Clay & A Painful Case

I really didn't want to post first, but here goes...

Both of these stories seemed to deal, at least on very basic levels, with sexuality. We see Maria (who has a name like [the virgin] Mary - a possible religious reference?) innocently avoiding intimacy, which is clear when she forgets what the back of the book calls "the more poignant second verse" of her song, one that discusses knightly suitors.

I also noticed that there was very little dialogue in this section. Not sure what that means though. Thoughts?

I liked A Painful Case a lot better. Mr Duffy is a really compelling character, which is evident from the first few pages, when he is described as having "an odd autobiographical habit" that leads him to narrate his life's events in third person. His relation to the theme of sexuality is shown when he goes on walks with (married!) Mrs. Sinico, but then ends his relationship (a word used loosely, I guess) with her after she touches his hand to her face. Once he reads about Mrs. Sinico's death, he begins to realize his role in it, and he feels bad that his rejection of her led her to become a drunk. I think that his own epiphany comes once he realizes that the woman is only a memory to him, and acknowledges that because of his self-imposed loneliness, he doesn't think he'll ever even be that, a memory, for anyone else.

These stories continue to be depressing accounts of real life in Dublin. The characters in them, however, are more mature, but this doesn't make them any less prone to feeling alone yet suffocated in Dublin.

Just to clarify...

The kunstleroman was Portrait of the Artist- NOT DUBLINERS... Dubliners is a work of fiction... I just wanted to eliminate confusion.

Wide-awake and laughing-like to himself...

What a pleasant change, from Silko to Joyce...

The Sisters is quite a fascinating way to begin Dubliners. We learned today that the novel (or collection) is the progression of James Joyce's life, a Künstlerroman; but why start with the funeral of a Priest?

There are many images of the fall of the church. Obviously we have the death of the Priest; we have the broken cross, the faded vestments, and the curious confession. Joyce tells us that the Priest had a great impact on his life; he taught him languages, history, and problem-solving skills, in addition to mentoring him with other aspects of life. From this we can imply that the church, through the Priest, was likely to have had an effect on Joyce as a child.

But when the Priest, and thus the church, dies, is Joyce trying to tell us that it will no longer occupy a significant place in his life? We know that there will clearly be a great shift in his life, since he emphasizes the effect the Priest had on him, but how will this change materialize?

And then there's the title...isn't it strange how Joyce titles this story with the characters who don't show up until the very last pages of the story? Perhaps it has something to do with how they place the blame of the Priest's broken cross on James...maybe they will be a continual source of blame for James.

Scholes mentions the roles of counterparts in his criticism found in our edition's appendix...maybe Joyce is introducing us to the character counterparts...

The bottom line is that it's a rather peculiar way to start off, but, like most other novels we've read, it is sure to embody great latent significance.

Dubliners: Sisters

In class we were asked to finish reading sisters and then post a blog about what's going on within the first story Sisters. When we begin to read the novel, we the readers are already informed of its structure: Mainly that Dubliners will contain a set of short stories that begin with childhood, then continue through other pivotal points in life, and conclude with death. Seems quite simple enough. However, in this first story, death occurs. Not just the random death of a person in a town but the death of a man who is close to the main character of the novel. It is through the death of Mr. Cotter that James Joyce characterizes this first section as the childhood portion of his "novel". Although unnoticed at first there are many aspects of this section that bring about thoughts of, or directly relate to childhood. The first one is when the adults were discussing how the young child should play with children of his own age. This is what they would consider a normal childhood. The child however, would rather spend his time with the Priest. Another important, although obscure reference to childhood is loss. I think that each persons childhood is marked by, or impacted by, a death or loss of some sort. Whether it be a grandparent, close friend, or pet, loss occurs within childhood. Furthermore, I think James Joyce may be commenting on the fact that childhood is characterized by its downfall, or loss of innocence. Although we are not shown the exact emotional reaction to this mans death, it is likely that it would be a traumatic experience for a child--even if the man went as peacefully as Mr. Cotter was described in his death. In addition i believe the last sentences have a lot to do with childhood or children. Despite the fact that i might be going out on a limb here ill go with it. When he Mr. Cotter is described laughing in a room alone in the dark it is perceived by most adults that something is wrong with him, that he must be crazy or something. For a child, however, laughter is purely laughter, which means things like happiness and not craziness. As a result it think the fact that we are shown the adults perspective on the laughter before his death is important because it is different than a child's perspective would be. Also in class we talked a little bit about why it is called Sisters, although im not entirely sure i think this could have to do with the sisters who were taking care of Mr. Cotter, and the conversation of the women at the end of the section.

OHYOS: Immortality & The Written Word

Throughout OHYOS the themes of death and the written word have occurred again and again. More specifically, however, they have been united and related multiple times. First, with Melquíades who says that the sanskrit writings ought to be translated after his death. Then with Fernanda, who decided that while she waited for death to take her that she would write letters to her children. And lastly with one other person Amaranta Ursula? not quite sure also write letters. I think that immortality THROUGH the written word is the theme trying to be portrayed by Garbiel Garciá Marquez. For example as José Arcadio Segundo tries to decipher Melquíades sanskrit writings, Melquíades literally reappears. Whether or not this is real or fantastical it furthers the idea that Melquíades is immortal as a result of his writing. Another theme seen within OHYOS is memory (or lack thereof) and its relation to history. Therefore I think that when Marquez relates the written word to immortality he might be alluding to the fact that many things are only known now because others have recorded them at some point in history. Thereby through it being written down, the past can live on and be remembered.

One Hundered Years of Solitude

Hello,

Hope everyone had/is having a good Halloween. So about 100 Years of Solitude. One thing that stood out to me as I started to read this book was that it didn't feel like it was required--that sounds bad. But basically I really enjoyed reading this book because it's themes and the way it was written. Although I do respect and like William Faulkner and The Sound and The Fury, it was pretty rough getting through the first section as well as other parts. This was not the case with 100 Years of Solitude. However, after I finished reading it I did pick up on some similarities between it and TSATF. One major similarity was that although it flowed clearly there were a couple of times in which I said wait, when is this taking place. Other things that stood out to me were the themes of family and story telling. Symbols or what I believed to be symbols also kept popping up, such as ice, money, and birds.

oops! ...let's talk about sartre too

Sartre states that Faulkner could not tell the story in any other way... I found this statement to be pretty powerful. Initially, I disagreed. Though it would leave out the motif of the human construct of time, I thought the story could be told chronologically and produce a similar outcome. However, giving it greater thought, does the confusion make the book? Is it specifically done to make readers work harder and get lost in the present in the Compson family? I personally think it is specifically and effectively crafted. What do you guys think? What's Faulkner's reason for distorting time?