel Wilson’s The Innocent Traveller just falls flat and stays there. So, forgive me if I’m not rushing to grab the defibrillator, but some things are just meant to be.
Furthermore, in response to Prof. Ogden’s comment in lecture that ran something along the lines of: Ethel Wilson is god and she gives eternal life with the written word. So, Mrs. Wilson is deciding to play god, eh? And she is deciding to give something eternal life… I think by this point this sounds all too familiar to the reader by now. What happens when someone decides to play god and bring back to life something that really should just stay dead and buried? Well, for one it usually turns out that what this “creator” once thought was something special to share with the world turns out to be really not that great, the “chaotician” is a giant douche the whole time and then the dinosaurs eat EVERYONE! (“Ethel, our lives are in your hands and you’ve got butterfingers?!”) The only thing is that I don’t see anyone clamouring to make an amusement park ride called “The Glorious Non-Adventures of Topaz Edgeworth.”
Once again, it seems the nothing has struck to destroy what could have been a thoroughly enjoying read. First the nothing destroys Fantasia and now it has decided to prey on poor, innocent Canadian literature?! Inconceivable!… And yet, I feel no remorse for seeing this particular book be ravaged by the nothing. Is that cynical? Yeah, probably.
What’s more, this novel is so clinical and detached when it comes to human emotion, as if this nothing just sucks the life force out of it. It makes me wonder if perhaps James Lipton left Inside the Actor’s Studio for vacation and wrote this novel for poots and giggles. Even the most “insignificant” death in this novel should cause any character to have some, even remote change in emotion… No matter how increasingly vapid they may be. Yet Topaz, our alleged protagonist and heroine, shows nothing. Instead she is resolved to only being happy and positive, and sickeningly juvenile. It even seems as she over-stepped the perspective of not wanting to grow-up, and actually resolutely denied herself the ability actually to grow-up (and we all know where the last person who “never wanted to grow-up” ended up. Neverland… Ranch). If such lack of emotion is supposed to pull off an air of comedy due to the original, uptight Victorian setting… It fails. Even Eugene Ionesco brought humour to the dry, disturbing formality of Victorian Brits. However Ethel Wilson’s The Innocent Traveller just falls flat and stays there. So, forgive me if I’m not rushing to grab the defibrillator, but some things are just meant to be.
Furthermore, in response to Prof. Ogden’s comment in lecture that ran something along the lines of: Ethel Wilson is god and she gives eternal life with the written word. So, Mrs. Wilson is deciding to play god, eh? And she is deciding to give something eternal life… I think by this point this sounds all too familiar to the reader by now. What happens when someone decides to play god and bring back to life something that really should just stay dead and buried? Well, for one it usually turns out that what this “creator” once thought was something special to share with the world turns out to be really not that great, the “chaotician” is a giant douche the whole time and then the dinosaurs eat EVERYONE! (“Ethel, our lives are in your hands and you’ve got butterfingers?!”) The only thing is that I don’t see anyone clamouring to make an amusement park ride called “The Glorious Non-Adventures of Topaz Edgeworth.”
Once again, it seems the nothing has struck to destroy what could have been a thoroughly enjoying read. First the nothing destroys Fantasia and now it has decided to prey on poor, innocent Canadian literature?! Inconceivable!… And yet, I feel no remorse for seeing this particular book be ravaged by the nothing. Is that cynical? Yeah, probably.
20070313
It's A Dog's Life
There are times when I look at dogs and I'm overcome with jealousy. They are fed, sheltered, don't really have any responsibilities, aren't bound by social norms, and are totally unaware of the problems that plague the world. They have the ability be horrifically ugly and pitifully unintelligent, and yet blissfully unaware of it at the same time, better yet even the ugliest of them seem to be loved (by someone other than their mom too). Perhaps best of all, they are unconditionally accepting. So many of these qualities could also be observed in Topaz as well. She was fed, sheltered, and seemed not only unaware of problems, but pretty much everything. But strangely, when I read about Topaz, it doesn't arouse even a hint of jealousy in me, on the contrary, towards the end of the book it was almost painful to read about her.
I think my distaste for Topaz comes from the characteristics that she doesn't possess, as much as the ones she does. She seems to lack even the most basic human elements, elements that distinguish humans from dogs. She doesn't possess much intelligence, doesn't seem to experience emotions of any depth, and doesn't grow in any way. Is it really possible to spend ninety years on this earth and not change one bit? The fact that she describes everything as "lovely" may be cute at first, because it is so uncritical, but she abuses this statement, and makes me dubious that she is capable of experiencing any genuine appreciation. I think appreciation of beauty, and anything good for that matter is a relative concept; that you you need to recognize the bad in order to identify the good. She also never had to look out for herself, but I think this robbed her of an opportunity to experience the gratitification that accompanies that responsibilty. Most significantly, she although she was surrounded by people her entire life, she didn't seem to experience relationships of any depth or significance, nor did she have any impact on them. This especially clear when Grandmother called out for Rachel, not Topaz before she died. All of these things prevented me from accepting Topaz as a main character, but more annoyingly they left me feeling perplexed. What was the author trying to tell the reader? Am I supposed to aspire to be like Topaz? I don't think so, I think dogs are supposed to be dogs and humans are supposed to be humans.
I think my distaste for Topaz comes from the characteristics that she doesn't possess, as much as the ones she does. She seems to lack even the most basic human elements, elements that distinguish humans from dogs. She doesn't possess much intelligence, doesn't seem to experience emotions of any depth, and doesn't grow in any way. Is it really possible to spend ninety years on this earth and not change one bit? The fact that she describes everything as "lovely" may be cute at first, because it is so uncritical, but she abuses this statement, and makes me dubious that she is capable of experiencing any genuine appreciation. I think appreciation of beauty, and anything good for that matter is a relative concept; that you you need to recognize the bad in order to identify the good. She also never had to look out for herself, but I think this robbed her of an opportunity to experience the gratitification that accompanies that responsibilty. Most significantly, she although she was surrounded by people her entire life, she didn't seem to experience relationships of any depth or significance, nor did she have any impact on them. This especially clear when Grandmother called out for Rachel, not Topaz before she died. All of these things prevented me from accepting Topaz as a main character, but more annoyingly they left me feeling perplexed. What was the author trying to tell the reader? Am I supposed to aspire to be like Topaz? I don't think so, I think dogs are supposed to be dogs and humans are supposed to be humans.
Objects In Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear
I liked Hey Nostradamus for so many reasons. The issues the characters dealt with, and the way they dealt with them was so real that the reader couldn't help but be enticed. But most of all, the structure of the novel sold me on it. The four different viewpoints of the four different characters allowed Coupland to communicate to the reader that so much of our indiviual realities, or perceived realities, are based on assumptions. Coupland is telling us that we perceive things and make judgements on incomplete knowledge. This is especially so in the relationships in the story- Jason had his father all wrong, and his father didn't really understand Jason, and the Youth Alivers autmatically made assumptions on Jason and Cheryl's relationship. He also uses twists throughout the story to reinforce this, such as Jason's fatherhood, and the phony psychic who turns out to be taking advantage of Heather, that no matter how long we've accepted something as truth, and no matter how much we want it to be, doesn't mean that it is. He also shows the effect of challenging any erroneous perceptions we have in the case of Reg, this made Reg a real vulnerable person, he realized that the only thing seperating him from others was his hypocrisy, not that he was better than anyone else.
Heather realizes that Reg and Jason aren't so different, and in fact ironically it was the same downfall that seperated them, each thought they were better than the other. In a sense their beliefs were mirrors of one another. The whole time I was reading the book, I was wishing that the characters would ask each other questions, and get past the perceived differences that distanced them. But then I realized that we all do that, just as Jason and Reg were in a way mirrors of each other, these two characters are also mirrors of our own behaviour. Cheryl's statement that humanity " has the capacity at any given moment to commit all possible sins" seems to resonate. I think our assumptions are one of them.
Heather realizes that Reg and Jason aren't so different, and in fact ironically it was the same downfall that seperated them, each thought they were better than the other. In a sense their beliefs were mirrors of one another. The whole time I was reading the book, I was wishing that the characters would ask each other questions, and get past the perceived differences that distanced them. But then I realized that we all do that, just as Jason and Reg were in a way mirrors of each other, these two characters are also mirrors of our own behaviour. Cheryl's statement that humanity " has the capacity at any given moment to commit all possible sins" seems to resonate. I think our assumptions are one of them.
20070312
For that presentation thing...
Hey guys! I was looking through my notes earlier and here are some similarities between Avison and Coupland that Professor Ogden mentioned in lecture:
Pg 258: “Heavy-hearted Hope” in Always Now: humans grow by cancer.
Pg 41 of Hey Nostradamus! says, “to accept God is to fully accept the sorrow of the human condition”. Both texts express the message that there is a cost to opening up to pain and sorrow, but that is what essentially makes us human.
Pg 153 of Always Now extensively uses the word “still”, as does pg 9 of Hey Nostradamus!
“Still” means silence, continuity, potential, hope, etc.
Anybody find any others?
Pg 258: “Heavy-hearted Hope” in Always Now: humans grow by cancer.
Pg 41 of Hey Nostradamus! says, “to accept God is to fully accept the sorrow of the human condition”. Both texts express the message that there is a cost to opening up to pain and sorrow, but that is what essentially makes us human.
Pg 153 of Always Now extensively uses the word “still”, as does pg 9 of Hey Nostradamus!
“Still” means silence, continuity, potential, hope, etc.
Anybody find any others?
maybe i'm the cynic.
Is Douglas Coupland cynical?
Perhaps. As noted by Ogden, a strong case exists for the opposite; that Douglas Coupland is truly anti-cynical. Let's look at the text.
At the closing of the novel, Reg contemplates his unwavering belief in god, though he admits that it may not even be belief in the truest sense of the word. Reg even states that his belief could be summed up by an "insurance equation" that could inform him which is easier to live with (243); to believe or to dis-believe. How hoping that that notion is not true cannot be a cynical state of mind is beyond me.
If, in fact, this is an example of Douglas Coupland self-referencing himself in the novel, then it is without a doubt evident that he is a cynical being! What could be more cynical than allowing a third party (in this case, a theoretical mathematical equation) to decide your belief system?
Perhaps. As noted by Ogden, a strong case exists for the opposite; that Douglas Coupland is truly anti-cynical. Let's look at the text.
At the closing of the novel, Reg contemplates his unwavering belief in god, though he admits that it may not even be belief in the truest sense of the word. Reg even states that his belief could be summed up by an "insurance equation" that could inform him which is easier to live with (243); to believe or to dis-believe. How hoping that that notion is not true cannot be a cynical state of mind is beyond me.
If, in fact, this is an example of Douglas Coupland self-referencing himself in the novel, then it is without a doubt evident that he is a cynical being! What could be more cynical than allowing a third party (in this case, a theoretical mathematical equation) to decide your belief system?
20070310
Prepare to Enter... The Medicated Zone! Part II
And now the follow-up.
My least favourite of all the tales would have to be Malcolm Lowry's "Gin and Goldenrod". The narrative was too pretentious for my taste, by far and Sigbjorn's treatment of Primrose was far too condescending. Coupled with the fact that Primrose seems like a complete twit, doting on Sigbjorn the way she does. I could not connect to the characters on any level, let alone get past the diction's pretension. I simply hated this story. Period. The End.
My least favourite of all the tales would have to be Malcolm Lowry's "Gin and Goldenrod". The narrative was too pretentious for my taste, by far and Sigbjorn's treatment of Primrose was far too condescending. Coupled with the fact that Primrose seems like a complete twit, doting on Sigbjorn the way she does. I could not connect to the characters on any level, let alone get past the diction's pretension. I simply hated this story. Period. The End.
Prepare to Enter... The Medicated Zone!
Note to the Reader: the following was composed while I was heavily medicated due to illness and thus fell asleep at least 3 times in the process of writing both. Enjoy!
My favourite of the eight short stories assigned from Vancouver Short Stories would have to be Pauline Johnson’s two Native American legends “The Two Sisters” and “The Siwash Rock”. Theses two were favourites of mine not only because they were two of the shortest tales in the book, but also because I have an affinity for myths and legends from a variety of backgrounds and found these two very interesting. It instills a kind of wonder to believe that these natural formations and landmarks could have been created through more mystical forces than just the shifting of tectonic plates and the melting of ice floes.
My favourite of the eight short stories assigned from Vancouver Short Stories would have to be Pauline Johnson’s two Native American legends “The Two Sisters” and “The Siwash Rock”. Theses two were favourites of mine not only because they were two of the shortest tales in the book, but also because I have an affinity for myths and legends from a variety of backgrounds and found these two very interesting. It instills a kind of wonder to believe that these natural formations and landmarks could have been created through more mystical forces than just the shifting of tectonic plates and the melting of ice floes.
20070307
Why It Doesn't Make Sense
“It doesn’t make any sense!” is a phrase that I have been hearing constantly since our English class was given the assignment of reading William Gibson’s All Tomorrow’s Parties. I came up with two possible reasons for this confusion:
First, this is one of those novels that does not fully explain the plot until the denouement or conclusion phase of the story. Therefore, in order to understand and enjoy the novel, the reader has to trudge through the text for a second time. This narrative strategy is a widely used method in all types or art (Pink Floyd’s The Wall ring any bells?), yet, it is irritating since not all readers have the patience and motivation (or in the case of a university student, the time) to experience it a second time. And of course, it makes the first reading absolutely painful.
Second, this novel is most likely a sequel. If you were to pick up the second Lord of the Rings book, you’ll find it contains sentences along the lines of, “Frodo remembered all too well how the Ringwraith had stabbed him at Weathertop”. This is clearly indicative of some past information in existence that is crucial to the comprehension of the plot. All Tomorrow’s Parties also possesses lines that hint at an earlier tale, such as, “That was what had gotten him into the trouble that introduced him to Chevette Washington” (84), and, thus, it is likely a sequel.
To read a book for the first time when it meant to be enjoyed the second, as well as to be missing some key background information, certainly results in confusion and annoyance from the text’s audience. I can only hope that I am completely wrong about this novel and that once I bring myself to pick it up again, it will suddenly begin to make perfect sense.
First, this is one of those novels that does not fully explain the plot until the denouement or conclusion phase of the story. Therefore, in order to understand and enjoy the novel, the reader has to trudge through the text for a second time. This narrative strategy is a widely used method in all types or art (Pink Floyd’s The Wall ring any bells?), yet, it is irritating since not all readers have the patience and motivation (or in the case of a university student, the time) to experience it a second time. And of course, it makes the first reading absolutely painful.
Second, this novel is most likely a sequel. If you were to pick up the second Lord of the Rings book, you’ll find it contains sentences along the lines of, “Frodo remembered all too well how the Ringwraith had stabbed him at Weathertop”. This is clearly indicative of some past information in existence that is crucial to the comprehension of the plot. All Tomorrow’s Parties also possesses lines that hint at an earlier tale, such as, “That was what had gotten him into the trouble that introduced him to Chevette Washington” (84), and, thus, it is likely a sequel.
To read a book for the first time when it meant to be enjoyed the second, as well as to be missing some key background information, certainly results in confusion and annoyance from the text’s audience. I can only hope that I am completely wrong about this novel and that once I bring myself to pick it up again, it will suddenly begin to make perfect sense.
20070306
Feathered Hats and Mobile Phones
Professor Ogden once confessed in class of having recently been accused of over-interpretation. I must admit that my understanding of Margaret Avison’s poem “Technology Is Spreading” reveals me to be guilty of the same crime. Due to a 150-word restriction, in this blog entry I will only elaborate on my analysis of the first line of the poem, “Two men hatless plodding”.
First and foremost, the words “men hatless” have deep significance. Whenever it is required of me to conjure up mental images of men from the previous millennium, my representations are always wearing a different hat, the type depending on the man’s position on civilization’s timeline. A knight from the middle ages, for example, is wearing a helmet, whereas a citizen from the Elizabethan Era is wearing one of those elaborate hats with a massive feather on the side. Comparing the present time with the past, it is evident that hats were a major fashion accessory back in the day, constantly evolving with the demands of each decade’s new mode. Today, however, crossing paths with someone wearing a hat is a much less common occurence.
Obviously, technology in the past was poorly developed in comparison to present day (simply look at the modern cell phone: a phone, camera, television, computer, and music source all-in-one). It can therefore be said that a man who lived in past times (a hat-wearer) symbolizes little technology, and the opposite applies to a modern-day man. And so, when Avison states that “men hatless” are “plodding”, it can be understood that there is movement of technology, hence the title of the poem: “Technology Is Spreading”.
Over-interpretation? Nah.
First and foremost, the words “men hatless” have deep significance. Whenever it is required of me to conjure up mental images of men from the previous millennium, my representations are always wearing a different hat, the type depending on the man’s position on civilization’s timeline. A knight from the middle ages, for example, is wearing a helmet, whereas a citizen from the Elizabethan Era is wearing one of those elaborate hats with a massive feather on the side. Comparing the present time with the past, it is evident that hats were a major fashion accessory back in the day, constantly evolving with the demands of each decade’s new mode. Today, however, crossing paths with someone wearing a hat is a much less common occurence.
Obviously, technology in the past was poorly developed in comparison to present day (simply look at the modern cell phone: a phone, camera, television, computer, and music source all-in-one). It can therefore be said that a man who lived in past times (a hat-wearer) symbolizes little technology, and the opposite applies to a modern-day man. And so, when Avison states that “men hatless” are “plodding”, it can be understood that there is movement of technology, hence the title of the poem: “Technology Is Spreading”.
Over-interpretation? Nah.
20070220
Ignorance is bliss?
I will be the first to state that I was not particularly sold on the idea of Ethel Wilson’s ability to make Topaz a loveable character in The Innocent Traveller.
Perhaps I’m not the only one, but I found Topaz to be more annoying than that poodle that lives next door. The one I’ve plotted the demise of at least a hundred times.
A recurring theme of Topaz’s behaviour seems to be her sheer ignorance. While it could be argued that Topaz’s carefree attitude and endless optimism is simply a fabulous way to carry one’s self through life, I don’t buy it one bit. Throughout the book, it becomes apparent that Topaz is only a fleeting memory, and she is described merely as “a line on granite.” (p. 94) This is irrevocable proof that her manner of carrying herself was not only left unrespected, but is grossly unadmirable to the majority of the family. Instead of nurturing a loveable, cheerful woman, Wilson has only succeeded in truly pissing me off.
Additionally, there is the common argument that there are numerous times over the course of The Innocent Traveller in which something glorious in terms of action in the plot could occur. And, sure enough, my desires were foiled, and Topaz simply exclaimed “I do declare!” (too many occurences to cite) and went about her business. Topaz truly is the ultimate example of someone who doesn’t do anything. And it’s quite sad, really, as this is supposed to be one of the earliest and best examples of post-modern writing.
Perhaps I’m not the only one, but I found Topaz to be more annoying than that poodle that lives next door. The one I’ve plotted the demise of at least a hundred times.
A recurring theme of Topaz’s behaviour seems to be her sheer ignorance. While it could be argued that Topaz’s carefree attitude and endless optimism is simply a fabulous way to carry one’s self through life, I don’t buy it one bit. Throughout the book, it becomes apparent that Topaz is only a fleeting memory, and she is described merely as “a line on granite.” (p. 94) This is irrevocable proof that her manner of carrying herself was not only left unrespected, but is grossly unadmirable to the majority of the family. Instead of nurturing a loveable, cheerful woman, Wilson has only succeeded in truly pissing me off.
Additionally, there is the common argument that there are numerous times over the course of The Innocent Traveller in which something glorious in terms of action in the plot could occur. And, sure enough, my desires were foiled, and Topaz simply exclaimed “I do declare!” (too many occurences to cite) and went about her business. Topaz truly is the ultimate example of someone who doesn’t do anything. And it’s quite sad, really, as this is supposed to be one of the earliest and best examples of post-modern writing.
20070131
Once Upon a Time in Vancouver...
The last thing first-year university students expect to study in an English course at Simon Fraser University is a fairy tale. After all, having just recently been promoted from adolescent to young adult, shouldn’t they be given a chance to demonstrate their brilliance with a more mature text? Pauline Johnson disagrees with this outlook. Her short story “The Siwash Rock” is, after all, a typical fairy tale. It is complete with a Once Upon A Time (“it was thousands of years ago” [16]), a beautiful, brave and admired prince (“handsome boy chief… an excellent warrior… courageous man among men” [16]), a lovely girl that becomes his wife, and a seemingly-impossible triumph for a good cause. The story even ends with the couple living Happily Ever After: “from everlasting to everlasting” (18). This fairy tale must not be confused as fiction; for the two are distinctly separate: works of fiction provide insight to our own identities, whereas fairy tales do not possess the same appeal. I came into English 101 expecting to focus on fictional texts, not fairy tales, and for this reason Pauline Johnson’s “The Siwash Rock” is my least favorite addition to Vancouver Short Stories.
20070130
Hooray for Cliché: The Jade Peony
The Jade Peony was seven pages and ten minutes of my life that I desperately want back again.
Wayson Choy’s attempt at creating an emotional, heart-breaking account of the waning days of an old immigrant’s life comes off as clichéd and disconnected. The most painful part was the imagery, which, much of the time, was underdeveloped and vague in meaning. At best, the jade peony, which is important enough to Grandmama to become the title of the story, is mentioned as the centrepiece of a windchime that an old friend had given to her, and something that she “kept…always in her pocket, until her death.” (p. 120) While surely the author’s intention was for the jade peony to represent a magnificently beautiful thing that she treasured because it brightened her day, it mainly comes off as a symbol of materialism and superficiality, and did not spark much sympathy for me. The other image that struck me as relatively underdeveloped was the juggling magician. Perhaps the significance of teaching someone how to juggle is simply lost upon me, as I myself cannot do such a thing, but the description of this magician jumps from his abilities to strong emotional bonds without any sort of tangible, realistic connection (“He had been magician, acrobat, juggler, and some of the things he taught her she had absorbed and passed on to me...But above all, without realising it then, her hands conveyed to me the quality of their love.”). (p. 120)
On top of the imagery, the characters were downright annoying. The family as a whole comes off as very obsessive with their social status, putting down Grandmama’s rummaging for pieces for her windchimes (“We are not poor…yet she and Sek-Lung poke through those awful things as if…they were beggars!”), and generally unsupportive and unhappy with their lives, as displayed by the children when they complain about their schoolwork incessantly, shortly after they’d complained about Grandmama. (p. 120, p. 122)
Lastly, perhaps I’d missed it, but nowhere could I find the part where Grandmama gives Sek-Lung the jade peony, as he plays around with it in his pocket at the closing of the story. Evidently, not only is Grandmama a dear old lady with a rummaging fetish, her grandson is also a bit of a thief.
Wayson Choy’s attempt at creating an emotional, heart-breaking account of the waning days of an old immigrant’s life comes off as clichéd and disconnected. The most painful part was the imagery, which, much of the time, was underdeveloped and vague in meaning. At best, the jade peony, which is important enough to Grandmama to become the title of the story, is mentioned as the centrepiece of a windchime that an old friend had given to her, and something that she “kept…always in her pocket, until her death.” (p. 120) While surely the author’s intention was for the jade peony to represent a magnificently beautiful thing that she treasured because it brightened her day, it mainly comes off as a symbol of materialism and superficiality, and did not spark much sympathy for me. The other image that struck me as relatively underdeveloped was the juggling magician. Perhaps the significance of teaching someone how to juggle is simply lost upon me, as I myself cannot do such a thing, but the description of this magician jumps from his abilities to strong emotional bonds without any sort of tangible, realistic connection (“He had been magician, acrobat, juggler, and some of the things he taught her she had absorbed and passed on to me...But above all, without realising it then, her hands conveyed to me the quality of their love.”). (p. 120)
On top of the imagery, the characters were downright annoying. The family as a whole comes off as very obsessive with their social status, putting down Grandmama’s rummaging for pieces for her windchimes (“We are not poor…yet she and Sek-Lung poke through those awful things as if…they were beggars!”), and generally unsupportive and unhappy with their lives, as displayed by the children when they complain about their schoolwork incessantly, shortly after they’d complained about Grandmama. (p. 120, p. 122)
Lastly, perhaps I’d missed it, but nowhere could I find the part where Grandmama gives Sek-Lung the jade peony, as he plays around with it in his pocket at the closing of the story. Evidently, not only is Grandmama a dear old lady with a rummaging fetish, her grandson is also a bit of a thief.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
