Kissing Jessica Stein is a comedy of sorts about "the surface level" and the insecurities of dating in the modern world. It questions how people think about sexuality and proposes that sexuality is painted in shades of grey, and is not strictly black and white.
I think that Helen and Jessica's relationship ultimately did not work out because of their difference in personality, not because of their gender. Jessica is neurotic and uptight, and her analysis of everything was bound to wear Helen thin. The casual viewer might assume that the relationship failed because of Jessica's ultimate "straightness", and maybe that was a factor, but if she was with the right person I think she'd be able to get over it.
Ultimately, I think love is about the person you are with. Love also extends outside of romantic relationships, which seems to be neglected by the romantic comedy genre. Friendships can be full of love, love that is just as deep and valuable as romantic love. Friendships can also be slightly erotic, as we discussed in class. Relationships would fare much better if they weren't so rigidly defined by society.
Reflection on Class
This class has introduced me to a new way of looking at love and desire, and I really enjoyed the readings, movies, and class discussions. I especially liked that we did not focus on the fluffy, easier aspects of love and desire- what would be the point of that? Disney pretty much has that covered, in my opinion. I welcome the opportunity to look at this subject with a critical and analytical lens, questioning subjectivity itself.
Some of the readings I will keep in my library, such as Madame Bovary (my favorite novel of the semester), and I plan on buying Simple Passion and Kristeva's writing, since both were really interesting and valuable to me.
Monday, December 3, 2012
12/4/12: The Readings
The New Yorker Article:
The premise of online dating itself has always interested me- wouldn't it just serve to make the dating process even more removed, the "other" even more unknown? The act of assigning the task of dating to a piece of software certainly says something about the state of human connection- people don't seem to be getting it right, so maybe computers can. As the article says, "In a fractured and bewildered landscape of fern bars, ladies' nights, Plato's Retreat, "The Bachelor", sexting, and the concept of the cougar, the Internet promised reconnection, profusion, and processing power." (3).
In some ways, online dating mocks dating in college, just as the article points out: "A college campus is a habitat of abundance and access, with a fluid and fairly ruthless vetting apparatus." People are constantly entering and exiting relationships, coming closer to understanding their needs and wants. However, with its seemingly infinite possibilities, online dating can feel cumbersome, and insecure. There's no way of really knowing who the person you are speaking to is, and although you can never fully know someone else, there's something disconcerting about that extra layer of removal.
I also found the section about the dating profile interesting- it is truly a "vehicle for projecting a curated and stylized version of oneself into the world." There is a certain amount of control you have over your image, which is usually determined by physical appearance. That power can remove us even farther from our perceptions of ourselves- you aren't really into reading, but if you "like" it on Facebook, you might catch someone's eye that you are fond of. There is no way of knowing the exact influence of social media presence on identity and in our relationships, but it is an influence. Facebook can attribute some of its success to this undying thirst to understand the other, and also to understand the self. If we list our every interest, post the best pictures, and think of the best comments, maybe we'll be closer to finding our true identity, to understanding ourselves and who we want to be.
"Serendipity and coincidence are the photosynthesis of romance, hinting at some kind of supernatural preordination, the sense that two people are made for each other." I believe in this, and think this is something online dating is missing- that you cannot determine your "perfect match" with fancy algorithms, and that we don't have a whole lot of control over when we'll get in a relationship, or how it will happen.
Kristeva
"A hymn to total giving to the other, such a love is also, and almost as explicitly, a hymn to the narcissistic power to which I may even sacrifice it, sacrifice myself."
I really enjoyed this article, and its focus on the narcissism of love- something touched upon by the last article but not discussed in detail. The "great sacrifice" of love is inherently narcissistic- it ties into the idea that you can "give" yourself to someone, that you are in fact in control, when you aren't. Also, as we have discussed in class, we tend to become attracted to people who we think possess qualities we want, and focus on these desirable traits.
Another stand out quote: "Perhaps the naivete of that debate conceals a metaphysical profundity- or at least a linguistic one. Beyond the revelation- yet another one- of the abyss separating the sexes, such questioning hints that love would, in any case, be solitary because incommunicable." I liken this to the "mirror stage" moment discussed earlier in the semester- realizing that the image in the mirror is an image, not our actual self. However, in the case of love, we are separated in many ways. We are separated sometimes by sex, always by this "metaphysical profundity", subjectivity, etc. Lovers don't experience their love in the same way, which makes love a unique, subjective experience.
This quote especially struck me: "Love is the time and space in which "I" assumes the right to be extraordinary. Sovereign yet not individual. Divisible, lost, annihilated; but also, and through imaginary fusion with the loved one, equal to the infinite space of super human psychism. Paranoid? I am, in love, at the zenith of subjectivity." I hadn't thought about the experience of love like that before, but I like thinking about it as the "zenith of subjectivity". Love does have a celestial, metaphysical quality that controls us, moves us, hurts us as it soothes us, and challenges us, something that nothing else can measure up to. I once heard that love is the closest humans can get to experiencing magic, and something about that is true to me.
The premise of online dating itself has always interested me- wouldn't it just serve to make the dating process even more removed, the "other" even more unknown? The act of assigning the task of dating to a piece of software certainly says something about the state of human connection- people don't seem to be getting it right, so maybe computers can. As the article says, "In a fractured and bewildered landscape of fern bars, ladies' nights, Plato's Retreat, "The Bachelor", sexting, and the concept of the cougar, the Internet promised reconnection, profusion, and processing power." (3).
In some ways, online dating mocks dating in college, just as the article points out: "A college campus is a habitat of abundance and access, with a fluid and fairly ruthless vetting apparatus." People are constantly entering and exiting relationships, coming closer to understanding their needs and wants. However, with its seemingly infinite possibilities, online dating can feel cumbersome, and insecure. There's no way of really knowing who the person you are speaking to is, and although you can never fully know someone else, there's something disconcerting about that extra layer of removal.
I also found the section about the dating profile interesting- it is truly a "vehicle for projecting a curated and stylized version of oneself into the world." There is a certain amount of control you have over your image, which is usually determined by physical appearance. That power can remove us even farther from our perceptions of ourselves- you aren't really into reading, but if you "like" it on Facebook, you might catch someone's eye that you are fond of. There is no way of knowing the exact influence of social media presence on identity and in our relationships, but it is an influence. Facebook can attribute some of its success to this undying thirst to understand the other, and also to understand the self. If we list our every interest, post the best pictures, and think of the best comments, maybe we'll be closer to finding our true identity, to understanding ourselves and who we want to be.
"Serendipity and coincidence are the photosynthesis of romance, hinting at some kind of supernatural preordination, the sense that two people are made for each other." I believe in this, and think this is something online dating is missing- that you cannot determine your "perfect match" with fancy algorithms, and that we don't have a whole lot of control over when we'll get in a relationship, or how it will happen.
Kristeva
"A hymn to total giving to the other, such a love is also, and almost as explicitly, a hymn to the narcissistic power to which I may even sacrifice it, sacrifice myself."
I really enjoyed this article, and its focus on the narcissism of love- something touched upon by the last article but not discussed in detail. The "great sacrifice" of love is inherently narcissistic- it ties into the idea that you can "give" yourself to someone, that you are in fact in control, when you aren't. Also, as we have discussed in class, we tend to become attracted to people who we think possess qualities we want, and focus on these desirable traits.
Another stand out quote: "Perhaps the naivete of that debate conceals a metaphysical profundity- or at least a linguistic one. Beyond the revelation- yet another one- of the abyss separating the sexes, such questioning hints that love would, in any case, be solitary because incommunicable." I liken this to the "mirror stage" moment discussed earlier in the semester- realizing that the image in the mirror is an image, not our actual self. However, in the case of love, we are separated in many ways. We are separated sometimes by sex, always by this "metaphysical profundity", subjectivity, etc. Lovers don't experience their love in the same way, which makes love a unique, subjective experience.
This quote especially struck me: "Love is the time and space in which "I" assumes the right to be extraordinary. Sovereign yet not individual. Divisible, lost, annihilated; but also, and through imaginary fusion with the loved one, equal to the infinite space of super human psychism. Paranoid? I am, in love, at the zenith of subjectivity." I hadn't thought about the experience of love like that before, but I like thinking about it as the "zenith of subjectivity". Love does have a celestial, metaphysical quality that controls us, moves us, hurts us as it soothes us, and challenges us, something that nothing else can measure up to. I once heard that love is the closest humans can get to experiencing magic, and something about that is true to me.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Simple Passion
As I read the excerpts from Annie Ernaux's Simple Passion, I was underlining like a madwoman. It felt like she was speaking directly to my personal experiences in an eloquent and realized way. I liked the way that Ernaux characterized her relationship with her desires- a masochistic/sadistic relationship of sorts, where the feeling you love and feel so attached to is also slowly killing everything else you once felt passion for.
Some stand out quotes, among many:
pg 4, "I behaved in an artificial manner. The only actions involving willpower, desire, and what I take to be human intelligence, were all related to this man."
- This seems to happen all the time when someone gets into a relationship with a new lover; all of a sudden, one passion succumbs all the others and every emotion gets redirected to this passion. Simple everyday conversations become directed to the object of desire and anything that doesn't relate, gets the cold shoulder of indifference.
Ernaux also discusses a yearning to establish credibility to her feelings through other people's experiences. If she heard about a relationship between a man and woman, she automatically made connections- as she said, "I felt they could teach me something about A and that they lent credibility to the things I wished to believe." It seems that we are constantly yearning to learn the inner workings of the "other", especially if the other is of the opposite sex. I know that the popular media tends to promote this; magazines like Glamour "unlocking" the secrets of the mysterious male- why doesn't he call? Why are his texts so cryptic? They use the promise of these answers as bait to reel in curious female minds, although no one can really provide them.
pg 27, "Sometimes I told myself that he might spend a whole day without even thinking about me. I imagined him getting up, drinking his coffee, talking and laughing, as if I didn't exist. Compared to my own obsession, such indifference filled me with wonder. How could this be?"
- This quote speaks to the desire to "know" someone; to understand their experience of the relationship and their perception of you. When you are so embedded in your own reality, you find it difficult to see how the other person could feel different, and how dare they! How dare they treat you with such indifference when you've devoted so much of yourself to the relationship! Again, it all comes down to your desires, your needs. It's not at all about the other person's reality- we only want to understand the other because it brings us closer to understanding how to get what we want.
pg 20, "I could experience only absence or presence."
- The strictly linear relationship we have with the other is daunting to think about, because the other can never be known. Our experience can only be one or the other- the other is physically there, the other is not there. Whether that person is there in every sense of the word, is unknown. As much as we'd like to uncover the perpetual mystery of the other, we can only get so close. The more you want it, and believe this absolute closeness is possible, the farther away it becomes. Each person has their own agenda, and if you are not a part of it, there's really nothing you can do, and it's even harder to understand why.
pg 33, second reading, "I experienced pleasure like a future pain."
- This is the quote that led to my comparison of the relationship to desire as a masochistic/sadistic one, because the pain of pleasure, and the pleasure of pain seem to be the same. When we indulge our desires, we know we're going to feel the pain of that moment ending immediately after we savor the pleasure of it, but we are okay with it. The pain of desire feeds into the pleasure of love, and we couldn't have pleasure without that pain.
pg 39, second reading, "My whole body ached. I would have liked to tear out the pain but it was everywhere. I longed for a burglar to come into my bedroom and kill me."
- The extreme pain of the realization of the loss of a lover is always likened to a life or death situation; a pain so severe we'd prefer absolute indifference in the form of death. In the moment, it feels like life will never go long, and you'll always be consumed with the fact that you aren't going to get what you want. Life's firm and unforgiving refusal to indulge such a strong desire delivers a hard blow, and it takes a while to recover. Of course, if you're a character in a story, most likely you are going to die to illustrate the severity of such feelings. Thinking about my own experiences with this, I remember going over each and every detail of the person with a fine tooth comb- although it wasn't really the person I was analyzing, but my perception of them and their qualities that I really wanted. I mourned the loss of someone who I thought matched my exact desires and needs in a partner, although in retrospect I know I was idealizing the situation.
pg. 59, second reading, "I had decided to learn his language. I kept, without washing it, a glass from which he had drunk."
- I really liked the way Ernaux worded this sentence- although there was an obvious language barrier between these two, there was a much more important barrier in place- the unique language of an individual's actions, words, and semantics. People may typically use standard languages to express themselves, but they use these languages in a particular way. Individual expression is just that, individual, and the individual is the only one who really understands what is being expressed. The difference between intention and perception is vast, and often is an obstacle in relationships. Why is it that we are constantly fighting to understand each other, decode the other's semantics, figure out what is really meant? It seems to always be so hard, because we all approach language with a specific culture, specific motives, needs, etc. Ernaux's attempt to get closer to A's language by keeping his glass, thinking that perhaps the spread of DNA on the glass's surface will reveal a long kept secret, is interesting and she's certainly not alone.
Some stand out quotes, among many:
pg 4, "I behaved in an artificial manner. The only actions involving willpower, desire, and what I take to be human intelligence, were all related to this man."
- This seems to happen all the time when someone gets into a relationship with a new lover; all of a sudden, one passion succumbs all the others and every emotion gets redirected to this passion. Simple everyday conversations become directed to the object of desire and anything that doesn't relate, gets the cold shoulder of indifference.
Ernaux also discusses a yearning to establish credibility to her feelings through other people's experiences. If she heard about a relationship between a man and woman, she automatically made connections- as she said, "I felt they could teach me something about A and that they lent credibility to the things I wished to believe." It seems that we are constantly yearning to learn the inner workings of the "other", especially if the other is of the opposite sex. I know that the popular media tends to promote this; magazines like Glamour "unlocking" the secrets of the mysterious male- why doesn't he call? Why are his texts so cryptic? They use the promise of these answers as bait to reel in curious female minds, although no one can really provide them.
pg 27, "Sometimes I told myself that he might spend a whole day without even thinking about me. I imagined him getting up, drinking his coffee, talking and laughing, as if I didn't exist. Compared to my own obsession, such indifference filled me with wonder. How could this be?"
- This quote speaks to the desire to "know" someone; to understand their experience of the relationship and their perception of you. When you are so embedded in your own reality, you find it difficult to see how the other person could feel different, and how dare they! How dare they treat you with such indifference when you've devoted so much of yourself to the relationship! Again, it all comes down to your desires, your needs. It's not at all about the other person's reality- we only want to understand the other because it brings us closer to understanding how to get what we want.
pg 20, "I could experience only absence or presence."
- The strictly linear relationship we have with the other is daunting to think about, because the other can never be known. Our experience can only be one or the other- the other is physically there, the other is not there. Whether that person is there in every sense of the word, is unknown. As much as we'd like to uncover the perpetual mystery of the other, we can only get so close. The more you want it, and believe this absolute closeness is possible, the farther away it becomes. Each person has their own agenda, and if you are not a part of it, there's really nothing you can do, and it's even harder to understand why.
pg 33, second reading, "I experienced pleasure like a future pain."
- This is the quote that led to my comparison of the relationship to desire as a masochistic/sadistic one, because the pain of pleasure, and the pleasure of pain seem to be the same. When we indulge our desires, we know we're going to feel the pain of that moment ending immediately after we savor the pleasure of it, but we are okay with it. The pain of desire feeds into the pleasure of love, and we couldn't have pleasure without that pain.
pg 39, second reading, "My whole body ached. I would have liked to tear out the pain but it was everywhere. I longed for a burglar to come into my bedroom and kill me."
- The extreme pain of the realization of the loss of a lover is always likened to a life or death situation; a pain so severe we'd prefer absolute indifference in the form of death. In the moment, it feels like life will never go long, and you'll always be consumed with the fact that you aren't going to get what you want. Life's firm and unforgiving refusal to indulge such a strong desire delivers a hard blow, and it takes a while to recover. Of course, if you're a character in a story, most likely you are going to die to illustrate the severity of such feelings. Thinking about my own experiences with this, I remember going over each and every detail of the person with a fine tooth comb- although it wasn't really the person I was analyzing, but my perception of them and their qualities that I really wanted. I mourned the loss of someone who I thought matched my exact desires and needs in a partner, although in retrospect I know I was idealizing the situation.
pg. 59, second reading, "I had decided to learn his language. I kept, without washing it, a glass from which he had drunk."
- I really liked the way Ernaux worded this sentence- although there was an obvious language barrier between these two, there was a much more important barrier in place- the unique language of an individual's actions, words, and semantics. People may typically use standard languages to express themselves, but they use these languages in a particular way. Individual expression is just that, individual, and the individual is the only one who really understands what is being expressed. The difference between intention and perception is vast, and often is an obstacle in relationships. Why is it that we are constantly fighting to understand each other, decode the other's semantics, figure out what is really meant? It seems to always be so hard, because we all approach language with a specific culture, specific motives, needs, etc. Ernaux's attempt to get closer to A's language by keeping his glass, thinking that perhaps the spread of DNA on the glass's surface will reveal a long kept secret, is interesting and she's certainly not alone.
Monday, November 19, 2012
My Love Song: One Marathon by Reverie Sound Revue
I chose "One Marathon" by Reverie Sound Revue; a song by a very indie Canadian band. These are the lyrics:
I see you, carry the course
Some girl up and left again
And the sun seems to follow through
Oh, On a promise to follow you
Maybe the climb will in time
Remind you as you're always
Seeking me on harmony of rhyme
In time, as I wait, as time unwinds
As I dive over the finish line
As I dive over the finish line
I see you, call his name, Bliss,
I can't explain the whys of your wishing
Then you call me places
And you leave me aging
While I send my senses
I play by patience
But I know you know I
I must swear you hear my say
"No, our misses are not a plan"
So I miss you
And I run through
Through you
As I dive over the finish line
As I dive over the finish line
As I dive over the finish line
This song incorporates some natural imagery- the sun, "the climb"- to describe a person's love for someone who is not in their physical environment. This person is willing to wait for this love, withstand any test it might face, which is something I can relate to. The title, One Marathon, refers to the idea of a race against time, and that eventually love can "dive over the finish line," become a reality. Time is a temporary separation, and if you believe in your feelings, you just need to have patience. The line "I can't explain the whys of your wishing" especially resonates with me, because so much of what we feel is inexplicable. Sometimes you cannot explain what happens in your life, why you love someone despite any logical deterrences, or why you hold onto hope for a future with someone who is not physically available. The feeling of love itself is hard to explain or justify.
I think that love and desire for someone can continue on indefinitely, despite the circumstances of the relationship. You will miss that person, and maintain hope that you will be reunited someday- and it is not foolish to have that hope. Life is unpredictable, and it is not impossible for two lives to come back together after some time apart. Sometimes, that time was necessary, and the relationship is better for it. I think it is important to know how to miss someone- you better understand your feelings and appreciate that person in a way you hadn't before. How do you know if you really love someone if that person is around all the time, and the relationship never had to undergo any tests?
This song is inherently hopeful, just as I am about love. I believe everyone has a chance to experience a good relationship, one built on a real connection that has undergone some kind of test and has pushed through the hard times. Love is not instant; it takes time. Sometimes, it takes some distance too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfqVHYhIp9M
I see you, carry the course
Some girl up and left again
And the sun seems to follow through
Oh, On a promise to follow you
Maybe the climb will in time
Remind you as you're always
Seeking me on harmony of rhyme
In time, as I wait, as time unwinds
As I dive over the finish line
As I dive over the finish line
I see you, call his name, Bliss,
I can't explain the whys of your wishing
Then you call me places
And you leave me aging
While I send my senses
I play by patience
But I know you know I
I must swear you hear my say
"No, our misses are not a plan"
So I miss you
And I run through
Through you
As I dive over the finish line
As I dive over the finish line
As I dive over the finish line
This song incorporates some natural imagery- the sun, "the climb"- to describe a person's love for someone who is not in their physical environment. This person is willing to wait for this love, withstand any test it might face, which is something I can relate to. The title, One Marathon, refers to the idea of a race against time, and that eventually love can "dive over the finish line," become a reality. Time is a temporary separation, and if you believe in your feelings, you just need to have patience. The line "I can't explain the whys of your wishing" especially resonates with me, because so much of what we feel is inexplicable. Sometimes you cannot explain what happens in your life, why you love someone despite any logical deterrences, or why you hold onto hope for a future with someone who is not physically available. The feeling of love itself is hard to explain or justify.
I think that love and desire for someone can continue on indefinitely, despite the circumstances of the relationship. You will miss that person, and maintain hope that you will be reunited someday- and it is not foolish to have that hope. Life is unpredictable, and it is not impossible for two lives to come back together after some time apart. Sometimes, that time was necessary, and the relationship is better for it. I think it is important to know how to miss someone- you better understand your feelings and appreciate that person in a way you hadn't before. How do you know if you really love someone if that person is around all the time, and the relationship never had to undergo any tests?
This song is inherently hopeful, just as I am about love. I believe everyone has a chance to experience a good relationship, one built on a real connection that has undergone some kind of test and has pushed through the hard times. Love is not instant; it takes time. Sometimes, it takes some distance too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfqVHYhIp9M
Monday, November 12, 2012
The Bad Girl: Part Two
"I spent forty-eight hours in a somnambulistic state, alternating between spasms of lucidity and a mental fog that lifted occasionally so I could give myself over to a masochistic session of insults: imbecile, cretin, you deserve everything that happens to you, has happened to you, will happen to you."
- page 156
This sentence stuck out to me as I began to read the remainder of this novel. Desiring someone who does not give any kind of feedback to this desire puts a person in an odd mental space; is there hope? Is there no chance that this person will feel the same as I do?
Sometimes it feels like you have the answer, and then something happens to ruin the picture crafted so carefully in your mind. There's really no way to explain it; is it fate? Is there a reason why the smoldering desire within you persists through unlikely circumstances?
The way Ricardo and "The bad girl" seem to reunite at pivotal moments in their lives certainly suggests that fate is involved in their chance meetings. Ricardo's sexual obsession seems to be the most important part of his simple life, and the only part of him still tied to his Peruvian roots. His obsession is also the only connection the bad girl has to her roots; their relationship is like "home" to each other, a place to know and belong to, especially when the bad girl gets sick.
This novel had a strange effect on me; even at the end, I knew so little about Ricardo and the bad girl outside of their love for one another (if it could be called love) and desired to know more about them as characters. Although we learn a little bit about the bad girl's traumatic past, I still wanted to understand her. Obviously, the intention of the author was not to develop fully human characters as much as representations of the effects of love- when the desired is always changing, but the desirer is always wanting, no matter what changes occur.
The last paragraph of the novel was particularly interesting, when the bad girl tells Ricardo that "at least you have something to write about." I find this humorous- because most great works of art are inspired by love, or a study in an experience of love, but also because Vargas Llosa was so inspired by Flaubert, inspired enough to write a novel. Sometimes the best works of art come from a bad experience- I know that I always want to turn something particularly difficult that has happened in my life into something creative and meaningful. I am much more connected to what I create and I'm also healing through the process of creation- something that might have happened to Vargas Llosa. He is clearly making comments about the physical home, ties to one's heritage, and the emotional home, and how the answers are not always set in stone.
Life is always subject to change, and nothing about love is ever entirely clear or logical. There may be no logical reason for Ricardo to hold onto his feelings for the bad girl, but nothing was going to stop him, and nothing could possibly explain why.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
I Am Love
Pleasure.
This film, put simply, is about the human desire for pleasure, any kind of pleasure. Pleasure that is felt deeply and savored like a fine piece of shrimp.
The cinematography of this film is a pleasure for the audience to watch, with the beautiful locale and elegant shots. It also reflects this need for desire, such as when Emma is first tasting the shrimp Antonio cooked.
The love affair between Emma and Antonio, and the imagery associated with it (such as when they first have sex with one another) symbolizes the desire within human nature to experience pleasure by having sex, and feeling with all the senses. Just like Emma Bovary, Emma wants to experience pleasure, the realization of her desires.
Emma's desires also extend outside of her position in society- she is a married woman, and Antonio is not exactly a member of her class. Her affair with Antonio is rebellious, and it makes a statement, similar to the one Emma Bovary's character made. Emma wanted what she wanted and she had the power to get it, and the audacity to go against society's rules.
It is interesting to see these characters so fully going after what they want and simply enjoying themselves in the pleasures of life.
This film, put simply, is about the human desire for pleasure, any kind of pleasure. Pleasure that is felt deeply and savored like a fine piece of shrimp.
The cinematography of this film is a pleasure for the audience to watch, with the beautiful locale and elegant shots. It also reflects this need for desire, such as when Emma is first tasting the shrimp Antonio cooked.
The love affair between Emma and Antonio, and the imagery associated with it (such as when they first have sex with one another) symbolizes the desire within human nature to experience pleasure by having sex, and feeling with all the senses. Just like Emma Bovary, Emma wants to experience pleasure, the realization of her desires.
Emma's desires also extend outside of her position in society- she is a married woman, and Antonio is not exactly a member of her class. Her affair with Antonio is rebellious, and it makes a statement, similar to the one Emma Bovary's character made. Emma wanted what she wanted and she had the power to get it, and the audacity to go against society's rules.
It is interesting to see these characters so fully going after what they want and simply enjoying themselves in the pleasures of life.
Monday, November 5, 2012
The Bad Girl, Part One: Thoughts
Whilst reading the beginning of this novel, I got the sense that Vargas Llosa was deeply inspired by Madame Bovary, and the controversy of a female character who is allowed to function as a man would within the realm of the novel. (I also noted that Flaubert gets a shout out on page 45!) I read Ricardo as a less boring Charles Bovary with traits of Emma's; a man who delights in simplicity like Charles (although Charles was more just simple, and did not "desire" simplicity) and desires a romantic, ideal love much like Emma. Ricardo also had an unstable childhood and looked to novels to escape, desiring an adventure to Paris. He desires Lily just as Emma desired any man she was with in the novel; she seemingly represents everything he wants in a woman.
"With her model's looks, her dark mischievous eyes, and her small mouth with full lips, Lily was the incarnation of coquettishness." - page 6.
The quote above makes Lily's function in the novel obvious, the language even says that she is "a flirt". Coquettishness is a french saying for flirt, which is meaningful considering Ricardo's fascination with Paris. Anyway, a flirt is the ultimate object of desire, as they never follow through on what their behavior suggests. Their presence is as fleeting as the promise of their touch or their words. This novel reminds me of That Obscure Object of Desire for this reason, and because Lily is not the same person throughout the novel. It does not matter so much who she is as what she represents; she is the object of desire. No matter where Ricardo is in life, he will always desire her, no matter who she is.
The shape-shifting of Lily's character throughout the novel is similar to Emma's interactions with the men in Madame Bovary. It didn't matter who those men were; Emma wanted what she wanted, and she was going to search until she found what she was looking for. Lily could be ten different people and Ricardo would still desire her just the same. An example of this is when Ricardo first came across Lily in Paris, now Mrs. Richardson. "In love with me without knowing me? Do you mean that for ten years you've been hoping that one day a girl like me would turn up in your life?" (pg. 23). Ricardo truly believes this is the same person he was "in love" with, and will not stop desiring her, although he never really knew "Lily."
Lily's infidelity reminded me of Emma, although their infidelity has different purposes. Emma had affairs because she was searching for an idealized love, much like Ricardo. She was obsessed with this image and determined to see it realized. Lily was adulterous because she is the object of desire, and an object of desire cannot be contained. She is a "bad girl", a girl with no ties to monogamy and no concept of loyalty. She desires being the "object of desire" just as much as Ricardo desires her. Her identity is malleable because it needs to be if she is going to be the elusive figure that is lusted after.
The language that Vargas Llosa uses is very telling of the novel's overall meaning; sentences such as "she breathed in the warmth of day and let herself be penetrated and adored by the light that filtered through the tops of the weeping willows," (pg. 53) compares the light of day to one of Lily's male admirers, something that desires and "adores" her presence. The novel is beautifully written and the language makes desiring Lily sound appealing to the reader. It was hard to choose quotes to use in this post because there are a million that say something profound and interesting.
Lily describes Ricardo very well when she says, "You're satisfied with what you have, aren't you? But it isn't anything, good boy. I'll never be satisfied with what I have. I'll always want more." (pg 57). Lily is like Emma in this way; she is constantly desiring to be desired, just as Ricardo desires her and her only. When Ricardo is with Lily, he is entirely satisfied, but desire cannot be entirely fulfilled, so he cannot have her.
Although Lily is primarily an object of desire, she has a lot in common with Emma. She is somehow always burdened by society, sticking true to what Emma had said in Madame Bovary about men being free and women being burdened. She is captive to her desires too, and her relentless appetite to break free imprisons her.
The first half of the book chronicles Ricardo's obsession and Lily's indifference, and how it might look for Ricardo to see his obsession a bit more realistically. Chapter Four, and what happens when Lily has sex with him for her "lord", brings reality into Ricardo's world, to a place where he questions his devotion and wonders why he has been so subservient to it for so long.
"With her model's looks, her dark mischievous eyes, and her small mouth with full lips, Lily was the incarnation of coquettishness." - page 6.
The quote above makes Lily's function in the novel obvious, the language even says that she is "a flirt". Coquettishness is a french saying for flirt, which is meaningful considering Ricardo's fascination with Paris. Anyway, a flirt is the ultimate object of desire, as they never follow through on what their behavior suggests. Their presence is as fleeting as the promise of their touch or their words. This novel reminds me of That Obscure Object of Desire for this reason, and because Lily is not the same person throughout the novel. It does not matter so much who she is as what she represents; she is the object of desire. No matter where Ricardo is in life, he will always desire her, no matter who she is.
The shape-shifting of Lily's character throughout the novel is similar to Emma's interactions with the men in Madame Bovary. It didn't matter who those men were; Emma wanted what she wanted, and she was going to search until she found what she was looking for. Lily could be ten different people and Ricardo would still desire her just the same. An example of this is when Ricardo first came across Lily in Paris, now Mrs. Richardson. "In love with me without knowing me? Do you mean that for ten years you've been hoping that one day a girl like me would turn up in your life?" (pg. 23). Ricardo truly believes this is the same person he was "in love" with, and will not stop desiring her, although he never really knew "Lily."
Lily's infidelity reminded me of Emma, although their infidelity has different purposes. Emma had affairs because she was searching for an idealized love, much like Ricardo. She was obsessed with this image and determined to see it realized. Lily was adulterous because she is the object of desire, and an object of desire cannot be contained. She is a "bad girl", a girl with no ties to monogamy and no concept of loyalty. She desires being the "object of desire" just as much as Ricardo desires her. Her identity is malleable because it needs to be if she is going to be the elusive figure that is lusted after.
The language that Vargas Llosa uses is very telling of the novel's overall meaning; sentences such as "she breathed in the warmth of day and let herself be penetrated and adored by the light that filtered through the tops of the weeping willows," (pg. 53) compares the light of day to one of Lily's male admirers, something that desires and "adores" her presence. The novel is beautifully written and the language makes desiring Lily sound appealing to the reader. It was hard to choose quotes to use in this post because there are a million that say something profound and interesting.
Lily describes Ricardo very well when she says, "You're satisfied with what you have, aren't you? But it isn't anything, good boy. I'll never be satisfied with what I have. I'll always want more." (pg 57). Lily is like Emma in this way; she is constantly desiring to be desired, just as Ricardo desires her and her only. When Ricardo is with Lily, he is entirely satisfied, but desire cannot be entirely fulfilled, so he cannot have her.
Although Lily is primarily an object of desire, she has a lot in common with Emma. She is somehow always burdened by society, sticking true to what Emma had said in Madame Bovary about men being free and women being burdened. She is captive to her desires too, and her relentless appetite to break free imprisons her.
The first half of the book chronicles Ricardo's obsession and Lily's indifference, and how it might look for Ricardo to see his obsession a bit more realistically. Chapter Four, and what happens when Lily has sex with him for her "lord", brings reality into Ricardo's world, to a place where he questions his devotion and wonders why he has been so subservient to it for so long.
Solaris: Mirror of Self onto Other
Comments on Solaris:
“She's a mirror that reflects a part of your mind. You provide the formula.”
Gordon says this to Kelvin about halfway through this film, and I think it exemplifies the meaning of the film as a whole. The concept of seeing someone through the filter of your own desires is not an extraordinary concept restricted to science fiction; it is a reality of life. Kelvin may not have been seeing
the "real" Rheya, but even if he was, would it have mattered? He was still seeing what he wanted to see, just like many of the characters we have discussed throughout the semester.
Solaris served as a mirror for the characters, a mirror that reflected what they loved in life, what was important. Kelvin's desire to change the past and regret about his carelessness towards his wife became clear in his interactions with the "Rheya" that appeared in Solaris. However, he longed for a past that he could control, which was evident when he sent away the first Rheya. This version of the past, a past with a dependent Rheya, wasn't quite what he desired. It was interesting to watch him reject her first appearance and embrace her second appearance- in life, you don't get to control what "version" of someone you get. What you desire and what you actually get may be different realities, but there isn't much of a choice involved. In a way, Kelvin got to choose what kind of "wife" he wanted, a choice he didn't get in reality.
Another quote that brings to mind this disconnect between who a person actually is and who that person is perceived as through our desires is Rheya's suicide note:
“I'm not Rheya. I know you loved me, though. I know that. I felt that. And I love you. I wish we could just live inside that feeling forever. Maybe there's a place where we can. But I know it's not on Earth and it's not on this ship.”
Both Kelvin and Rheya had experienced an emotional emptiness of sorts at this point; Kelvin losing Rheya and having to deal with the emotional weight of his neglect, and Rheya the emptiness of the memories she had of Kelvin, because the memories had no experience attached to them. It is interesting that Rheya is saying she loves Kelvin, when she is nothing but a concept, a symbol. Kelvin himself represents a longing for the past, a desire for the love that he had but turned his back on. How can they really "love" each other? Is their love simply their fervent desire to have love itself, to have some comfort in a foreign world where nothing is certain?
Those questions bring to mind the song "What is Love", popularized on a Saturday Night Live sketch called "A Night at the Roxbury" by a very iconic turn of the head. What is love, anyway? Is it the realization of some of our deepest desires, a reflection of what we want for ourselves brought onto another human? Having desires and feeling love humanizes us, gives us purpose and reason. In this movie, it appears that love is a guiding, humanizing force that, when taken away, makes us turn our heads towards an empty existence.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Madame Bovary Week Two
After the great discussion that occurred in class last week, I was excited to read the rest of the novel and witness Emma's descent into tragic madness. Flaubert's style of writing is fascinating to me; it is exaggerated, humorous, and also very serious. I am continuously amazed by how much this novel has to say that is still relevant and shocking to modern day society. A woman isn't satisfied with her marriage to a "doctor"? She's not really into being a mother? She has multiple affairs? In my opinion, the best works of art challenge established ways of thinking, presenting an alternative and reminding the viewer of the world's complexity and versatility. Madame Bovary is complex and definitely challenging- but I think the immensity of Emma's feelings is realistic. She refuses to pretend, to settle for mediocrity, and that makes her character endlessly interesting.
The letter that Rodolphe sends to Emma was, essentially, mocking Emma's obsession with romanticism. It is absolutely ridiculous with its fancy, exaggerated language; just the kind of letter Emma would love to receive from a lover (although with a much more romantic purpose). The addition of Rodolphe's thoughts to the letter make it even more ridiculous. Rodolphe never cared about Emma's feelings and did not see her as a human with feelings; she was a well manicured, aesthetically pleasing sex object that he enjoyed recreationally. Looking at how he wrote the letter, he could just as well be a writer of a tragic romance novel that Emma would read. Although certain forms of art, like films, appear to be real, they are ultimately fiction, and Flaubert is well aware of the fiction of his art.
Flaubert foreshadows Emma's suicide with her reaction to the letter. Emma's thoughts about jumping out of the window are not an isolated incident- she begins to consider just "ending it all", noting that there is nothing holding her back. Of course, it could be said that Charles and her daughter should hold her back, but Emma is consumed with her own desires and misery. I also find it interesting how Emma, yet again, uses religion for her own purposes. Religion is like one of her lovers that she "fancies."
Leon is an interesting character because he is just like Emma. He wants Emma to be his romantic heroine just as much as she wants him to be her hero. Seems like it would be perfect, right? The relationship actually encourages Emma's financial issues- she indulges her desire for material possessions when things aren't going so well with Leon. Also, the beggar represents Emma's financial ruin, and the true horror of what is happening to her.
Emma's death ultimately disappoints her, and this makes perfect sense considering how the world has only disappointed her. She was not going to get the quiet, "beautiful" quick death she wanted, and Flaubert makes it clear through the realistic commentary littered throughout the scene that her death is not the epic event it would be in a romance novel.
Also, I rolled my eyes when Charles saw Roldolphe's letter and assumed it was a platonic relationship. I know he's dumb, but that dumb? Charles really is something, he was exactly the same throughout the whole novel and never seemed to know Emma as a person. This was clear when he maintained this idyllic image of Emma after her death, although the relationship was far from ideal.
Ultimately, Emma had longed to be important, to be the special romantic heroine that gets the grand love story, and instead she just got a regular human existence in a world that didn't care about her desires. She was married to a regular man, had a regular death, and the world went on. Something that is important about Emma, though, is her determination to fulfill her desires. I can appreciate her strong will to make a better life for herself, to not give up hope that there could be something better.
The letter that Rodolphe sends to Emma was, essentially, mocking Emma's obsession with romanticism. It is absolutely ridiculous with its fancy, exaggerated language; just the kind of letter Emma would love to receive from a lover (although with a much more romantic purpose). The addition of Rodolphe's thoughts to the letter make it even more ridiculous. Rodolphe never cared about Emma's feelings and did not see her as a human with feelings; she was a well manicured, aesthetically pleasing sex object that he enjoyed recreationally. Looking at how he wrote the letter, he could just as well be a writer of a tragic romance novel that Emma would read. Although certain forms of art, like films, appear to be real, they are ultimately fiction, and Flaubert is well aware of the fiction of his art.
Flaubert foreshadows Emma's suicide with her reaction to the letter. Emma's thoughts about jumping out of the window are not an isolated incident- she begins to consider just "ending it all", noting that there is nothing holding her back. Of course, it could be said that Charles and her daughter should hold her back, but Emma is consumed with her own desires and misery. I also find it interesting how Emma, yet again, uses religion for her own purposes. Religion is like one of her lovers that she "fancies."
Leon is an interesting character because he is just like Emma. He wants Emma to be his romantic heroine just as much as she wants him to be her hero. Seems like it would be perfect, right? The relationship actually encourages Emma's financial issues- she indulges her desire for material possessions when things aren't going so well with Leon. Also, the beggar represents Emma's financial ruin, and the true horror of what is happening to her.
Emma's death ultimately disappoints her, and this makes perfect sense considering how the world has only disappointed her. She was not going to get the quiet, "beautiful" quick death she wanted, and Flaubert makes it clear through the realistic commentary littered throughout the scene that her death is not the epic event it would be in a romance novel.
Also, I rolled my eyes when Charles saw Roldolphe's letter and assumed it was a platonic relationship. I know he's dumb, but that dumb? Charles really is something, he was exactly the same throughout the whole novel and never seemed to know Emma as a person. This was clear when he maintained this idyllic image of Emma after her death, although the relationship was far from ideal.
Ultimately, Emma had longed to be important, to be the special romantic heroine that gets the grand love story, and instead she just got a regular human existence in a world that didn't care about her desires. She was married to a regular man, had a regular death, and the world went on. Something that is important about Emma, though, is her determination to fulfill her desires. I can appreciate her strong will to make a better life for herself, to not give up hope that there could be something better.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Madame Bovary: Week One
The first half of Madame Bovary introduces us to Charles and Emma Bovary, two characters that represent desire in very different ways. Emma is a "hopeless romantic"; she does not see any beauty or romance that is in front of her, and only believes in the perfect love and wealth depicted in her romance novels. Her expectations and desires are so high that she is bound to be disappointed. In Chapter IV in Part 1, Flaubert illustrates Emma's disappointment wonderfully. "Before marriage she thought herself in love; but the happiness that should have followed this love not having come, she must, she thought, have been mistaken. And Emma tried to figure out what one meant exactly in life by the words felicity, passion, rapture, that has seemed to her so beautiful in books." (Flaubert 23). Just like Charles saw Emma for her beauty and sexual appeal, Emma saw Charles as a way by which she could obtain "grand romance." Once she marries Charles and experiences the grandeur of their wedding, she believes that their relationship will continue to be just as grand, but then realizes this is not the case. Marriage has not delivered the beautiful romantic bliss she had expected, and this realization serves as a catalyst for Emma's rebellion and eventual downfall. The peeks we get into Emma's past reveal just how discontent she is as a character- nothing has ever satisfied her desires. She seems to attach an impossible hope to something in her life, believing it will save her and satisfy her, which sets her up for failure. Just like the covent and farm life failed her, married life fails her, and it begins to be too much for Emma to handle. In Emma's eyes, she is the femme fatale, the damsel in distress, the victim of life's relentless disappointments. Other characters see Emma as a sex symbol; all the men in the novel desire her at some point for her beauty. She is simply an object of desire, desire as empty as Emma's own desires.
The scene at the ball was interesting to me, because it places Emma into a world that is foreign to her, a world that she wishes she belonged to, but does not. She tries to act like she belongs; when Charles mentions wanting to dance, she says "Why, you must be mad! They would make fun of you; keep your place. Besides, it is more becoming for a doctor." (Flaubert 34). She tries hard to believe she fits in with the upper crust of the French bourgeoise at this ball, but is reminded of her roots when a servant breaks a windowpane. You can pretend as long as you want, but reality will always catch up to the fantasy, which Flaubert proves throughout the novel. His writing becomes more and more realistic, describing Emma's boredom and the mundane details of life that begin to weigh her down.
Emma's pregnancy also brings up what I see as Flaubert's stance on women's place in society. In Chapter III of Part Two, Emma says that she hopes that her baby is a boy, because the "idea of having a male child was like an expected revenge for all her impotence in the past. A man, at least, is free; he may travel over passions and over countries, overcome obstacles, taste the most far away pleasures. But a woman is always hampered." (Flaubert 62). Of course, Flaubert was writing in the nineteenth century, so his views are very much reflective of the time, but it is interesting to think about what Emma says in modern times. Perhaps Emma believes women are always hampered because she is constantly "hampered" by her own desires and expectations, and she believes men do not desire the way she does. The men in the novel seem to be free as Emma says. I think Emma's pregnancy speaks to this idea of freedom; since men cannot be pregnant, they are "free" to do what they wish, whilst women are left with the "burden" of pregnancy. The pregnancy speaks to Flaubert's beliefs about men and women in society; women are burdened, and men are free. I think this will arouse an interesting discussion in class, because this way of thinking is still around. I don't think Flaubert would mesh well with modern day feminists, let's just say!
The relationship between Emma and Leon is all about wanting what you can't have, and both of these characters are romantic idealists. They bond over their mutual love of romance novels, and begin to desire each other due to their dissatisfaction with reality. Emma sees Leon as an escape from her unfulfilling family life and Leon sees Emma as a forbidden object of desire that he wants because he can't have it. Emma likens love to great forces of nature- "love, she thought, must come suddenly, with great outbursts and lightnings- a hurricane of the skies, which falls upon life, revolutionizes it, roots up the will like a leaf, and sweeps the whole heart into the abyss." She sees love as greater and holier than life itself, idealism that constantly disappoints her because she thinks love should be as perfect as she imagines the heavens to be.
Roldophe, the third suitor of Emma's in the novel, contrasts with Leon. He becomes tired of Emma's romanticism and fervent idealism, and only desires her for her sexual appeal and beauty. Emma spends money on lavish gifts to please him, and it doesn't matter to him at all, because his interest is as shallow as Emma's interest in her husband. The relationships in this novel are selfish; each character is in their relationship to fulfill a desire, which is the nature of relationships. We all desire something out of a partner, and this inevitable desire can create unrealistic expectations and forget to consider the unique character of the individuals involved. Desire is selfish, and this is evident in anything we have read or watched this semester.
At this point in the novel, Emma's self destruction and moral corruption can only continue, most likely to a tragic end.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Deadly Desire: Celestina Week Two
In the last part of Celestina, the characters come to terms with the reality of desire and there is plenty of tragic action taking place. The servants are beheaded, the old whore is stabbed, and one young lad takes quite the fall to his death. Why did all these characters have to die? Well, as we know from prior classes, when someone's desire is fulfilled, they must die, because in order to live there must be desire.
In Calisto's case, he was able to get what he wanted- sex with Melibea. However, it was not exactly what he envisioned, and it left him confused, wondering why he wasn't as happy as he expected to be. "That's the wound I feel, now that it's gone cold, now that the blood that was boiling yesterday has turned to ice." (de Rojas, 154). This quote refers to Calisto's desire, and it foreshadows his death- now that his desire is dead, Calisto must die. The fog of desire has disappeared, leaving behind nothing. Calisto did not really love Melibea, or want to be with her for who she is- he wanted the fantasy, the chase, the vision in the dark. His desire for her did not result in the kind of euphoric, divine pleasure that Melibea's perfect, angel-like looks suggested. This is the nature of desire, as we have discussed in class before; the object of desire is never quite what it seems to be, and we are always lost in the fog of desire, unable to see desire for what it really is.
The imagery of Melibea in the dark when Calisto and Melibea first meet lends itself to this idea of Melibea as a angel-like, divine object of desire. I also remember reading about this in the article- that "This light emitted by the eyes of the beloved, as Claire Nouvet explains, is an incomparable vestige of divine illumination that should signal the lover to move beyond himself and aspire for unity with Supreme Goodness itself." (Ealy, 391). In this particular scene, the stars, moon, and beams of light illuminating Melibea paint her as a divine figure in Calisto's eyes, her beauty seemingly representing what function she would serve in his life. Calisto literally thinks being with her will unite him with the gods, as we saw all throughout the book. He is unable to see Melibea literally and figuratively; there is just enough light for his desire to continue.
Ultimately, Celestina was an amusing, tragic tale, and the personification of desire in Celestina was wonderful. To think of desire as a meddling, self serving, aging former prostitute is hilarious, because if desire were a person, Celestina would not be far off from what I would imagine. There is no logical reason as to why our desire for someone blinds us, changes us, and fools us as it does- just like there is no logic behind most of what Calisto says about Melibea. You really begin to know someone once the fog disappears and the desire, the lust, has faded.
In Calisto's case, he was able to get what he wanted- sex with Melibea. However, it was not exactly what he envisioned, and it left him confused, wondering why he wasn't as happy as he expected to be. "That's the wound I feel, now that it's gone cold, now that the blood that was boiling yesterday has turned to ice." (de Rojas, 154). This quote refers to Calisto's desire, and it foreshadows his death- now that his desire is dead, Calisto must die. The fog of desire has disappeared, leaving behind nothing. Calisto did not really love Melibea, or want to be with her for who she is- he wanted the fantasy, the chase, the vision in the dark. His desire for her did not result in the kind of euphoric, divine pleasure that Melibea's perfect, angel-like looks suggested. This is the nature of desire, as we have discussed in class before; the object of desire is never quite what it seems to be, and we are always lost in the fog of desire, unable to see desire for what it really is.
The imagery of Melibea in the dark when Calisto and Melibea first meet lends itself to this idea of Melibea as a angel-like, divine object of desire. I also remember reading about this in the article- that "This light emitted by the eyes of the beloved, as Claire Nouvet explains, is an incomparable vestige of divine illumination that should signal the lover to move beyond himself and aspire for unity with Supreme Goodness itself." (Ealy, 391). In this particular scene, the stars, moon, and beams of light illuminating Melibea paint her as a divine figure in Calisto's eyes, her beauty seemingly representing what function she would serve in his life. Calisto literally thinks being with her will unite him with the gods, as we saw all throughout the book. He is unable to see Melibea literally and figuratively; there is just enough light for his desire to continue.
Ultimately, Celestina was an amusing, tragic tale, and the personification of desire in Celestina was wonderful. To think of desire as a meddling, self serving, aging former prostitute is hilarious, because if desire were a person, Celestina would not be far off from what I would imagine. There is no logical reason as to why our desire for someone blinds us, changes us, and fools us as it does- just like there is no logic behind most of what Calisto says about Melibea. You really begin to know someone once the fog disappears and the desire, the lust, has faded.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Celestina Week One
Celestina Questions
2. Discuss Calisto and Sempronio’s conversation in Act I. How do you interpret Calisto’s illness? His discussion about Melibea? The discussion about women? What occurs here? Use quotes and specific examples for the text to support your answer.
Calisto is ill because he desires Melibea, a woman he is in love with. When Sempronio asks him about his religion, Calisto responds, "I am a Melibean. I worship Melibea, I believe in Melibea and I adore Melibea." Calisto's desire for Melibea places her on a pedestal, putting her even more out of reach (as we discussed last class). His desire has caused him to be "ill", and Sempronio is not buying it. Sempronio tells Calisto that "women and wine make men renege" and that "they dare to do whatever enters their heads without pausing for a moment's thought...just think of those pea brains under the flimsy fabric holding those tresses in place." Sempronio, although attributing negative characteristics to women, is at least seeing women as human, and therefore subject to negative characteristics. This completely goes over Calisto's head, and he starts trying to defend his holy view of Melibea by discussing her physical traits- her "round firm breasts", "full lips", and 'slanted eyes" are a few of many flattering features. Just like we saw in the Song of Songs, the object of desire is always described physically. It is always her physical form that causes the narrator to swoon. In this discussion, Sempronio tries to get Calisto to understand that he sees Melibea "through a magnifying glass" and that he is not being realistic, but Calisto is a star-crossed lover and he only sees his mighty desire for Melibea. I found it interesting how negative Sempronio is about women- looks like he has been burned by love before!
4. Analyze Parmeno’s long speeches concerning Celestina. What is her history, profession, etc.? What do you think she represents within the text? How does the entire community view this woman? Why? Use specific examples from the text to support your answer.
Celestina is a former prostitute and now a witch and "virgin-mender". Parmeno describes her as a "mistress of six trades, namely; seamstress, parfumier, a dab hand at painting faces and patching maidenheads, a bawd and a bit of a witch." She is a woman of many trades and of much knowledge, which intrigues anyone she comes in contact wit. She is also quite persuasive; she convinces Parmeno, who initially warned Calisto about her, that she loves him and he can trust her. She tells him to "abandon your impetuous youth and follow the common sense your elders teach. Where better than following the good counsel of the woman your parents entrusted you to?" She tells him to befriend Sempronio, because "you can't hope to be Calisto's friend because that rarely happens when there's such a difference in rank." Celestina is a catalyst, using the power of suggestion and persuasion to cause actions that greatly influence the rest of the play. She is so important to the play that it was named after her; surely this was done on purpose! Overall, Celestina is quite infamous in the community for her immorality, audacity, and avarice.
6. We will talk more in class about Areusa and her illness in Act VII, but how do you interpret Celestina's actions with Areusa (maybe even apart from her illness)? What might these actions have to say about Celestina? What insight do we gain about her character here?
Celestina teases Areusa with a cure for her illness, saying to her "you are so plump and firm! Such lovely breasts!" Areusa is very hesitant and unsure about whether Celestina is even going to cure her at first, asking Celestina, "Why all the flattery, Celestina, when I want no one? Just give me a cure and stop making fun of me." Celestina sees that Areusa just wants a cure, but that's no fun for Celestina, who is ultimately a selfish woman, so she talks in circles and keeps Areusa asking for a cure. This was an interesting scene because it does reveal a significant amount about Celestina- she is not concerned about what will happen to those she is employed by. She is simply looking to please herself by toying with these people like puppets.
My overall argument about Celestina is that Calisto and Melibea are the desirer/object of desire, respectively, and Celestina is the catalyst that promotes the desire of those around her. She is seemingly helping the "lovers", but not seriously helping them. She has her own desires that she wants to fu
2. Discuss Calisto and Sempronio’s conversation in Act I. How do you interpret Calisto’s illness? His discussion about Melibea? The discussion about women? What occurs here? Use quotes and specific examples for the text to support your answer.
Calisto is ill because he desires Melibea, a woman he is in love with. When Sempronio asks him about his religion, Calisto responds, "I am a Melibean. I worship Melibea, I believe in Melibea and I adore Melibea." Calisto's desire for Melibea places her on a pedestal, putting her even more out of reach (as we discussed last class). His desire has caused him to be "ill", and Sempronio is not buying it. Sempronio tells Calisto that "women and wine make men renege" and that "they dare to do whatever enters their heads without pausing for a moment's thought...just think of those pea brains under the flimsy fabric holding those tresses in place." Sempronio, although attributing negative characteristics to women, is at least seeing women as human, and therefore subject to negative characteristics. This completely goes over Calisto's head, and he starts trying to defend his holy view of Melibea by discussing her physical traits- her "round firm breasts", "full lips", and 'slanted eyes" are a few of many flattering features. Just like we saw in the Song of Songs, the object of desire is always described physically. It is always her physical form that causes the narrator to swoon. In this discussion, Sempronio tries to get Calisto to understand that he sees Melibea "through a magnifying glass" and that he is not being realistic, but Calisto is a star-crossed lover and he only sees his mighty desire for Melibea. I found it interesting how negative Sempronio is about women- looks like he has been burned by love before!
4. Analyze Parmeno’s long speeches concerning Celestina. What is her history, profession, etc.? What do you think she represents within the text? How does the entire community view this woman? Why? Use specific examples from the text to support your answer.
Celestina is a former prostitute and now a witch and "virgin-mender". Parmeno describes her as a "mistress of six trades, namely; seamstress, parfumier, a dab hand at painting faces and patching maidenheads, a bawd and a bit of a witch." She is a woman of many trades and of much knowledge, which intrigues anyone she comes in contact wit. She is also quite persuasive; she convinces Parmeno, who initially warned Calisto about her, that she loves him and he can trust her. She tells him to "abandon your impetuous youth and follow the common sense your elders teach. Where better than following the good counsel of the woman your parents entrusted you to?" She tells him to befriend Sempronio, because "you can't hope to be Calisto's friend because that rarely happens when there's such a difference in rank." Celestina is a catalyst, using the power of suggestion and persuasion to cause actions that greatly influence the rest of the play. She is so important to the play that it was named after her; surely this was done on purpose! Overall, Celestina is quite infamous in the community for her immorality, audacity, and avarice.
6. We will talk more in class about Areusa and her illness in Act VII, but how do you interpret Celestina's actions with Areusa (maybe even apart from her illness)? What might these actions have to say about Celestina? What insight do we gain about her character here?
Celestina teases Areusa with a cure for her illness, saying to her "you are so plump and firm! Such lovely breasts!" Areusa is very hesitant and unsure about whether Celestina is even going to cure her at first, asking Celestina, "Why all the flattery, Celestina, when I want no one? Just give me a cure and stop making fun of me." Celestina sees that Areusa just wants a cure, but that's no fun for Celestina, who is ultimately a selfish woman, so she talks in circles and keeps Areusa asking for a cure. This was an interesting scene because it does reveal a significant amount about Celestina- she is not concerned about what will happen to those she is employed by. She is simply looking to please herself by toying with these people like puppets.
My overall argument about Celestina is that Calisto and Melibea are the desirer/object of desire, respectively, and Celestina is the catalyst that promotes the desire of those around her. She is seemingly helping the "lovers", but not seriously helping them. She has her own desires that she wants to fu
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Ugly Side of Desire - Zizek and de Ventadorn
What are the ways in which the poetry and essay bring up themes we spoke about last week (problems of desire, imagery, alienation, etc.). What new ideas do you see here that further complicate or elucidate issues involving love and/or desire? Use specific quotes from the poetry and the essay to support your comments.
Thoughts on Zizek:
- The Zizek article definitely connects with the discussions we have had thus far about love and desire. It also connects strongly to the film we watched this week. When you desire someone, that person is immediately dehumanized and seen as an abstract ideal, something so great that it is entirely out of your reach. The quote in the beginning referring to the poetic depiction of this "abstract ideal" is entirely true- it does appear that all poets are addressing the same person, because they are not even speaking of an actual person, but this ideal. In "The Obscure Object of Desire", Conchina represents the courted Lady Zizek speaks of, the cold, distant, and ultimately inhuman partner. She "functions as an inhuman partner in the sense of a radical Otherness which is wholly incommensurable with our needs and desires." Conchina can never satisfy Mathieu's desires because she is the unreachable Other. The relationship, or lack thereof, that Conchina and Mathieu have represents the chaser-and-chased relationship- most of the time, you really don't know who you are desiring. Behind the inhuman Other lies an emotional human, someone that a "relationship of empathy" is possible with, but takes time to reveal itself. Zizek continues to talk about the "abstract Ideal" of the desired, saying that "it is a narcissistic projection whose function is to render her traumatic dimension invisible." If we were to truly feel the trauma of this idealization we wouldn't desire any longer, and to desire is to live. This is depicted brilliantly in Narcissus; once Narcissus realized the trauma of his desire he literally could no longer live. Our perception of our desire is an illusion, a narcissistic measure to protect ourselves. Our belief about the image we see in the mirror serves the same function- it is a coping mechanism. The object of desire reflects the narcissistic ideal. Bunuel, the director of "The Obscure Object of Desire", was fully aware of the function of desire in his film; he says his films always speak of "the non-explainable impossibility of the fulfillment of a simple desire." Also, it always seems as if we control our desire and believe that once the desire is somewhat fulfilled, that the relationship will get better. Only afterwards do we realize the true trauma of the desire we had- the desire leaves behind an empty void if there was no relationship to begin with. A relationship began by pure, physical desire leaves behind pure devastation and trauma, because the idealized other was not so ideal and you never really knew that person at all. It is always a bad moment when you see how blind you were to desire's true nature.
Thoughts on de Ventadorn
- The poetry reminded me of what Zizek was saying in the beginning of his essay about how all poets are writing about the same person, the "abstract Ideal." de Ventadorn is certainly speaking about this abstract Ideal, adding the proper amount of drama to the ordeal of desire. The line "a man is really dead when he does not feel some sweet taste of love in his heart" brings to mind my point about Zizek's essay- when you do not desire someone or something you are as good as dead. de Ventadorn depicts someone who is hopeless in love and tortured by it. Love hurts because it can never be fully yours, just like desire cannot be entirely fulfilled. However, this pain is seen as "beautiful", a pain that has equal parts pleasure which makes it worthwhile. Although we know we are driven mad by our desire, we don't stop, we can't stop, and we have to somehow justify this to ourselves. I found it ironic how de Ventadorn mentions "the love of a courtly man", because Zizek is constantly referring to the courtly lady in his essay. This poem and the essay speak to each other. Poetry always represents the one who desires in his/her finest, most elegant form, whether this person is suffering or swimming merrily in their desire. de Ventadorn's narrator desires so deeply that he is willing to die to fulfill his desire- but is that really his choice? No one knows.
The Ugly Side of Desire - "The Obscure Object of Desire"
Comments on "The Obscure Object of Desire"
- Mathieu is a man who is tortured by desire; his"obscure object of desire", Conchita, is playing the part perfectly. She gives him a little hope, and then takes it all away, devastating him. All the audience knows of Mathieu is his desire. Mathieu is desire. Mathieu is always chasing Conchita, who is always disappearing. She is not depicted as a person, but as a magic trick, a staple disappearing act in a magician's disposal. When Mathieu asks Conchita why she disappears, she tells him there is nothing to explain. There is no reason because there is really no Conchita, just this obscure object of desire, this trick. When Mathieu tires of chasing Conchita and just wants her already, Conchita does not identify with him because she cannot- her character does not have humanity. This becomes even clearer when they are in bed and the canvas shorts are revealed- when he does have the chance to fulfill his desires he is physically prevented from doing so. She may appear human in this scene but she is less human than ever because she cannot be physically sexual, she cannot be anything but the object of desire. She cannot "make love to him" because she cannot feel. Mathieu is human, she is not. This is how this film relates to Narcissus and the Mirror concept- Mathieu thinks he is in love and desires a real human being but he doesn't, just like we think we're seeing the real thing when we look in the mirror and we are really seeing an illusion, an image of ourselves.Some quotes I found interesting:
"You tried to buy me like a piece of furniture" - Conchita.
- Conchita is an object in this film, the object of Mathieu's desire, so just like a nice car or an iPod, Mathieu thought money would gift him some certainty, fulfill his desire, but the whole point of this film is that this desire is never fulfilled, and Mathieu can never be satisfied. He must always want, always desire- something that is very human.
"If I gave you what you want, you'd stop loving me" - Conchita
- This quote really stuck out to me because this happens all the time when a relationship is in its initial stage. If the ultimate desire, usually sex, is fulfilled early on, all that desire for the relationship seems to disappear because there is no relationship at that point.. When Conchita says this in the film, Mathieu thinks he loves her because he desires her, not for who she is. He doesn't know her as a person, so the illusion of love would be shattered once he got fulfilled his desire for her sexually and came to see her past the illusion.
The Animal Imagery
- The mouse and the fly imagery perfectly represents Mathieu and Conchita. Mathieu, the mouse, is constantly chasing after Conchita, the fly. Flies are notoriously hard to capture, and the mouse is an animal known for always being in pursuit of something. The scene in which the fly is in the glass and the waiter says, "A fly! I've been chasing this one for days." directly points out the metaphor and its purpose. When Mathieu sees Conchita, he is mesmerized by her presence and does not actually believe in it. He is in shock when he sees her, which disables his ability to know Conchita as a person. All he can do is see her in this hazy hue, like she is underwater (which makes the fly in the glass even more fitting). This perpetual state of shock is further proved when Mathieu says "I'd stay with her, without so much as moving, as long as I could." When you desire someone, you want them to be around constantly because that person is so unknown and their presence in your life so fleeting. You need that person to be physically present to give you hope.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Self and the Other: 3 readings, 9/18/12
Thoughts on Narcissus
- With what or whom does Narcissus fall in love?
Thoughts on Lacan
- Takeaways from the reading:
Thoughts on "Song of Songs"
- Depiction of relationship between lover and beloved, imagery and words used:
- The "Song of Songs" depicts the relationship between lover and beloved as erotic and luxurious. In the first poem, the She refers to her beloved as "a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts," which is quite erotic. The She is often referred to as a dove, and the He a gazelle, which establishes a weak/strong gender dynamic- the female as the prey and the male as the hunter. Also, the He describes his lover's lips by saying that they "drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride, milk and honey are under your tongue." Milk refers to the breasts, and honey is sweet, so she is both motherly and sexual, but also innocent and sweet at the same time. One particularly erotic line I found is the 16th in the 4th song- "Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread everywhere. Let my beloved come into his garden and taste its choice fruits." The "garden", or the She's body, is referred to as the He's property, "his" garden- the beloved belongs to the lover. Then, the She goes on to compare her lover to many fancy, rich things- gold, ivory, marble, jewels, etc. Their love is as sweet as honey but as erotic and lush as wine, and as natural as milk. The poem goes on to depict love as "strong as death", like a "mighty flame." From the imagery and words used, it is apparent that the "love" these two share is sexual, rich, and "natural" like flames and rivers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)