Love is abstract. It always has been and it always will be. Centuries upon centuries people, poets, authors, composers, etc, have tried to express what love is. But that is all they have ever done, expressed what they believe love to be. They have never proven anything. Each individual still has his or her own idea about what love is. This timeless struggle to truly define love, and therefore a successful relationship, is displayed quite differently through the use of similes, strong imagery, and irony in John Donne's A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning, and Judith Minty's Conjoined.
From the beginning both speakers acknowledge that there is a physical, and nothing beyond that, type of love. The speaker in A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning, says "Dull sublunary lovers' love/(Whose soul is sense) cannot admit/Absence, because it doth remove/Those things which elemented it" (Stanza 4). Just as in Conjoined when the speaker says "Do you feel the skin that binds us/together as we move, heavy in this house" (Stanza 3). Imagery is used by both of the speakers to portray a love that is physical and simple. It does not mention the lovers' souls or even their love really but just the bond that they have when together. This bond comes across as more of a law that they are now required to follow instead of a bond that comes naturally.
In contrast to the physical type of love, the speaker in A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning uses imagery to show that the love spoken of in the poem goes beyond the simple, earthly love. "So let us melt, and make no noise,/No tear-floods, nor sigh-tempests move,/"Twere profanation of our joys/To tell the laity of our love" (Stanza 2). Tears and sighs are both strong emotions used when people are parting just as floods and tempests are strong "emotions" demonstrated by the earth. Yet, the speaker says that the lovers are not going to take part in the crying and sighing. Which in turn would mean that there would not be any floods or tempests. The lovers bypassing the normal earthly responses to change shows that their love is deeper and more true than a superficial or physical (earthly) love. They have something more, something spiritual. This is quite different than the "lovers" in Conjoined who are more or less stuck together and not experiencing that deep, spiritual love.
Both speakers use similes in order to portray the lovers' bonds, yet they both have extremely different meanings. In A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning it is obvious to the reader that the lovers do not want to part but they keep close to them the knowledge that they have a bond that cannot be broken. "Our two souls therefore, which are one,/Though I must go, endure not yet/A breach, but an expansion/Like gold to airy thinness beat" (Stanza 6). The simile is very effective because it also serves as imagery. The reader can actually picture the gold being stretched to an almost invisible size while still staying the same pure gold it was in the beginning. Thus, no matter how far apart they are the lovers will still share their strong bond and never be disconnected. In Conjoined on the other hand the speaker uses a simile that is not as pleasant. "An accident, like the two-headed calf rooted/in one body, fighting to suck at its mother's teats;/or like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins/joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed/to live, even make love, together for sixty years" (Stanza 2). This powerful imagery makes the reader uncomfortable and creates a feeling of contempt. The couple in Conjoined is exactly that; conjoined, stuck together no matter what. Stuck implies a very different feeling than just togetherness. These two people are being forced to stay together and by the imagery used the speaker feels as though it is unnatural.
It is extremely apparent to the reader that the couples in these two poems are very different and only one of them actually wants to stay together. The ironic part is that the lovers that want to stay together cannot an the couple that does not want to be together is stuck together forever.
The speaker in Conjoined uses imagery once again when saying, "We cannot escape each other" (Stanza 3). Where on a completely different note A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning says "Such wilt thou be to me, who must/Like th' other foot, obliquely run;/Thy firmness draws my circle just,/And makes me end where I begun" (Stanza 9). The speaker in the first poem uses the word "escape". Escape means that one is trying to get away or rid itself of something. Portraying the fact that the couple does not want to be together but they have no way of changing that. The speaker in the second poem says that although the lovers have to be apart they will come back to each other in the end because that is how it is meant to be.
Ultimately, both of the poems show that people still have very differing view points when it comes to love. But maybe that is the point. That different people are going to feel in many different ways when it comes to love and nothing can ever be pinned down. Perhaps the irony is displaying that the two polar opposites are simply just two, out or many different, and abstract ways of looking at love.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
You're Kidding, Right?
I AM SO OVER POSTMODERNISM. I feel like we're just talking in circles and about it. I cannot wait for it to be finally over. Anyway, I guess I should move along into my blog. This is bound to be bad. I'm dead. But whatever, here it goes...
I think that the main point that the author is trying to make is that The Things They Carried major weakness is that it is only from O'Brien's perspective. The reality portrayed in the book is actually just O'Brien's mind. The reader has to no way to know for a fact if everything he says is "true". This whole subject of truth is hard because we have to take what O'Brien says as the truth. And this is what Neilson is arguing against.
Okay, so along the lines of truth I think that Neilson is trying to say that the "truth" is actually bent and twisted in The Things They Carried to make the war seem stronger in some ways. Not that O'Brien is trying to mislead us on purpose, I just think that he is trying to show that O'Brien has to change the truth to make us, the general American public, try to feel what the soldiers felt in the war. In the words of Donald Ringnalda, "the war does not fit within the tidy perimeters of the ethnocentric, traditional war narrative" ("Doing" 68). Vietnam was such a different type of war and I think that O'Brien's bending of the truth is his way of trying to get people to understand this brand new type of combat.
The most insightful thing that I learned from the article is probably the way that Neilson really does not want agree with O'Brien. I thought it was really interesting to think about it from a different perspective. That's about it...
I agree with Neilson's criticism to a certain extent. And I see why he makes the argument that he does but I also understand what O'Brien was getting at and I think that I agree with that more.
Okay, so this is kinda a confusing blog. Sorry about that. I have it in my mind...Just trying to get it down on paper or the Internet or whatever is a little difficult.
PEACE.
I think that the main point that the author is trying to make is that The Things They Carried major weakness is that it is only from O'Brien's perspective. The reality portrayed in the book is actually just O'Brien's mind. The reader has to no way to know for a fact if everything he says is "true". This whole subject of truth is hard because we have to take what O'Brien says as the truth. And this is what Neilson is arguing against.
Okay, so along the lines of truth I think that Neilson is trying to say that the "truth" is actually bent and twisted in The Things They Carried to make the war seem stronger in some ways. Not that O'Brien is trying to mislead us on purpose, I just think that he is trying to show that O'Brien has to change the truth to make us, the general American public, try to feel what the soldiers felt in the war. In the words of Donald Ringnalda, "the war does not fit within the tidy perimeters of the ethnocentric, traditional war narrative" ("Doing" 68). Vietnam was such a different type of war and I think that O'Brien's bending of the truth is his way of trying to get people to understand this brand new type of combat.
The most insightful thing that I learned from the article is probably the way that Neilson really does not want agree with O'Brien. I thought it was really interesting to think about it from a different perspective. That's about it...
I agree with Neilson's criticism to a certain extent. And I see why he makes the argument that he does but I also understand what O'Brien was getting at and I think that I agree with that more.
Okay, so this is kinda a confusing blog. Sorry about that. I have it in my mind...Just trying to get it down on paper or the Internet or whatever is a little difficult.
PEACE.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Truth (Such an Original Title)
Okay, so I'm really enjoying The Things They Carried. I think that it is super interesting even though it's sad. But the truth is not always happy and easy to handle. Which brings me to the point of this blog, what I think the theme is. I believe that the theme so far is definitely about truth. And ultimately, is this book even reliable and true?
Umm...So I think that this book is true. Ha. What a quick response right? Well, here's my reasoning. I think that O'Brien might just have to label the book fiction as a means of almost, protection. Because if he were to say that his book were truth people might take it as the only truth and not give anything else a chance. Say, a different Vietnam book with different stories. Both could be true. So, by claiming that his book is a work of fiction it is probably easier for people to accept the stories and believe them because it doesn't claim to be the only truth.
O'Brien makes a fantastic point when he says, "In many cases a true war story cannot be believed. If you believe it, be skeptical. It's a question of credibility, Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn't, because the normal stuff is necessary to make you believe the truly incredible craziness." This quote pretty much sums up what I have been trying to describe. People kind of refuse to regard something as truth because it is too terrible and they don't WANT to believe it. That is what really separates the truth from the fiction. When people can't seem to believe the "crazy stuff" in war stories that is how you know that they are true.This train of thought also goes along with the quote, "In any war story, but especially a true one, it's difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen."
Umm...So I think that this book is true. Ha. What a quick response right? Well, here's my reasoning. I think that O'Brien might just have to label the book fiction as a means of almost, protection. Because if he were to say that his book were truth people might take it as the only truth and not give anything else a chance. Say, a different Vietnam book with different stories. Both could be true. So, by claiming that his book is a work of fiction it is probably easier for people to accept the stories and believe them because it doesn't claim to be the only truth.
O'Brien makes a fantastic point when he says, "In many cases a true war story cannot be believed. If you believe it, be skeptical. It's a question of credibility, Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn't, because the normal stuff is necessary to make you believe the truly incredible craziness." This quote pretty much sums up what I have been trying to describe. People kind of refuse to regard something as truth because it is too terrible and they don't WANT to believe it. That is what really separates the truth from the fiction. When people can't seem to believe the "crazy stuff" in war stories that is how you know that they are true.This train of thought also goes along with the quote, "In any war story, but especially a true one, it's difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen."
Monday, January 25, 2010
Finally! The end of Postmodernism
Postmodernism-an attempt to make sense of what is going on now, and we can see the present clearly only in retrospect. (Postmodernism For Beginners, 17) I don't even know where to begin. Maybe with something like, "I'm insanely tired so this is going to hurt, but I'll do my best anyway." Soooo, I guess I'll just dive into it...
Postmodernism is such a crazy subject. It isn't easy to grasp either. It definitely takes some processing and time to think about it. Although it is very complex the main thought can be narrowed down to the the idea that there is no longer just one grand narrative. People have so many different beliefs now a days that it is impossible for everyone to agree on one thing, or one central belief. But hasn't this always been the case? After all, different groups of people have always believed different things. The beliefs of an Indian tribe are different than those of a Protestant church. Although the belief was that there is a lack of a grand narrative, it seems as if it has always been that way. I think that people are just starting to accept the fact that there are many different belief systems out there. I just think that Postmodernism is the word that these Postmodernists are now using to describe it. In a way I think that the world has always been "Postmodern". At least to some degree.
So, if there isn't a grand narrative what are we supposed to believe? Well, I guess whatever you were believing in before because most likely it had legitimized itself for you and you had a reason to follow it. I don't think that putting a label on this Postmodern movement is changing anything. It's just attempting to describe and explain the difficult belief system in the world. But in the end I think that it just ends up making the topic of Postmodernism even more confusing. Just like my blog. Sorry.
PEACE.
Postmodernism is such a crazy subject. It isn't easy to grasp either. It definitely takes some processing and time to think about it. Although it is very complex the main thought can be narrowed down to the the idea that there is no longer just one grand narrative. People have so many different beliefs now a days that it is impossible for everyone to agree on one thing, or one central belief. But hasn't this always been the case? After all, different groups of people have always believed different things. The beliefs of an Indian tribe are different than those of a Protestant church. Although the belief was that there is a lack of a grand narrative, it seems as if it has always been that way. I think that people are just starting to accept the fact that there are many different belief systems out there. I just think that Postmodernism is the word that these Postmodernists are now using to describe it. In a way I think that the world has always been "Postmodern". At least to some degree.
So, if there isn't a grand narrative what are we supposed to believe? Well, I guess whatever you were believing in before because most likely it had legitimized itself for you and you had a reason to follow it. I don't think that putting a label on this Postmodern movement is changing anything. It's just attempting to describe and explain the difficult belief system in the world. But in the end I think that it just ends up making the topic of Postmodernism even more confusing. Just like my blog. Sorry.
PEACE.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)