It seems like everyone else in the world, my younger brother included, has read A Wrinkle in Time at one point or another, likely in elementary school. Almost everyone I talk to has either fond childhood memories of this great adventure story or memories of the frustration and boredom often experienced by children reading a "big" book for the first time. In this sense I feel like I may have had an advantage in that I had never heard of the novel before signing up for this course. Being unbiased by childhood opinions (whether they be good or bad) likely helped me to view the characters and references in the novel from a more adult perspective, rather than being influenced by nostalgia.
I found it interesting that, as we discussed in class, this book was banned by various Christian schools for opposing Christian values. While I definitely did note the religious undertones when I read the book for the first time, I never noted anything directly offensive to such values in the text. At first, I just assumed that the novel was written by a Christian author at a time when the religion was the norm and any deviation from Christian faith was seen as abnormal. I thought that the time and context in which it was written was likely one in which references to God in mainstream media were common and generally unquestioned.
However, as we began to discuss that various arguments about whether or not the text should be viewed as pro-Christian, I began to notice details that made me feel otherwise. The one thing that stood out to me the most in this novel (or made my scientific mind want to cry out "THIS CAN NOT BE PLAUSIBLE!") is the fact that every life form on every planet seems to believe in the same God. Although the various inhabitants of different worlds look, act and live completely differently, God is mentioned by several characters (most notably the three witches) in the most casual way. The existence and worship of one specific god by all inhabitants of all worlds is presented as an unquestioned truth, and no one is even surprised by it. I found this odd, as the main characters repeatedly question the methods and plausibility of time travel (for which physics can provide a rational explanation), but none ever note or question how the same deity has seemingly presented himself on all worlds.
Though this could be seen as a demonstration of the novel's pro-Christian themes, I felt that it might be important in relation to the "darkness" that takes over Camazots and threatens Earth. Someone said in class on Thursday that the residents of Camazots could be seen as a metaphor for the lack of individuality and freedom faced by a Godless society. When I first read this, I however felt differently. It seemed to me that Camazots and its inhabitants could be a metaphor for the consequences of blind trust in organized religion. The people of the planet resign themselves to a life where they take no responsibility for their actions, make no decisions, and rely on one central, immortal intelligent being to make their decisions and map out the course of their life. IT is the source of all information, guidance and power. This could easily be compared to the way some members of organized religious groups fail to take responsibility for their own actions because of a belief that every action and outcome in their lives are a product of fate rather than free will.
I can see how, when looking at the unquestioning acceptance of God by all major characters in the book, juxtaposed with the fact that they are being threatened by a being which intends to remove their free will, the novel can be interpreted as having an anti-Christian theme. However, it still seems somewhat ridiculous to me that it was banned by so many schools. Even if a school has a strict policy against literature that is deemed offensive to Christian values, A Wrinkle in Time does not even have an outright or definite anti-Christian theme. I can't help but wonder how many elementary students would even pick up on the questionable metaphors that the adults argue so much about.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Oh baby, baby, never let me go..
"...I half-closed my eyes and imagined this was the spot where everything I'd ever lost since my childhood had washed up, and I was now standing here in front of it, and if I waited long enough, a tiny figure would appear on the horizon across the field, and gradually get larger until I'd see it was Tommy, and he'd wave, maybe even call." (pg. 263)
I don't even know what to say. This book may as well have torn my heart out and stomped on it. It's been a long time since I've read something as powerfully sad as the last page of Never Let Me Go, and it's left me feeling rather empty. I can still hardly hold back tears as I think of Kathy staring out into a dirty field, combining her childhood fantasy of finding her precious lost things with a very adult longing for her lost love. I think it's the striking contrast between the childhood innocence and the harsh truth of reality in this scene that moved me so deeply.
Contrast seems to be used quite a bit in this novel to make certain themes more powerful. The highly polarized behavior of various characters, not to mention the way in which the writing style itself contradicts some of the dehumanizing content, only makes the emotional lines more hard-hitting.
For instance, the empathy and compassion shown by Madame when she sees Kathy dancing in the dorm draws attention to both the cruel nature of the lives clones are exposed to as well as the intimately human emotions they experience. And although Madame is revealed to be one of the clones' greatest allies in the battle for their rights, she is also portrayed as having an innate fear or disgust of the clones. I found Madame to be an interesting character in general because she plays a central role in both the dehumanization of and empathy for the clones.
I almost felt as though the clones, or "freaks" in this in this novel were even further dehumanized than those in Nights at the Circus or Geek Love. What bothered me the most was the way that death is referred to as "completion". This word alone draws attention to the fact that the clones live with only one purpose; all human emotion and experience is simply an aside to their ultimate use as a tool to save the life of another. At no point in their lives, not even in death, are they seen by the outside world as having any value as an individual. This takes the idea of a "freak" not being human one step further than in either of the other novels we covered in class. To me, this context of dehumanization and human life as a commodity was what made Kathy and Tommy's love so powerful to read about.
"And so we stood together like that, at the top of that field, for what seemed like ages, not saying anything, just holding each other, while the wind kept blowing and blowing at us, tugging our clothes, and for a moment, it seemed like we were holding onto each other because that was the only way to stop us being swept away into the night." (pg. 251)
This was another scene that deeply moved me. It draws attention to the unfair and heartbreaking circumstances of the lives from which they have no escape. It also serves as a contrast the dehumanization of the clones by demonstrating their capacity to experience the most powerful human emotions. In doing that, the author shows that not only are these characters fully human, but they are not at all different from those in the outside world.
Though in a theoretical sense this novel is very different from Geek Love or Nights at the Circus, I found that I enjoyed it more. Though I have felt that every book we've covered has a central theme of what it is to be human, in my opinion this is the best example. This book and these characters will stay with me for a very long time.
I don't even know what to say. This book may as well have torn my heart out and stomped on it. It's been a long time since I've read something as powerfully sad as the last page of Never Let Me Go, and it's left me feeling rather empty. I can still hardly hold back tears as I think of Kathy staring out into a dirty field, combining her childhood fantasy of finding her precious lost things with a very adult longing for her lost love. I think it's the striking contrast between the childhood innocence and the harsh truth of reality in this scene that moved me so deeply.
Contrast seems to be used quite a bit in this novel to make certain themes more powerful. The highly polarized behavior of various characters, not to mention the way in which the writing style itself contradicts some of the dehumanizing content, only makes the emotional lines more hard-hitting.
For instance, the empathy and compassion shown by Madame when she sees Kathy dancing in the dorm draws attention to both the cruel nature of the lives clones are exposed to as well as the intimately human emotions they experience. And although Madame is revealed to be one of the clones' greatest allies in the battle for their rights, she is also portrayed as having an innate fear or disgust of the clones. I found Madame to be an interesting character in general because she plays a central role in both the dehumanization of and empathy for the clones.
I almost felt as though the clones, or "freaks" in this in this novel were even further dehumanized than those in Nights at the Circus or Geek Love. What bothered me the most was the way that death is referred to as "completion". This word alone draws attention to the fact that the clones live with only one purpose; all human emotion and experience is simply an aside to their ultimate use as a tool to save the life of another. At no point in their lives, not even in death, are they seen by the outside world as having any value as an individual. This takes the idea of a "freak" not being human one step further than in either of the other novels we covered in class. To me, this context of dehumanization and human life as a commodity was what made Kathy and Tommy's love so powerful to read about.
"And so we stood together like that, at the top of that field, for what seemed like ages, not saying anything, just holding each other, while the wind kept blowing and blowing at us, tugging our clothes, and for a moment, it seemed like we were holding onto each other because that was the only way to stop us being swept away into the night." (pg. 251)
This was another scene that deeply moved me. It draws attention to the unfair and heartbreaking circumstances of the lives from which they have no escape. It also serves as a contrast the dehumanization of the clones by demonstrating their capacity to experience the most powerful human emotions. In doing that, the author shows that not only are these characters fully human, but they are not at all different from those in the outside world.
Though in a theoretical sense this novel is very different from Geek Love or Nights at the Circus, I found that I enjoyed it more. Though I have felt that every book we've covered has a central theme of what it is to be human, in my opinion this is the best example. This book and these characters will stay with me for a very long time.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Freaks?
While I probably would have had a lot more to say (not to mention a bit more confidence in my opinions and some more coherent thoughts) about Tod Browning's Freaks tomorrow, the article by Joan Hawkins gave me some things to think about. While I have yet to see the film, the general feeling I get from the retelling of the story and the discussion of its central themes is that of confusion.
Parts of this story seem to relate to and reinforce many of the themes discussed in class to date. For instance, the way in which Cleo is portrayed as behaving in an insensitive and inappropriate way towards Hans (in that she mocks his size by openly treating him in an infantile manner) draws attention to the fact that a physical deformity does not in itself constitute "freakishness". To me this echoes the views of Oly in Geek Love that "a true freak is not created. A true freak must be born". By drawing audience sympathy to the mistreatment of the freaks in the circus, the intention seems to be a reminder that freaks, as well as those who are physically normal, are all human.
I was confused, however, by the way in which the revenge of the freaks on Cleo is described. If the horrible mutilation of a woman of ultimate beauty is meant to cast the freaks as monsters (as seems to be the intention and the way of establishing Freaks as a horror movie), audience sympathy switches sides. If suddenly the freaks are portrayed as not merely physically affected but also mentally deranged, does this not confound the original intention of the film to draw attention to the mistreatment of those marginalized by society?
As I said, I will probably have a much better idea of my own opinions on this film after seeing it tomorrow. For now, however, I'm somewhat confused by the description of the plot. Every story needs some kind of conflict to drive the plot to resolution, but who is the bad guy here? Perhaps this film was meant to draw different reactions from different people. Maybe one's reaction (as well as where one's sympathy lies while viewing the film) says something about the individual watching and interpreting it.
Either way, from what I've read, I can't decide whether Browning tries to emphasize that all people, even freaks, are inherently human and have the same tendencies (such as Hans' love for Cleo, or the ultimate enforcement of patriarchal values by the freaks), or another, perhaps darker assertion that even outwardly "normal" people have freakish and violent tendencies underneath their pretensions (such as the murderous plan of Cleo driven by her greed). I look forward to resolving some of my own questions in class.
Parts of this story seem to relate to and reinforce many of the themes discussed in class to date. For instance, the way in which Cleo is portrayed as behaving in an insensitive and inappropriate way towards Hans (in that she mocks his size by openly treating him in an infantile manner) draws attention to the fact that a physical deformity does not in itself constitute "freakishness". To me this echoes the views of Oly in Geek Love that "a true freak is not created. A true freak must be born". By drawing audience sympathy to the mistreatment of the freaks in the circus, the intention seems to be a reminder that freaks, as well as those who are physically normal, are all human.
I was confused, however, by the way in which the revenge of the freaks on Cleo is described. If the horrible mutilation of a woman of ultimate beauty is meant to cast the freaks as monsters (as seems to be the intention and the way of establishing Freaks as a horror movie), audience sympathy switches sides. If suddenly the freaks are portrayed as not merely physically affected but also mentally deranged, does this not confound the original intention of the film to draw attention to the mistreatment of those marginalized by society?
As I said, I will probably have a much better idea of my own opinions on this film after seeing it tomorrow. For now, however, I'm somewhat confused by the description of the plot. Every story needs some kind of conflict to drive the plot to resolution, but who is the bad guy here? Perhaps this film was meant to draw different reactions from different people. Maybe one's reaction (as well as where one's sympathy lies while viewing the film) says something about the individual watching and interpreting it.
Either way, from what I've read, I can't decide whether Browning tries to emphasize that all people, even freaks, are inherently human and have the same tendencies (such as Hans' love for Cleo, or the ultimate enforcement of patriarchal values by the freaks), or another, perhaps darker assertion that even outwardly "normal" people have freakish and violent tendencies underneath their pretensions (such as the murderous plan of Cleo driven by her greed). I look forward to resolving some of my own questions in class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
