Just want to say I really, really hated this play. Terribly boring. Also, I don't think it would constitute as a tragedy. Who here is falling from grace and power? The Bridegroom? I don't really see it. Nor do I understand what happened. All I know is the Bride got married to the Bridegroom, ran away with Leonardo, everyone went looking for them, then the Bridegroom and Leonardo are suddenly muertos. Whaaaat?
I noticed in the play two places where eyes are mentioned. The first occurs on pg 77 where the Mother says "Who has a horse? Right now - who was a horse? I'll give you everything I have: my eyes and even my tongue!" She says this because her senses are incredibly important to her. She talks a lot so obviously the "tongue" remark is dramatic. Anyway, it mentions eyes. She is willing to not see (figuratively) so her son can find out the truth and be happy. The second spot "eyes are mentioned is on page 98 and the Beggar Woman (aka Death) says "I could have asked you for your eyes!" and this brings the parallels of Oeidpus and Wild Duck. How are the eyes connected? I'll have to keep reading this terrible book to find out.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Blood Wedding #2
Man this play is weird. I really don't get it, or the appeal of it. I don't understand what the Mother is talking about all the time.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Blood Wedding #1
Notes from a brainstorm:
Grapes and knives are mentioned a lot throughout Act 1. This could represent a lot of things. I guess grapes represent wealth to the mother because that is how her son makes his income. Knives represent loss and violence of man. Both her husband and son are dead because of knives, apparently. I don't really get this play. It's really easy to read but I get bored and I forget what I read.
There's a lot of lying in here, too, so far. Leonardo lies to his wife about using the horse and taking the horse out and where he goes. He says he was at the wheat-buyers but he was really riding to see the Bride. Odd. The Bride later keeps telling the Maid to back off and on the final page of Act I, she keeps saying "lies, lies!" like she doesn't want anyone to know her relations with Leonardo. Which is obvious why, because she's about to be married. She can't be scared by past relationships! Nobody will marry her then.
The final thing I noticed was the family relationships. Children seem to respect parents in a way. The Bridegroom is very respectful and loving toward his mother. He always appears very helpful and aware of his mother's silliness, but loves her anyway. And the Bride accepts the Bridegroom's proposal to appease her father, I think. She's a quiet and well-mannered child and her father even says that to the Bridegroom and his Mother.
Grapes and knives are mentioned a lot throughout Act 1. This could represent a lot of things. I guess grapes represent wealth to the mother because that is how her son makes his income. Knives represent loss and violence of man. Both her husband and son are dead because of knives, apparently. I don't really get this play. It's really easy to read but I get bored and I forget what I read.
There's a lot of lying in here, too, so far. Leonardo lies to his wife about using the horse and taking the horse out and where he goes. He says he was at the wheat-buyers but he was really riding to see the Bride. Odd. The Bride later keeps telling the Maid to back off and on the final page of Act I, she keeps saying "lies, lies!" like she doesn't want anyone to know her relations with Leonardo. Which is obvious why, because she's about to be married. She can't be scared by past relationships! Nobody will marry her then.
The final thing I noticed was the family relationships. Children seem to respect parents in a way. The Bridegroom is very respectful and loving toward his mother. He always appears very helpful and aware of his mother's silliness, but loves her anyway. And the Bride accepts the Bridegroom's proposal to appease her father, I think. She's a quiet and well-mannered child and her father even says that to the Bridegroom and his Mother.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Wild Duck #5
The symbolism of the wild duck applies to the characters as well as the whole novel. On page 181, Ekdal says something like "there's some of the wild duck in you" to Hjalmar. Hjalmar is the wild duck because he was injured and down when Gina found him. She was the dog to his duck and pulled him out of his misery and brought him to be nursed back to health. At the same time, the symbol of the wild duck represents the whole book. Hjalmar is still the wild duck, but Hedvig, Gina and Gregers all try to be the dog. They obviously don't succeed because it is a tragedy. Basically, the entire motif and symbolism and metaphor is used to convey Ibsen's idea that something cannot always be fixed.
Another interesting thing I noticed in the text is how much more significant Gina's power as a woman really is than it appears to be on the surface. She not only runs the house, but she manages all the household accounts and basically runs the photography business. Her power is actually larger in the relationship than Hjalma'rs even though it seems like Hjalmar can control her more. It's up to Gina, though, really, to reveal her secret about Werle. Had it not been for Gregers, she could've potentially never told Hjalmar. She is his dog. Without Gina, Hjalmar's life would be in ruins and he relies on her so much that he doesn't even realize it.
Another interesting thing I noticed in the text is how much more significant Gina's power as a woman really is than it appears to be on the surface. She not only runs the house, but she manages all the household accounts and basically runs the photography business. Her power is actually larger in the relationship than Hjalma'rs even though it seems like Hjalmar can control her more. It's up to Gina, though, really, to reveal her secret about Werle. Had it not been for Gregers, she could've potentially never told Hjalmar. She is his dog. Without Gina, Hjalmar's life would be in ruins and he relies on her so much that he doesn't even realize it.
Wild Duck #4
I've noticed a few comparisons Wild Duck has with Oedipus. Besides the obvious motifs of blindness,i noticed that both novels include the revealing of some deep, dark family secret. For example in Oedipus, Oeidpus' real birth parents and the situation with Jacosta as his wife come out in the open. Jacosta is not only his wife, but also his mother, and the man he murdered so many years ago was in all actuality his father. In addition, the people he always thought were his real parents were merely his adoptive parents. In Wild Duck, Hjalmar discovers the truth about his wife's relations prior to their marriage. He finds out Gina had a romantic relationship with Werle, the father of his best friend. Later, he discovers through his daughter's blindness that the thing most important to him may not be his. Hedvig might be the daughter of Gina and Werle through their affair. It's all really complicated and confusing.
Another comparison I noticed was the death and suicide tidbit. Both Jacosta and Hedvig, the dearest people to the heroes in both tragedies, end up committing suicide. Why is this significant? Because they are the dearest people to the heroes in the tragedies! The point of a tragedy is for the hero to fall from power and grace. By losing what is most important, the hero loses power of will and life. Jacosta's suicide is the final straw for Oedipus and he immediately gouges his eyes out. Hedvig's suicide (though potentially accidental, but probably purposeful) is obviously the last straw for Hjlamar's pride.
Another comparison I noticed was the death and suicide tidbit. Both Jacosta and Hedvig, the dearest people to the heroes in both tragedies, end up committing suicide. Why is this significant? Because they are the dearest people to the heroes in the tragedies! The point of a tragedy is for the hero to fall from power and grace. By losing what is most important, the hero loses power of will and life. Jacosta's suicide is the final straw for Oedipus and he immediately gouges his eyes out. Hedvig's suicide (though potentially accidental, but probably purposeful) is obviously the last straw for Hjlamar's pride.
IOP Journal 5
This is my final journal entry, and I want to discuss two things: The use of the word "Maman" versus "mom" or "Mother", and the different translations of the title.
In Ward's version, "Maman" is used to refer to Meursault's mother. "Maman" actually means "mother" in French, and is not just a pet name or term of affection that Meursault uses. This seemingly contradicts Ward's previous desire to "Americanize" Camus's text. By using "Maman", Meursault seems to have not just a connection, but an attachment to his mother. Is this a way to make him seem more human? Why would Ward, through wanting to detach the character, immediately make him see emotional at the first word? It doesn't matter that a few sentences later, his detachment is evident, because the first word of the book contradicts everything. Gilbert sticks to "mother", a strict translation from the French to the English. Was Ward's use of "Maman" a way to associate the text with it's French origins?
According to both Wikipedia and a French-English online dictionary (http://www.french-linguistics.co.uk/dictionary/), the word "l'etranger" means foreigner, stranger, or even outsider. It can also mean unknown, unfamiliar, or alien. The older translation of this novel was known as The Outsider, but The Stranger has become a more common title and is used much more often than the other. One could argue that "The Foreigner" might be a more precise title because Meursault isn't from Algeria, he is from France, though he has no desire to move back because he is comfortable where he is. He is in another land where there are Arabs and he doesn't feel completely comfortable. It's interesting.
In Ward's version, "Maman" is used to refer to Meursault's mother. "Maman" actually means "mother" in French, and is not just a pet name or term of affection that Meursault uses. This seemingly contradicts Ward's previous desire to "Americanize" Camus's text. By using "Maman", Meursault seems to have not just a connection, but an attachment to his mother. Is this a way to make him seem more human? Why would Ward, through wanting to detach the character, immediately make him see emotional at the first word? It doesn't matter that a few sentences later, his detachment is evident, because the first word of the book contradicts everything. Gilbert sticks to "mother", a strict translation from the French to the English. Was Ward's use of "Maman" a way to associate the text with it's French origins?
According to both Wikipedia and a French-English online dictionary (http://www.french-linguistics.co.uk/dictionary/), the word "l'etranger" means foreigner, stranger, or even outsider. It can also mean unknown, unfamiliar, or alien. The older translation of this novel was known as The Outsider, but The Stranger has become a more common title and is used much more often than the other. One could argue that "The Foreigner" might be a more precise title because Meursault isn't from Algeria, he is from France, though he has no desire to move back because he is comfortable where he is. He is in another land where there are Arabs and he doesn't feel completely comfortable. It's interesting.
Friday, May 14, 2010
IOP Journal 4
So at the beginning of the Ward translation, we are offered a translator's note in which Ward says the following:
“Camus acknowledged employing an “American method” in writing The Stranger, in the first half of the book in particular: the short, precise sentences; the depiction of a character ostensibly without consciousness; and, in places, the “tough guy” tone. [...] There is some irony then in the fact that for forty years the only translation available to American audience should be Stuart Gilbert’s “Britannic” rendering. [...] As all translators do, Gilbert gave the novel a consistency and voice all his own. A certain paraphrastic earnestness might be a way of describing his effort to make the text intelligible, to help the English-speaking reader understand what Camus meant.” (v-vi)
Ward criticizes Gilbert's version because it does not coincide with the stated intent of the author. Gilbert's version was published in 1946, 42 years before Ward's. This creates not only different translations due to different authors, but completely different viewpoints. The book was originally published in 1942, smack-dab in the middle of WWII. It was Camus's first published novel and arguably his most famous and finest. Gilbert published his translation the year after WWII ended. Gilbert was British and his version is called "Brittanic" In Ward's note. He uses some words uncommon to American English. Still, Camus' absurdist and possibly existensialist beliefs drew him to be influenced by writers who created the "American" style of writing most commonly seen in novel like The Catcher In The Rye, by J.D. Salinger. Holden's detached and uncaring voice is incredibly similar to Meursault's. In fact, when I first started reading The Stranger, I immediately pointed out in a journal entry that the writing style reminded me of The Catcher In The Rye.
“Camus acknowledged employing an “American method” in writing The Stranger, in the first half of the book in particular: the short, precise sentences; the depiction of a character ostensibly without consciousness; and, in places, the “tough guy” tone. [...] There is some irony then in the fact that for forty years the only translation available to American audience should be Stuart Gilbert’s “Britannic” rendering. [...] As all translators do, Gilbert gave the novel a consistency and voice all his own. A certain paraphrastic earnestness might be a way of describing his effort to make the text intelligible, to help the English-speaking reader understand what Camus meant.” (v-vi)
Ward criticizes Gilbert's version because it does not coincide with the stated intent of the author. Gilbert's version was published in 1946, 42 years before Ward's. This creates not only different translations due to different authors, but completely different viewpoints. The book was originally published in 1942, smack-dab in the middle of WWII. It was Camus's first published novel and arguably his most famous and finest. Gilbert published his translation the year after WWII ended. Gilbert was British and his version is called "Brittanic" In Ward's note. He uses some words uncommon to American English. Still, Camus' absurdist and possibly existensialist beliefs drew him to be influenced by writers who created the "American" style of writing most commonly seen in novel like The Catcher In The Rye, by J.D. Salinger. Holden's detached and uncaring voice is incredibly similar to Meursault's. In fact, when I first started reading The Stranger, I immediately pointed out in a journal entry that the writing style reminded me of The Catcher In The Rye.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
