Hiiiiii long time no write. Not that anyone reads this i shouldn't really feel guilty. It's not like my blog has feelings.
Um.
Right.
Well.
Ok yeah The Bloody Chamber was a very interesting story to study. I found that all the way through I was anticipating the next sentence's meaning and looking forward to all the hilarious hidden meanings in it. It's like the whole story had several dimensions to it, not just the words you were reading.
Sheeeees electric. Sorry i love this song.
What was i saying. Ggggguyes. Dimensions.
For example, at the beginning you are thrown straight into a big ole bucket of fallic imagery. The story starts on the train which has 'great pistons ceaselessly thrusting' carrying her 'away from girlhood'. You'd have to be a bit simple not to catch those neon flashing signs saying 'SEX'. This sort of helps to illustrate the relationship our narrator is starting, and as we get further into the story it seems that the most important thing to the marquis is the sex. This is in contrast to the only other marriage we are told about in the story, that of the narrator's parents. What we see there is that the mother experienced love for whom she 'gladly, scandalously, defiantly beggared herself for'.
The narrator has done the oppsite here, fallen for the wealth the marquis radiates, and although she never actually says she is marrying him for his money, it is insinuated. Firstly, instead of suggesting her mother should be happy that she is in love, the girl thinks she should be more grateful for the money: 'as if it was with reluctance that she might at last banish the spectre of poverty from...our meagre table.' Also the girl is constantly obsessing over the gifts the marquis has given her, and the castle they are going to live in: 'The faery solitude of the place, with its turrets of misty blue, its courtyard, its spiked gate...' This description has huge resonance of fairytales, a childish tradition suggesting the narrator's naivety. It is also interesting that all the parts of the castle she mentions play a part in her near death - the courtyard where he will behead her, the gate that will lift to let him (and her mother) in to find her, and the sea that will almost cut her off from being saved.
Another dimension to the story are the hugely unsubtle references to death that deeply hint at the direction the story is taking. Again, within the very opening of the story we are being made to think about death. The narrator describes marriage as 'the unguessable country'. Traditionally the unknown is reserved for death. This particular imagery is closely related to Shakespeare's depiction of death in Hamlet as 'The undiscovered country from whose bourn/ No traveller returns'. It can't be a coincidence that Carter chose that image to portray marriage.
I can't believe im contemplating writing more.
Im going to make a cup of tea.
Right. Hot caffeiny goodness.
The characters in The Bloody Chamber basically make up the whole story. Firstly, the narrator's character is developed throughout. She starts off, as i have explained, seeming naive and possibly slightly shallow. However she starts to gain a bit of strength from the moment she realizes what she has done in marrying the marquis. Her mixed disgust and desire at the marquis shows a slight growth in her character from the start: 'the old monocled lecher who examined her, limb by limb... Most pornographic of all confrontations. And so my purchaser unwrapped his bargain.' The language here portrays the situation she is in as cheap and dirty, prostitution even.
This leads me to the character of the marquis. Never literally hopefully. He is primarily characterised by his title of marquis, 'the richest man in France' as he is described. This makes us automatically judge him. He is never named which separates him from the narrator and hence from the reader. He is said to be wearing a 'mask', which gives him a sinister sense of mystery. This mysteriousness is enhanced by his past. We are told about his past wives who have all tragically died. Oh. Wow. What could that possibly mean? All we seem to know about him for a very long time is that he is rich, has a lot of dead wives, and is a bit of a perv. It's not looking great so far is it really marqy? I think Carter immediately tries to make the reader dislike him, and so throughout the whole story there is a dramatic irony where we can tell what is going to happen to the narrator, and she only realizes when she finds the bloody chamber. Fool.
Ok guys the cybervibes are telling me you're bored so im gonna stop.
Peace Out.
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Saturday, 9 January 2010
dracattack....what's this? oh yeah supereligion
That's supernatural and religion combined.
I can't believe I've resorted to English to avoid Chemistry. Epic fail.
Ummmmmm
well
We had how the novel portrays reiligion and superstition as separate things, whilst today we might view them as one in the same. Because of how we see it, it was hard to judge what was what in the story.
There's the obvious things like using garlic to ward off Dracula, and the blue flames supposing to signify the site of hidden gold. They're supernatural/stitious things.
And the obvious religious stuff like gender roles in men protecting the defenceless women, and holy commissions, also Quincey Morris sacrificing himself to save the world from evil, like our man Jesus.
But then, other stuff , apparently, was a bit more blurred. Like the use of the crucifix. Jonathan Harker originally dismisses the crucifix (or more specifically the rosary) as superstition. But then later on it becomes his only weapon and protection against the Count. Then, that also might be a distinction being made between the Anglican and Catholic Churches. The typically Anglican resort to Catholicism to save themselves.
Ok that's all. Back to...logical straightforward science.
I can't believe I've resorted to English to avoid Chemistry. Epic fail.
Ummmmmm
well
We had how the novel portrays reiligion and superstition as separate things, whilst today we might view them as one in the same. Because of how we see it, it was hard to judge what was what in the story.
There's the obvious things like using garlic to ward off Dracula, and the blue flames supposing to signify the site of hidden gold. They're supernatural/stitious things.
And the obvious religious stuff like gender roles in men protecting the defenceless women, and holy commissions, also Quincey Morris sacrificing himself to save the world from evil, like our man Jesus.
But then, other stuff , apparently, was a bit more blurred. Like the use of the crucifix. Jonathan Harker originally dismisses the crucifix (or more specifically the rosary) as superstition. But then later on it becomes his only weapon and protection against the Count. Then, that also might be a distinction being made between the Anglican and Catholic Churches. The typically Anglican resort to Catholicism to save themselves.
Ok that's all. Back to...logical straightforward science.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Draco vs. Van the man
Van Helsing would totally kick Drac's ass.
Ummmmmm well we looked at how they contrast each other, and also how they are reflected in each other. Because, really, they aren't total opposites. They're all one big happy family really.
Firstly, their contrasts. Dracula is seen to be evil: 'the evil smile as quickly passed into a cold stare'. And Van Helsing opposes this in his goodness: 'Van Hesling would, I know, do anything for me'. Also the Count puts on a facade of friendliness: 'Nay, Sir, you are my guest.' Whereas, Van Helsing's good will is real: 'all embracing sympathy', 'with such an infinate geniality'. In actual character they are each other's antithesis.
However, in their portrayal they are actually quite similar. They are both defined by their actions more than their words, as gothic heroes often are. For example Dracula never actually tells us he's a vampo, but Jonathan Harker sees him climb down the wall of the castle, and Mina sees a man we assume to Dracula bend over Lucy, presumably drinking her blood. Van Helsing is often shown to us through his actions for other characters. He performs all the operations for Lucy, even giving her his own blood, and the other characters come to see him, as we do, as a selfless man. They are both also foreign to the other characters as well as the contempory reader, though that comes to mean different things for the two characters. Their use of archaic language highlights their difference to the other characters. They are both intellectual and quick minded, and certainly both determined.
So we see that it is not just that their contrasts define Dracula and Van Helsing as antagonists, but their similar portrayals are what lead us to make comparisons between the two.
You're welcome x
Ummmmmm well we looked at how they contrast each other, and also how they are reflected in each other. Because, really, they aren't total opposites. They're all one big happy family really.
Firstly, their contrasts. Dracula is seen to be evil: 'the evil smile as quickly passed into a cold stare'. And Van Helsing opposes this in his goodness: 'Van Hesling would, I know, do anything for me'. Also the Count puts on a facade of friendliness: 'Nay, Sir, you are my guest.' Whereas, Van Helsing's good will is real: 'all embracing sympathy', 'with such an infinate geniality'. In actual character they are each other's antithesis.
However, in their portrayal they are actually quite similar. They are both defined by their actions more than their words, as gothic heroes often are. For example Dracula never actually tells us he's a vampo, but Jonathan Harker sees him climb down the wall of the castle, and Mina sees a man we assume to Dracula bend over Lucy, presumably drinking her blood. Van Helsing is often shown to us through his actions for other characters. He performs all the operations for Lucy, even giving her his own blood, and the other characters come to see him, as we do, as a selfless man. They are both also foreign to the other characters as well as the contempory reader, though that comes to mean different things for the two characters. Their use of archaic language highlights their difference to the other characters. They are both intellectual and quick minded, and certainly both determined.
So we see that it is not just that their contrasts define Dracula and Van Helsing as antagonists, but their similar portrayals are what lead us to make comparisons between the two.
You're welcome x
Lucy is sooo gonna die now
So...a few lessons ago we looked at chapter 11 and thought about the ways in which the beginning foreshadows Lucy's death.
Lucy herself writes things in her diary which relate to death for example she wishes it upon herself when she cannot sleep, comparing herself to Ophelia who, obviously kills herself: 'hoping for sleep, and lying like Ophelia in the play'. That's a bit stupid to be honest...to wish for death when you're already ill, like tempting fate right?
Also, Lucy's mother's action of removing the garlic from Lucy makes it clear to us she will have become worse overnight. The mother thinks she has helped Lucy which is sad because the dramatic irony for us is knowing it probably killed her.
Another presage of Lucy's death is the breakdown of Van Helsing: 'Then, for the first time in my life, I saw Van Helsing break down.' His composure throughout the book showed him to be a strong character, so to see him lose it now implies there is no hope for Lucy.
The repetition used in the writing seems to suggest hopelessness too: 'Again the operation; again the narcotic; again some return of colour to the ashy cheeks, and the regular breathing of healthy sleep.' This seems to be repeating something that they know hasn't worked in the past, and it is really just prolonging the inevitable.
Gutted for Lucy.
Lucy herself writes things in her diary which relate to death for example she wishes it upon herself when she cannot sleep, comparing herself to Ophelia who, obviously kills herself: 'hoping for sleep, and lying like Ophelia in the play'. That's a bit stupid to be honest...to wish for death when you're already ill, like tempting fate right?
Also, Lucy's mother's action of removing the garlic from Lucy makes it clear to us she will have become worse overnight. The mother thinks she has helped Lucy which is sad because the dramatic irony for us is knowing it probably killed her.
Another presage of Lucy's death is the breakdown of Van Helsing: 'Then, for the first time in my life, I saw Van Helsing break down.' His composure throughout the book showed him to be a strong character, so to see him lose it now implies there is no hope for Lucy.
The repetition used in the writing seems to suggest hopelessness too: 'Again the operation; again the narcotic; again some return of colour to the ashy cheeks, and the regular breathing of healthy sleep.' This seems to be repeating something that they know hasn't worked in the past, and it is really just prolonging the inevitable.
Gutted for Lucy.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Verisimiliwhat?
This was very confusing.
Verisimilitude seemed to be the varying degrees of truth in a novel or play etc.
As a concept I can understand this, but when we applied it to Dracula I found it quite hard to judge what the author used to portray fact and why he was doing it.
Looking at the extracts showed me that it was used to sort of lull the reader into a false sense of security of reality. Then Stoker gradually alters his style so fantasy takes over.
This is very interesting as I hadn't really thought about that as a writing technique but now that I think about it, quite a lot of writers do it. I hate to mention Twilight and seem obssessed (cos I am) but it happens in that, and Harry Potter etc.
The other thing about this was the seeming conflict in the novel Dracula, between the progression of technology in society, and the regression of turning to the supernatural.
I found this interesting because the Victorian times were a period of great change and triumph in things like science and technology. But Bram Stoker chooses to portray the use of supernatural as power. Van Helsing reverts to superstitions like garlic to ward off vampires, which works better than other methods.
Ta.
Verisimilitude seemed to be the varying degrees of truth in a novel or play etc.
As a concept I can understand this, but when we applied it to Dracula I found it quite hard to judge what the author used to portray fact and why he was doing it.
Looking at the extracts showed me that it was used to sort of lull the reader into a false sense of security of reality. Then Stoker gradually alters his style so fantasy takes over.
This is very interesting as I hadn't really thought about that as a writing technique but now that I think about it, quite a lot of writers do it. I hate to mention Twilight and seem obssessed (cos I am) but it happens in that, and Harry Potter etc.
The other thing about this was the seeming conflict in the novel Dracula, between the progression of technology in society, and the regression of turning to the supernatural.
I found this interesting because the Victorian times were a period of great change and triumph in things like science and technology. But Bram Stoker chooses to portray the use of supernatural as power. Van Helsing reverts to superstitions like garlic to ward off vampires, which works better than other methods.
Ta.
Two lessons ago we did an essay in groups.
I found this an interesting excercise and it really broadened my way of approaching essays I think.
I found that the getting of ideas for the essay was much improved, obviously, due to the excess thinking power at the table.
But writing them down was hard because we all had different writing styles and often argued over words. This slowed us down and I think our essay would have been better if this problem hadn't arisen.
The result of the group task was something like a hybrid of all our styles. When I read it through after I could see evidence of my own input but other parts seemed completely unfamiliar. This essay was better than my own effort though, because some people had points that I didn't remember, and other people were also able to communicate the points more fluently.
Oh well...
I found this an interesting excercise and it really broadened my way of approaching essays I think.
I found that the getting of ideas for the essay was much improved, obviously, due to the excess thinking power at the table.
But writing them down was hard because we all had different writing styles and often argued over words. This slowed us down and I think our essay would have been better if this problem hadn't arisen.
The result of the group task was something like a hybrid of all our styles. When I read it through after I could see evidence of my own input but other parts seemed completely unfamiliar. This essay was better than my own effort though, because some people had points that I didn't remember, and other people were also able to communicate the points more fluently.
Oh well...
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Dracularity
I finished the book in the holidays and actually really enjoyed it. I think the beginning dragged for me a bit but I really started to like when Stoker started to use many different perspectives to write from.
This lesson we talked about vampires. I think the traditional side of this topic is very interesting. We looked at early beliefs on vampires and their development to modern times. What really interested me was how the early image of the vampire is completely different from the modern one. It was traditionally bloated looking and dark, but now we think of them as pale, thin and ghostly looking. It made me wonder what caused that change.
I just looked at the traditional stuff and it looks like vampire myths date back as far as humans have recorded, and are present all across the world. Although different, all the myths stem from the idea of someone dead coming back to life and living off blood.
Our notion of the vampire is influenced strongly by Stoker's Dracula and we looked at what society was like at the time he wrote that, and what may have inspired his tale. The gender role aspects were interesting here, especially the growing freedom for women in Victorian times. I think here, the sexual freedom is most important to see what may have influenced Stoker. Also the nationalist identity links as there is much evidence of xenophobia in Dracula, with the villain himself being Transylvanian.
This lesson we talked about vampires. I think the traditional side of this topic is very interesting. We looked at early beliefs on vampires and their development to modern times. What really interested me was how the early image of the vampire is completely different from the modern one. It was traditionally bloated looking and dark, but now we think of them as pale, thin and ghostly looking. It made me wonder what caused that change.
I just looked at the traditional stuff and it looks like vampire myths date back as far as humans have recorded, and are present all across the world. Although different, all the myths stem from the idea of someone dead coming back to life and living off blood.
Our notion of the vampire is influenced strongly by Stoker's Dracula and we looked at what society was like at the time he wrote that, and what may have inspired his tale. The gender role aspects were interesting here, especially the growing freedom for women in Victorian times. I think here, the sexual freedom is most important to see what may have influenced Stoker. Also the nationalist identity links as there is much evidence of xenophobia in Dracula, with the villain himself being Transylvanian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)