On Paths Unknown discussion
This topic is about
We Have Always Lived in the Castle
AMERICAN/SOUTHERN GOTHIC
>
We Have Always Lived In The Castle ENDING SPOILERS Chapters 8, 9 and 10.
date
newest »
newest »
Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "Actually, I do ot think Charles is the " Prince." He is set up as one, sure. But Jackson plays with the whole genre in this novel so I think its Merricat who is actually the "Prince" ..."Yes, we did discuss Propp and I agree about the Charles being the traditional "Prince" and then it being subverted by Merrricat and yes -- absolutely -- if we are looking at a villain figure ( a la Propp) Charles is definitely "it."
I was not saying that you should or should not read a text in a certain way ( though I would absolutely tell my undergrad students that). There are multiple ways of reading a text -- of course-- but they are not always equal. Not all opinions are equal. And in school ( grad school) we are taught ways of reading a text -- Marxist - Freudian etc. but sometimes we focus on things which perhaps are not important to our understanding of the text and that's also O.K. I think what I am trying to articulate is that diagnosing Merricat is a fruitless exercise -- we can do it -- sure -- but I don't think it's productive. As in this thread -- we are swinging from paranoia and OCD etc. and that's great but we run the danger of being " prescriptive" and treating the characters as real people. We forget they are fiction and they represent reality and are not real. Sorry to bring in another incident from my grad school class. We were reading "Choke" by Chuck Palahunick ( I 'm sure I didn't spell it right) and there is a character of a woman in the novel who is a horrible example of a parent. The students were very upset with her and were asking the Professor " why is she a horrible mother?" And " in one scene -- I was shouting at her for doing that." The Professor pointed out that we were treating the character as a real person which was not productive.
I think what is happening is that since Literature is what I do -- it becomes harder -- a book discussion. I must remember that this is not a seminar in school. Thanks, Traveller , I had to be reminded of that. I shall try and keep my comments to a minimum because if someone says a " cigar is just a cigar"; I die a little.
Disha wrote: "sometimes a cave is always a cave"Besides the fact that that's logically impossible, what I said is "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Not always. To say there's a "lot" of homo-eroticism is to overthink it. To me, it's entirely clear that there is not a "lot". But it's certainly arguable to say there's some.
But don't even think about keeping your comments to a minimum just because I disagree with them. Until you brought it up, I would never have considered homo-eroticism at all (and had never even encountered the term homo-socialism). Now, I can certainly see that there's at least hints of homo-eroticism. I'm disagreeing over degree.
and, fwiw, and looking back over my own comments, I'd have to agree that on Merricat's part all of her relationships are homo-social. She remembers her mother and other "Blackwood women" fondly, and claims to love Constance, but she doesn't really seem to even recall much of her father and brother, and I've already commented that she can't seem to have a relationship with Julian.otoh, I totally disagree that treating book characters as real people is "not productive". It's just another way to interact with a text.
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "and, fwiw, and looking back over my own comments, I'd have to agree that on Merricat's part all of her relationships are homo-social. She remembers her mother and other "Blackwood women" fondly, an..."Maybe you should have a word with my Professor. Hahah! She thinks it is not. But yes, I see what you are saying here. For some readers -- relating to the characters and treating them like a " friend" etc. is very important and that adds meaning to their reading of the text.
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "and, fwiw, and looking back over my own comments, I'd have to agree that on Merricat's part all of her relationships are homo-social. She remembers her mother and other "Blackwood women" fondly, an..."The novel definitely showcases strong bonds between women. I think it points towards " Women's folklore." Example - all the recipes and food stored in the basement.
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Disha wrote: "sometimes a cave is always a cave"Besides the fact that that's logically impossible, what I said is "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Not always. To say there's a "lot" of homo-e..."
Yes, we can agree to disagree. I didn't realise you were disagreeing about "degree." Yes-- you can see a "little"-- I might see a "lot" -- some might not see any at all-- which is what Traveller was referring to --I think.
Mod
Disha, I was actually addressing both yourself as well as Puddin there. I am not invalidating anybody's reading of the text or opinion on the text, including yours and Puddin's, but then I also need reciprocal respect - saying that "analyzing" the characters is fruitless and unproductive, is disrespectful towards everything I see in the text, and basically the two of you are telling me that I have wasted my time reading this text; because this is what I find in the text, and it makes me feel just exactly the way you felt when someone felt the same about your interpretation. I was about to remind Derek last night that no one has a monopoly over how people experience a text, but sadly my PC kept crashing - so please do not think I am singling you out in any way. :) And I really did find what you brought to the table very valuable, and I thank you again for it.
Keep in mind that one's background will always dictate how one reads a text - you have a strong background in folklore and feminism, and you will therefore notice and resonate with those things in the text that "stand out" for you. Derek has a strong background in science, and so "scientific" aspects and "logic" or lack of it in a text will stand out for him. The psychological characteristics of the characters stood out for me, because I have some background in that, do you see that? But for me to say your reading is unproductive or for you to say my reading is unproductive, is in itself unproductive, and not the kind of thing we should be doing in a group discussion like this, where we welcome all voices.
Come, guys, let's keep our minds open. ..and of course someone who is a professor in a certain discipline will see it in terms of his or her subject - because, remember, he is supposed to teach that subject- so if his subject is "feminism in literature", then he is going to highlight the feminist aspects of it, for that class .... but that does not mean everybody who reads the text should read it that way! One can certainly make people aware of such a reading, but when it comes to reading and evaluating literature, we are impoverishing ourselves if we hold only one viewpoint as the sole and only way of seeing that text. Do you see what I am trying to get at?
As for seeing fictional characters as "real" people, I am not too sure what you mean there. It is not as if the author has no control over what he/she does, but these are creations and so become "real" in their created sense. If you saw a statue standing in the city square, you can probably say that it is not "real" in the sense that it is not a real person, but the statue is nevertheless real - it has "realness" as a cultural object, and in that sense, it can more or less be accurately described. I can touch it and describe the texture, I can describe the color and shape of it, and so forth.
Now, as to how much it resembles what the artist had in mind with it, depends on the skill of the artist, no? ..and just as it would be with a statue or a painting, so is literature a cultural object that can be observed and described. Each person will see something different in a painting (just as different people see different shapes when they are looking at clouds), and just so will different people see a different composite picture when they read a text, but we can still describe elements that we observe inside that painting or that text. ..and nobody should be telling anybody else that what they saw in that painting or text is "wrong". Certainly, some people's views will be more informed than those of others- I might for example know why Picasso painted "Guernica", while the person next to me might just see a meaningless jumble in it - and I can explain the background I know of the painting to that person, but yet another person might be able to notice certain symbolism in the painting that I don't see, because I was not aware of how archetypes work, and so forth.
Also, not everybody enjoys doing structuralist analysis of texts. I myself do, (hence the interest in Propp's model) but I often just get blanks stares regarding that on a place like GR which has a very diverse readership.
I just feel that it's generally more productive if we all acknowledge one another's contributions and not act dismissively, even if we disagree. It doesn't feel nice when somebody tells you that your effort has been "unproductive".
Mod
We've always welcomed respectful disagreement... I suppose, though, that when one says that someone's observations are "unproductive", that is really dismissing the person in their entirety, and that's why it is so hurtful, so perhaps we should try and avoid those kinds of judgements in a book club where we're all friends. :)
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "She remembers her mother and other "Blackwood women" fondly, and claims to love Constance, but she doesn't really seem to even recall much of her father and brother, and I've already commented that she can't seem to have a relationship with Julian."Good point, though I think that her relationship with Julian could be a result of what you mentioned before--everyone lives to serve Merrikat, and those who don´t aren´t of value. Julian can´t be of use to her, therefore, he´s irrelevant, and she can´t be bothered with him.
Disha wrote: "Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "and, fwiw, and looking back over my own comments, I'd have to agree that on Merricat's part all of her relationships are homo-social. She remembers her mother..."And the basement takes us back to Freud! :D
Mod
Casebooks in Criticism series:
https://global.oup.com/academic/conte...
and the Norton Critical Editions series: http://books.wwnorton.com/books/subje...
Buy one of these for a book that you love or have been wanting to read, read the essays, and you will see what I mean by: "there are many different ways to read a text". ;)
Traveller wrote: "Regarding "different ways to analyze a text" I refer those interested, to the Casebooks in Criticism series:
https://global.oup.com/academic/conte......"
Coincidentally I've been aiming to get the Norton Critical Edition of "The Sound and Fury" of William Faulkner. I love that book. I've read it text only but I want an annotated edition.
Mod
Casebooks in Criticism series:
https://global.oup.com/academic/conte......"
I have one of the critical texts on it, I can't remember which. I must really get it done and read. Shall we discuss the book a bit later in 2016?
Traveller wrote: "Yolande wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Regarding "different ways to analyze a text" I refer those interested, to the Casebooks in Criticism series:
https://global.oup.com/academic/conte......"
That would be awesome! (watching the lego movie right now - everything is awesome ;p)
Mod
This is a funny article about what people have come up with when mixing 80's tv shows, music etc with book titles. "We Have Always Lived in the Castle" is there as "Pee Wee Herman Will Always Live in the Castle." hehehttp://bookriot.com/2016/01/18/bookis...
Mod
I especially love: " Life of Magnum PI ". :D (Magnum PI is a TV show about a private investigator named Magnum)
Traveller wrote: "That looks like a riot! ;)I especially love: " Life of Magnum PI ". :D (Magnum PI is a TV show about a private investigator named Magnum)"
Thanks for that, I didn't know that one :)
Yolande wrote: "This is a funny article about what people have come up with when mixing 80's tv shows, music etc with book titles. "We Have Always Lived in the Castle" is there as "Pee Wee Herman Will Always Live ..."That was a good one, Yolande! Even got a couple of famous people commenting in there!
Trav, did you finally see it? I gave up on scheduling (since I was travelling Jan 2-8, some friends went to see it without me)....I finally just went to see it myself. One news story through out a title that gave away one question that arises with the film, and I said, ¨That´s it! Before they ruin it for me, I have to go!¨¨
Mod
omg, just realized I was writing phonetically, and wrote "through" instead of "threw"....okay, def gonna give up smoking crack now....
I find that happens to me all the time with a keyboard, but I never had a problem when writing longhand (but I stopped doing that years ago, because even I can't read my own writing).
Mod
Traveller wrote: "Yes, I have it too with a KB, don't know why that happens - I too, never did it while writing longhand. It happens to me with their and there. Perhaps it's because muscle memory is employed more wh..."For me it happens with 'they're' and 'their.' Many times as I scanned things I've typed I did a double take, suddenly registering the error. Then I edit real quick and hope nobody noticed ;p
Traveller wrote: "Yes, I have it too with a KB, don't know why that happens - I too, never did it while writing longhand. It happens to me with their and there. Perhaps it's because muscle memory is employed more wh..."actually, I just found out muscle memory comes into play with handwriting, as well. So many of my students these days don't know how to write in cursive. But one told me last year that with his dyslexia, they taught him--apparently, they find dyslexic students make fewer mistakes if they write in cursive because that muscle memory/habit of make one continuous strokes leads to fewer mistakes than if they were to print.
Linda wrote: apparently, they find dyslexic students make fewer mistakes if they write in cursive because that muscle memory/habit of make one continuous strokes leads to fewer mistakes than if they were to print. "That is very interesting.
Mod
I'm sure you do. It is just memory, even if it's possible that it's not entirely located in the brain (I think it has to be all in the brain), and memories fade if they're not used.
On Paths Unknown
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lottery (other topics)The King in Yellow and Other Horror Stories (other topics)
Ah-hah. I didn't know that, but I had esta..."
I don't think in Literature a cigar is always a cigar. I study literature -- that's my life's work so if a cigar is just a cigar -- my life's work is over and I might as well give up on Literature altogether. We had this moment in my seminar class wherein we were ( surprise) having a discussion on the cave in " King Solomon's Mines" and one student said that sometimes a cave is always a cave. The Professor was understandably not happy with the student and there was an awkward silence for a few minutes after which the professor went on to say how the cave is not always just a cave. Art is a craft and the craft means something. However, you are welcome to your opinion. That's also what literature is about -- interpretation and "a lot" of them.