Saturday, June 26, 2010

O Brave New World, That Has Such People In't!

1984 was good, but if you ever wanted a bit more Shakespeare in it, go for a Brave New World! Really, really good. Someone asked me to choose between it and 1984, and I couldn't. Because they are essentially the same thing but different and both equally well written. Wonderful Dystopias!!!
This is one of those novels with an awesome character list because each name has like 5 meanings!!! Maybe I exaggerate, but they are really awesome.

John Savage - (The most basic, simple name in the English language describing his character)(Explains itself)
Bernard Marx - (First name meaning Brave Bear, very ironic) (And Marx. Just Marx.)
Helmholtz Watson - (After "Herman von" who believed in science's civilizing powers) (a common Brit name)
Lenina Crowne - (After Lenin, the one and only) (She had something about her that acted as a "crown" and drew people to her)
Mustapha Mond - (After, I believe, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - founder of the Republic of Turkey and Kemalism, which promotes secularism and scientific progress) (Mond is the root for the world?)
Fanny Crowne - Just a name that is ordinary, I think. Symbolizes the common masses?
Henry Foster - (Henry Ford, obviously) (William Z. was an American Marxist)
Linda - Means "pretty," which is ironic because eventually she is anything but, and it is one of the things she mourns
Popé - Indian leader in 1670ish. Like those uncivilized people, he mixed his indian beliefs with Christian ideaology.

That's it for characters! Yay!

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Yes! New look!

Sorry, the little tab at the top said "New options, want to try them out?" I just couldn't resist.

Alright. The Stranger....by Albert Camus. To be honest, I liked The Plague better. Well, que sera sera, it's a groundbreaking book. It is his first, after all. He also wrote "The Myth of Sisyphus" the same year. Well, you've heard my lectures on Camus and his absurdity and The Stranger is exactly the same. According to the back of the book, he was thrust into a "senseless murder." Does the word senseless sound familiar? Because it is absurd. This man does things like murder, love, attends his mother's funeral, makes promises, and all with a complete lack of feeling. Except perhaps towards the dog. But we'll get to that later. First, for a motif.

HEAT - While this guy was burying his mother, he kept mentioning the oppressive heat. They made the traditional walk from the nursing home to the church and it was hot. Very hot. There was this old man who, they said, was almost engaged to his mother despite their ages. He was very old and yet honored his mother enough to walk the distance. He cut corners of fields and struggled along, only to collapse at the church. According to the nurse, " She said, 'If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church.' She was right. There was no way out." Also, on the beach, he killed a man because he got crazy with the heat, it seems. That was his defense and it says " The sun was the same as it had been the day I'd buried Maman, and like then, my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under the skin. It was this burning, which I couldn't stand anymore, that made me move forward." Interpret it how you will, it seems to be the impulsive burning of the senseless world when confronted with a decision: to mourn, which he didn't, to kill or move on, which he chose to kill. When he is moved to prison, he does not feel heat, and on the day of his trial, the entire room burns because another major decision is to be made: death or no death.

This novel is all about the Absurd Man, who is a STRANGER in the world. Stranger, get it? He gets used to everything and feels nothing. He turns to regular pursuits and feels no pleasure in them but does them because they are expected of him. He gets used to prison, for goodness sake.

2 things I want to touch on before I close this novel for good:
1. There was an old man at the apartments who had this old dog that he hated. After his wife died, he got a dog to kick around. Every evening they would go on a walk and kick and mumble and yell and swear up and down the street. Pobre perro. It ran away. The old man was distraught. He was lonely. He was used to his wife, he was used to his dog, and he missed the previous life simply because he was used to it. Just like Meursault got used to his life before prison and missed it. Simply because he was used to it.
2. Meursault, upon his trial and other circumstances, simply wanted over and over to explain himself, which he never really got an opportunity to do. The prosecutor and defense attorney gave their speeches and did their dance and probably got a drink after. But he never got a chance to defend himself. Camus likes to point out not only the senselessness of the universe but also the senselessness of the government, but more specifically, the justice system. Camus harped on it a lot during The Plague (the injustice of the justice system was part of the human plague).

Alright, as for a review? Recommendation? I really didn't like it. Want a real good overview of absurdist theory in something? Read The Plague (Le Peste) for a novel and The Guest (L'Hote) for a short story and The Myth of Sisyphus for an essay. And please read a short biography or context something before or after reading! It will make more sense! He was depressing for a reason!

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The Right Field.

Yes, very soon I will write reviews on The Stranger and The Scarlet Pimpernel (swoon) and I'm currently reading Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller and A Brave New World. Remember Ceremony? I read the first four pages. I realized it was going to be exactly like Beloved. Blast. So I'm procrastinating reading it for now.

Anyhow, I realized the past couple days something which I've known for a bit now. Of course, I need to actually delve into the field, but now I know that I'm in the right field. The past couple days I've visited Harding University and have been visiting major seminar things and Honors College seminar things and drawing up my schedule. When I looked over the requirement sheet for Non-Licensure English Majors and looked over my requirements and the pick-four-classes-from-this-section section. I got excited. I will be taking Brit Lit this fall and of the four specialty classes I'll probably be taking Shakespeare! Literary Theory! British Novel! and this new class on Feminism/women in Literature from a professor who just defended her dissertation - which was a series of articles on Jane Austen. Yay! I'm so excited! And since I'm an Honors Scholar, we get to do (and actually are pretty required to do) these Honors Contract things that let us attend normal classes, but drop some of the more normal and mundane requirements in exchange for an extra paper or project that is of a different skill set or more suited to our field or something. That Shakespeare class is hereby CONTRACTED!!!! My new phrase. You like?

No, but I'm very excited. Actually, my "academic advisor" and I (she's a professor in my field - English) drew up my schedule for this fall, carefully avoiding some gen eds I might AP out of or take in an international program, and came up with a satisfactory schedule. Then she paused and said "You don't have any English. Do you want some English?" I said the equivalent of "Def Yes!" and dropped speech in favor of Brit Lit. I'm already starting my core requirements! The rest of my schedule includes intermediate Spanish, Communication/Critical Thinking, Honors New Testament, and and hour-and-a-half statistics class at 7:30 in the morning. But you know what? Since all of my other classes are on MWF, after that class and chapel on Tuesday and Thursday, I'm off scott free!!! To study, of course.