Blog # 7

I found William Heinesen’s short stories in Laterna Magica very hard to analyze and hard to find meaning in each of them. However, I did find a few examples of the relationship between individuals and ‘the collective.’ These relationships helped me find deeper meaning in the short stories as a whole. Characters in these stories are constrained by their mental labyrinths and cannot live normally. ‘The collective’ does not appreciate the character’s admirable qualities, so they are looked at as outcasts instead of heroes.

Master Jacob is one character who battles ‘the collective.’ “He was a learned man, a researcher and a collector. He was a fantastic collector of words…” (p. 18). One might think that Jacob, with his wealth of knowledge, would be a highly regarded man among ‘the collective.’ However, this is not the case. No one cared about his collections and research and he was, “met with only scant appreciation of his meticulous language and tireless labor” (p. 20). As a result of no one caring, Jacob withdraws himself from everyone. His only sources of joy are his music, his cat, and his secret rendezvous with Miss Urd. Jacob withdraws himself and cannot live normally because he is so focused on the fact that ‘the collective’ did not appreciate his hard word.

Stubborn Stina battles ‘the collective’ as she imperturbably waits for her seaman Thomas to return. Stina’s friend and family tell her to drop him. “He’s not worth your faithfulness, he’s running wild out there in the great trackless world, he’s boozing and carousing and has a sweetheart at every port” (p. 28). They attempt to sway her away from waiting for him while she is still young and beautiful. However, Stina will not listen to the advice. Even after she receives news that Thomas has perished, there is no change in Stina and she continues to wait. Stina is so focused on the idea of waiting that she is unable to live a normal life. Stina’s dedication can be looked at as admirable, but in reality, ‘the collective’ sees her as a crazy woman who is devoted to a man she will never see again.

The final example I recognized in these short stories was the clash between Midjord’s belief in the miracle he saw and ‘the collective’s’ disbelief in the miracle. Midjord tried to explain to everyone that he had seen Old Tonnes flying in the air after being swept up by the storm. However, all the people he told just smiled and shook their heads. Even the pastor told him, “It’s against the law of gravity and the law of God” (p. 88). We do not know what further action Midjord takes, but we do know that the pastor told him to, “Put a blinder over your eyes and seal over your lips, then you will see that everything will turn out for the best, for you and for me and for all of us” (p.89). This sentence in particular reminded me of Ibsen’s play An Enemy of the People. Dr. Stockmann was harshly treated for trying to speak up about what he had discovered about that baths. Midjord is being encouraged to not speak of what he saw. If this short story were to end in a similar manner as the other short stories of Laterna Magica, then I would anticipate that Midjord would not listen to ‘the collective’ and instead continue to speak of the miracle he saw. Midjord would fit very nicely with the other characters that have admirable qualities, but are shunned by ‘the collective.’

Poem: Mending Wall by Robert Frost

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

Post #6

Dr. Stockman has discovered that the town’s bathing complex’s drainage system is contaminated. The baths are essential to the town’s economy, and a dysfunctional bathing complex would be economically devastating for the town. Instead of facing the truth and trying to make changes, there is a lot of opposition to Dr. Stockman’s discoveries. One group that opposed Dr. Stockman was the leaders of the town. This group was opposed to Dr. Stockman because they were concerned about power. The powerful leaders were fearful of losing power so they opposed Dr. Stockman. These leaders were fearful of the people, fearful of the majority. Fear of the majority is Ibsen’s main criticism in this play. He is criticizing the tyranny of the majority. The leaders of the town are at the people’s mercy because they are afraid of the majority. Hovstad’s action is one example of a leader folding under the mercy of the majority. Hovstad is the editor of the town’s main newspaper. Although he wanted to print Dr. Stockman’s report on the baths, he was influenced by the majority because he was fearful he would upset his subscribers. The mayor is another example of a person of power being influenced by the will of the majority. He does not want to reverse the original bath plans because it will confirm that he made a mistake. He is fearful that the majority will force him out of his position of power. Ibsen is also trying to prove the people of power can easily manipulate the majority. The townspeople are the other group that opposes Dr. Stockman. However, the people are manipulated by the leaders. Dr. Stockman holds a town meeting in order to inform the people of the bath problems. However, the mayor and Aslaksen keep him from speaking and are manipulating the majority. Also, I think Hovstad did not want to publish the story because he was trying to please the majority. He made the decision for the majority, that they would oppose Dr. Stockman’s discovery. Aslaksen, the mayor, and Hovstad all manipulated the majority and forced them to oppose Dr. Stockman without them even knowing they were being forced. Leaders have to try to please the majority even if they have to act dishonestly.

Blog #5

Shakespeare uses his ‘artistic vocabulary’ to establish the power relationship between Claudius and Hamlet in the opening act of his play Hamlet. This relationship is most notably established in the second scene. Claudius pledges that the joy of his marriage to Gertrude balances the sorrow for his brother’s death. This is an idiotic idea because Gertrude is his dead brother’s widow, and marrying her is not necessarily a joyous occasion. However, although very superficially, the royal court still seems to support Claudius. Hamlet is the only person who is unwilling to go along with Claudius’ attempts to demonstrate a healthy royal court. Shakespeare immediately uses Hamlet to contradict Claudius. Claudius refers to Hamlet as a son. I am not sure if Claudius actually thinks of Hamlet as a son or if he is continuing his manipulative actions. Hamlet sees his relationship with his Uncle Claudius as strictly family, not a relationship with fondness. Hamlet is still wearing black mourning clothes for his father. In an attempt to give fatherly advice, Claudius explains that all fathers die, and that all sons are supposed to mourn for their fathers. However, sons must not mourn too long or it is seen as inappropriate and unmanly. Claudius’ attempt to give Hamlet fatherly advice gives the reader a negative impression of Claudius. He tells Hamlet to stop grieving for this dead father. Claudius attempt to be a fatherly figure to Hamlet is an unpleasant idea since Claudius is Hamlet’s dead father’s brother and he married Hamlet’s mother Gertrude. Claudius’ advice is also suspect since Hamlet was in line to be king until Claudius came and snatched it away. Shakespeare uses the Gertrude-character to further emphasize the power relationship between Claudius and Hamlet. Hamlet feels betrayed by her mother’s remarriage. He remembers how in love his parents were and voices his pain in his soliloquy at the end of the scene. Hamlet is intensely disgusted at his mother’s marriage to Claudius and how soon it happened after his father’s death. He says, “By what it fed on: and yet, within a month,— Let me not think on’t, Frailty, thy name is woman!— A little month; or ere those shoes were old With which she followed my poor father’s body” (I, ii, 145–48). Hamlet also compares his father, “an excellent king,” to his Uncle Claudius, a “satyr.”

Blog #4

When researching the history of Francisco Goya's painting "The Third of May 1808", I learned about the historical component of this painting. Goya was trying to commemorate the resistance of the Spanish people to Napoleon’s army during the occupation of 1808. However, in true Michel Foucault fashion, I will analyze this painting and its ‘artistic vocabulary’ without any art-historical investigation. I will not look at “contingent” factors like the artist’s biography, relationship with the patrons, or any social context. I will look strictly at the painting and try to interpret the artist’s narrative.

The painting is an obvious contrast between two distinct groups. The first group to me is an unorganized group of captives held at gunpoint. The other group is of a uniformly and organized firing squad. The captives have sorrow expressions written on their faces. Some are lying on the ground dead while others are crying and showing their mercy. The group on the left is faceless and absent of emotion. They have robotic mannerisms as if they were programmed to kill these captives. It is obvious that Goya is favoring the sorrowful captives on the left. They are shown more as humans since their faces are visible and show emotion. Goya does not favor the firing squad since he painted their backs to the viewer and they are portrayed as robots more than humans.

The central figure in the painting is a man in the center of the group of captives. He is the lightest form in this dark-colored painting. The glowing, white color represents good. It is the only light figure in the dark painting. The viewer is drawn to this man not only because of the lightness of his shirt, but also the leading lines of the firing squad’s guns. The guns are pointing at him in the actual action of the painting, and also point the viewer of the painting to him. This man shows the most action as his arms are flung wide to show his appeal and mercy. Also, his face is depicted with a lot of detail to show his human qualities and his sorrow.

Goya uses ‘artistic vocabulary’ brilliantly to show that his painting constitutes a narrative. No historical context is necessary to explain that he strongly disapproved what was going on during the time of his painting. He is trying to make a statement that this type of war action is not appropriate and is immoral

Blog #3

In Michel Foucault’s analysis of Las Meninas, the analytical observation I found most interesting was his interpretation of what was the center reference point. I tend to agree with his “X” theory. It is easy to see an “X” formation from the painter’s eyes down to the dog’s back and from the male courtier’s eyes down to the bottom of the canvas. These two lines intersect at the eyes of the Infanta. I seemed to be more drawn by the “X” shape than the “vast curve” which is later described.

I also enjoyed Foucalt’s argument that the people’s names that are shown in the mirror are not important. It is obvious that the two people in the mirror are King Philip IV and his wife, Mariana. But he explains that if you want to “keep the relation of language to vision open,” and “treat their incompatibility as a starting-point for speech instead of as an obstacle to be avoided, so as to stay as close as possible to both, then one must erase those proper names and preserve the infinity of the task” (9). It is easy to see that the people in the mirror are important because everyone is focused on them. However, the names are not necessary and Foucalt wants to analyze the visual relationships in the painting without historical facts.

I thought it was very interesting that Foucalt described this painting in vast detail, but left out any information of art-historical investigation. Subject matter was not explored nor was any “contingent” factors like the artist’s biography, relationship with the patrons, or any social context. Instead, he focuses on what is specifically going on in the painting. He highlights the visual relationships between the painter on the left, the subject-model, and the viewer. Foucalt explains this reciprocity viewing relationship, “A mere confrontation, eyes catching one another’s glance, direct looks superimposing themselves upon one another as they cross. And yet this slender line of reciprocal visibility embraces a whole complex network of uncertainties, exchanges, and feints” (4). At first glance at this painting I did not think of this reciprocal relationship. However, it is very evident after studying the painting and after reading this analysis.

I think Foucalt is trying to explain that this painting contains a new way of thinking in European art. It is a middle point between the old Classical style and the new modern style. He explains this idea in the final paragraph, “Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were, of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us….and representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form” (16). Foucalt is hypothesizing that this painting could be the cross over between how art was and what it can will be.

Blog #2

In our assigned text, Joseph Carroll explains that the Darwinian literary criticism model is insufficient when analyzing literature. This model looks at basic evolutionary psychological motives to predict how people will behave. Carroll argues that this method of criticism is unsatisfactory because people do not always follow universal patterns of behavior. Also, Carroll argues that characters in literature are not real people, and instead are expressions of the author. This Darwinian method analyzes behavior by looking at the universality of human nature. It does not take into account contingent factors like culture, economics, intelligence, or social standing.

After summarizing the flaws of the Darwinian literary criticism, Carroll begins to critique Pride and Prejudice using a different model. In this model, Carroll analyzes the points of view of the author, characters, and audience in order to fully explain what Austen was trying to write to her audience. The Darwinian literary criticism explains that men in the novel look for women who are beautiful and women look for men who have recourses. However, these biological and evolutionary attractions are not the only important attributes. Instead, “they must…be weighed in the balance of the total set of values that can be integrated a well-proportioned economy of human life” (100). Austen is explaining her own set of values in the novel, often times through the Elizabeth-character. Along with Elizabeth, Darcy is the other protagonist Austen uses to refute the “Darwinian” idea of human nature. Instead of youth and beauty, Darcy is attracted to Elizabeth’s wit. And instead of property and rank, Darcy’s strength of character (originally thought to be weak by Elizabeth) is what eventually attracts Elizabeth. I think Carroll does an excellent job in analyzing the novel.

After reading Carroll’s analysis of Pride and Prejudice, it was evident that not all humans act universally. It is easy to assume that humans act in and evolutionary and reproductively driving behavior. However, humans are much more complex than this. One must look at a human’s background and their uniqueness in order to better predict their behavior. I think the Darwinian literary criticism is too general and too large scale. I believe biologists and evolutionary idealist support it because it probably rings true when looking at the human race as a whole. However, I think a better model must be used when analyzing specific humans in specific situations.