Right this second, I'm having a hard time remembering exactly the part in A Midsummer Night's Dream that I used as a reference to bring up the Bugs Bunny episode where the abominable snowman plays Bugs, calling him George. I THINK it's the part where Helena says she'd willingly be Demitrius' Spaniel if it would get attention from him, even negative attention.....(Help me out, here, guys....Why'd I bring that up in class?)
Anyway, I couldn't stop thinking about the Bugs Bunny episode, so I looked it up. Here's the link! We should have just watched it in class.....!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1ER6bGh1Sk
Great Books
To read or not to read?....that is a silly question!
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Dame Mitchell
Yes, I've dubbed Margaret Mitchell "Dame Mitchell." Why? Because she deserves a special title above and beyond Mrs. or Ms. Mitchell! That woman was GENIUS, I tell you, G-E-N-I-U-S!!!! After more than 20 years, I am re-reading Gone with the Wind (this won't be the only post on this book, I feel I must warn you, so be on the alert!). I am so excited! My mom re-read the book last fall and her excitement in re-reading the book has been catching. I started reading my very old--and very treasured--hardback copy (thank you very much to my close childhood friend Melissa Corbett--I'm so sorry I can't think of her married name right this sec--who gave me that particular copy one night when I kept reading it rather than doing stuff with her on a sleep-over!), but the binding is broken on that copy, making it very difficult to hold on to--even more difficult than usual, considering the fact that the book is over a 1,000 pages long, you know! So I got on the internet a week or so ago and found a used, but in very good condition, paper-back copy that I ordered. It's finally here and I started the book last night! Yes, I found that after two hours of reading, I had to force myself to put the book down!!!
What an incredible book! Not only is the story one that sucks me in from the first page--the first sentence--the first word (I know why God decided not to give me a daughter---He knew I'd have to name her Katie Scarlett!!!!), but the WAY Dame Mitchell tells this story is incredible!!! BTW: I am fascinated by the fact that it's been more than 20 years, closer to 30 really, since I last read this book, yet I still remember the details of the story. I can tell what's going to happen before I even read it. And that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of re-reading it in ANY way!!!!!!!!! I am at least surprised at how awesome a story it truly is!!!!
This book is INCREDIBLE. (Get used to that word. It's going to be used a lot during my posts about Gone with the Wind.) I am absolutely astounded to note the care and detail Dame Mitchell used in the writing of this story. Every single word is important to the story as a whole. She doesn't stray from the story or tell the reader details that don't add to or help advance the plot. Every detail is a detail we need at some point in time throughout this massive text. As an older reader of the novel, I am amazed at the intrigue way she wove her story and her characters together. Everything fits so seamlessly--so flawlessly! And everything comes back around at some point or another. If you read a passage thinking that it's not important because it has nothing to do with Scarlett or any of our other favorite characters, you realize later in the story that said detail WAS important because it has EVERYTHING to do with our beloved (and hated) Scarlett!!!! Of course, reading it AGAIN makes a huge difference. Since I remember so much about the story, I now know that the details I may have skimmed over when I was a young reader 20+ years ago, I am now seeing how they come in to play later!!!!! Awesome! Incredible!
And don't get me started on the LANGUAGE.....Dame Mitchell's use of GRAMMAR!!!! That woman knew her stuff! She was smart enough to use dialect and language that would be spoken by the INDIVIDUAL characters as respect to their class and station in life. She was also smart enough to use subject/pronoun agreement correctly!!!! Not even Rowling does that--at least not in the American-published texts!!!! (Trust me; she uses subject/pronoun agreement incorrectly throughout all 7 books in the series; I'd be happy to show you my marked copies of the books if you'd like to see the mistakes! Where, oh where, were her editors?!) I am so impressed that I am able to focus on the story rather than on her grammatical mistakes!!! Although, it appears that I'm still focusing on the grammar since I noticed so clearly that she uses it so effectively!!!!! LOL!
And my favorite part???? Katie Scarlett O'Hara. The character in literature, like Severus Snape, we love to hate to love. Oh my. That girl/woman is ROTTEN. I love the line Dame Mitchell uses where she says in Chapter 1 on the very first page that Scarlett's "manners had been imposed upon her by her mother's gentle admonitions and the sterner discipline of her mammy; her eyes were her own" (25). It's all about the eyes, you know. And Scarlett's are GREEN. Such a beautiful color. Even though I only read Chapter 1 so far, I remember that Scarlett's eyes play a huge role throughout the whole story. Only Rhett learns to read her because of her "telling" eyes. Everyone else is easily by Scarlett when she wants to deceive them. Only Rhett looks into her eyes and sees Scarlett for who she truly is.....and still loves her anyway!!!!
What isn't to LOVE about this book?!
Scarlett truly is one of those characters who we are supposed to dislike because she simply is so BAD, but it's exactly her naughtiness that we love so much about her! That and the fact that she proves to be a true "Steel Magnolia" in the face of adversity. Where others (especially women) around her are weak, she is strong--even though she'd love to be just as weak as they all are! She's not ruled by her conscience; if she sees something that needs to be done, she does it, consequences be d*****. (You know I'm not a swearing woman!)
Rhett is the same way. He's so bad. He's so very awful. He even has a true whore as a mistress who he actually flaunts in front of Scarlett! But he is MY favorite male fictional character of ALL time! I would SOOO choose him over Ashley Wilkes any day, time, hour, minute, or second!!!! It's his true love of Scarlett and his love for Bonnie Blue Butler, as well as Scarlett's other children from her previous marriages, that make him so sexy and desirable--and lovable! What woman wouldn't forgive/overlook a man's indiscretions who loves his wife and child as much as Rhett obviously loved his?!
Oh my, and I'm only on Chapter 2!!!!!!!!!! I can't wait! After I watch tonight's episode of The Big Bang Theory, I'm going to have to read Chapter 2 before I go to bed, even though I'm really tired and have a long day tomorrow!!!!! Dame Mitchell, I can't wait to continue enjoying your genius!!!!!!!
Mitchell, Margaret. Gone With the Wind, 75th Anniversary ed. with a Preface by Pat Conroy. New York: Scribner, 2011. Original publication 1936. Pring.
What an incredible book! Not only is the story one that sucks me in from the first page--the first sentence--the first word (I know why God decided not to give me a daughter---He knew I'd have to name her Katie Scarlett!!!!), but the WAY Dame Mitchell tells this story is incredible!!! BTW: I am fascinated by the fact that it's been more than 20 years, closer to 30 really, since I last read this book, yet I still remember the details of the story. I can tell what's going to happen before I even read it. And that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of re-reading it in ANY way!!!!!!!!! I am at least surprised at how awesome a story it truly is!!!!
This book is INCREDIBLE. (Get used to that word. It's going to be used a lot during my posts about Gone with the Wind.) I am absolutely astounded to note the care and detail Dame Mitchell used in the writing of this story. Every single word is important to the story as a whole. She doesn't stray from the story or tell the reader details that don't add to or help advance the plot. Every detail is a detail we need at some point in time throughout this massive text. As an older reader of the novel, I am amazed at the intrigue way she wove her story and her characters together. Everything fits so seamlessly--so flawlessly! And everything comes back around at some point or another. If you read a passage thinking that it's not important because it has nothing to do with Scarlett or any of our other favorite characters, you realize later in the story that said detail WAS important because it has EVERYTHING to do with our beloved (and hated) Scarlett!!!! Of course, reading it AGAIN makes a huge difference. Since I remember so much about the story, I now know that the details I may have skimmed over when I was a young reader 20+ years ago, I am now seeing how they come in to play later!!!!! Awesome! Incredible!
And don't get me started on the LANGUAGE.....Dame Mitchell's use of GRAMMAR!!!! That woman knew her stuff! She was smart enough to use dialect and language that would be spoken by the INDIVIDUAL characters as respect to their class and station in life. She was also smart enough to use subject/pronoun agreement correctly!!!! Not even Rowling does that--at least not in the American-published texts!!!! (Trust me; she uses subject/pronoun agreement incorrectly throughout all 7 books in the series; I'd be happy to show you my marked copies of the books if you'd like to see the mistakes! Where, oh where, were her editors?!) I am so impressed that I am able to focus on the story rather than on her grammatical mistakes!!! Although, it appears that I'm still focusing on the grammar since I noticed so clearly that she uses it so effectively!!!!! LOL!
And my favorite part???? Katie Scarlett O'Hara. The character in literature, like Severus Snape, we love to hate to love. Oh my. That girl/woman is ROTTEN. I love the line Dame Mitchell uses where she says in Chapter 1 on the very first page that Scarlett's "manners had been imposed upon her by her mother's gentle admonitions and the sterner discipline of her mammy; her eyes were her own" (25). It's all about the eyes, you know. And Scarlett's are GREEN. Such a beautiful color. Even though I only read Chapter 1 so far, I remember that Scarlett's eyes play a huge role throughout the whole story. Only Rhett learns to read her because of her "telling" eyes. Everyone else is easily by Scarlett when she wants to deceive them. Only Rhett looks into her eyes and sees Scarlett for who she truly is.....and still loves her anyway!!!!
What isn't to LOVE about this book?!
Scarlett truly is one of those characters who we are supposed to dislike because she simply is so BAD, but it's exactly her naughtiness that we love so much about her! That and the fact that she proves to be a true "Steel Magnolia" in the face of adversity. Where others (especially women) around her are weak, she is strong--even though she'd love to be just as weak as they all are! She's not ruled by her conscience; if she sees something that needs to be done, she does it, consequences be d*****. (You know I'm not a swearing woman!)
Rhett is the same way. He's so bad. He's so very awful. He even has a true whore as a mistress who he actually flaunts in front of Scarlett! But he is MY favorite male fictional character of ALL time! I would SOOO choose him over Ashley Wilkes any day, time, hour, minute, or second!!!! It's his true love of Scarlett and his love for Bonnie Blue Butler, as well as Scarlett's other children from her previous marriages, that make him so sexy and desirable--and lovable! What woman wouldn't forgive/overlook a man's indiscretions who loves his wife and child as much as Rhett obviously loved his?!
Oh my, and I'm only on Chapter 2!!!!!!!!!! I can't wait! After I watch tonight's episode of The Big Bang Theory, I'm going to have to read Chapter 2 before I go to bed, even though I'm really tired and have a long day tomorrow!!!!! Dame Mitchell, I can't wait to continue enjoying your genius!!!!!!!
Work Cited
Mitchell, Margaret. Gone With the Wind, 75th Anniversary ed. with a Preface by Pat Conroy. New York: Scribner, 2011. Original publication 1936. Pring.
The Individuality of John Keats
I almost forgot that I had something else to say about John Keats. One of the aspects of his life that stood out for me as I was reading through the intro information in our textbook about Keats was the fact that he knew himself well enough to know that he was easily influenced by others—as far as writing was concerned. He wanted to write Hyperion, I think that’s the one (I don’t have my book with me at the moment to double-check), but he struggled because he was worried that he was writing too much in a Miltonian style (like John Milton who wrote Paradise Lost—although, I think the long poem mentioned by Milton is something else). Plus, Keats met writers like Percy Shelley, who is still considered by many to be THE greatest romantic poet, but Keats refused to hang out with Shelley and get close to him, and others, simply because he was worried that he would be too easily influenced by Shelley, and others, in his writing. He wanted his own writing to be his own—to be individual.
It’s an aspect of the Romantic Poets we talked about when we discussed the Romantic Period—the fact that the Romantic Poets were the first writers to begin writing as individuals, thinking more from their own personal perspective rather than from an intellectual perspective.
So to read that Keats was very conscious (aware) and self-aware of the fact that, as a writer, he was easily influenced, it’s incredible! The reality is that we ARE influenced by everything around us. It is truly very difficult to write in our own voices if/when we spend too much listening to the voices of others—or we allow others to edit our work too closely. (It’s my biggest problem with the writing center. I feel that they edit students’ papers sometimes more than the students and the papers begin to sound more like the folks in the writing center than they do the students writing the papers themselves. I do know that they try very hard in the writing center to avoid doing that, but with so many students going in to see them, sometimes it’s difficult to keep up that practice.)
I know that I have read certain authors that sound like other authors, but they are the authors I tend to avoid. My favorite books are the ones that are original in more ways than one. In spite of the fact that I do believe Rowling has done an incredible job on the Harry Potter series, as I was reading the series, I found myself continuously thinking about other stories that hers sounded like. A few have been written since hers, but one that stands out more than any other for me is Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Rowling practically stole some of the details of her story from Tolkien and I have to believe that she had read his books prior to writing hers. Yet, with that being said, her story is still in her own voice. Regardless of whether or not there are allusions to The Lord of the Rings, series, the stories themselves sound very much like a new writer with a new voice.
I’m losing my point…..
We each, in our writing, have to find our own voice. We never want to sound like someone else in our own writing. I’m sure you’ve noticed I have a very different way of writing than what many of you are used to. If you know me and have talked to me, my way of writing is typically the way I write. I like to say that I write in stream of consciousness—that is to say that I write in exactly the way my thoughts come out—I don’t edit out the in-between thoughts that have nothing to do with my point—I just go with the flow. Since I am so easily distracted, that can be distracting for my audience, too. At the same time, I think it represents my light-hearted tone that I typically try to get across in my writing.
I know others who prefer to be more formal, never allowing any outside thoughts interfere with the point. They stay fully focused on their point, saying only exactly what they feel MUST be said, succinctly and directly.
Personally, that kind of writing typically bores ME. I know it has its place because I’ve read quite a few books like that and I DID enjoy them, but I found them tedious to read.
Tolkien preferred to write in a manner that sounds like a Historian. In the Preface to his books, he said very specifically that he did that on purpose. He wanted to sound like a historian because he wanted his story to read as a history. There ARE many people who have read his stories and are so drawn into the story that they feel as if Middle Earth IS real. Thus, while I did enjoy reading The Lord of the Rings overall, I did find the reading of his works very tedious and time-consuming—just as I do with most true history books I’ve read.
Give me a good historical fiction book to read, though, that intertwines historical fact with a fictional story and…..oh, wow! I’m in reading heaven!!
But I digress from my original point….back to Keats.
While I do find it admirable that Keats knew himself well enough to know that he couldn’t let other writer influence him, it seems to me that because of his fear of being easily influenced, he may have missed out on having some really great, positive relationships in his life since he refused to spend any time with other writers of his day.
So the question is: did Keats make his writing better because he avoided allowing the writing of other writers (and their physical persons) to influence him and his writing or did he hinder his creativity by avoiding other writers (you know what I mean)????
Personally, as an English teacher, I have a hard time with his sonnets. Why, you ask? Because a sonnet is a 14-line love poem and has iambic pentamber (10 syllables per line) with a particular rhyme scheme, depending on whether you’re working with a Shakespearean sonnet (ababcdcdefefgg) or the Italian/Petrarchan sonnet (abba or c d c d c d
c d d c d c
c d e c d e
c d e c e d
c d c e d c)
c d e c d e
c d e c e d
c d c e d c)
—and Keats’ sonnets do not follow either style, certainly not as far as rhyme scheme is concerned.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning, another British author who wrote around the same time period and one of my favorite poets of all time, also wrote hundreds of poems she called sonnets which, according to the rules of sonnetry, quite often don’t even fit into the sonnet category beyond the fact that the poems are 14 lines and love poems! Her Sonnets from the Portuguese are beautiful to read and truly incredible love poetry, but she certainly took an awful lot of “poetic license” with her use of the sonnet. Which, I think, is (at least in part) one of the reasons why her poems are so amazing. Bottom line, she wanted to write sonnets her way, and she did—very effectively.
So back to Keats….Keats wanted to write in his own voice, and in doing that, he took a poetic form, the sonnet, and made it his own. So while other critics may praise Keats for his use of imagery, or the way he could turn a phrase, or the poetic meter, etc. in his poetry, I, personally, find his poetry incredible to read for the simple fact that he didn’t let anyone—including the poetic conventions of poetry—tell him how a poem should (or should not) be written. He found a style—and a voice—that was unique to Keats.
And that uniqueness—that individuality—is what attracts me to Keats’ poetry more than anything else I’ve read about Keats---and that includes the strangely romantic, yet tragic, love story between Keats and Fanny!!!!!
Long live individuality! Raise your OWN voices high and loud and strong!!!!! So let it said, so let it done!!!!!!!
Surprised by Keats
To be perfectly honest, this is the first time in a very long time that I've studied John Keats. I know we studied him while I was in college. Whether I remember it or not is not the issue. I took a whole class on British authors of the Romantic Period; there's no way I could have (would have) gone through a class like that without studying Keats. Sadly, I don't remember one word of it. I've thought about looking up my notes from that class (yes, I still have ALL my notes, tests, essays, etc. from college--even 20+ years later!), but I just don't feel like it! LOL!
Anyway, what I was getting at is how surprising it to study him [again] and actually enjoy studying Keats! I find his life absolutely fascinating! Of course, it's very interesting to note that he was a very short man--barely above 5 ft.! Why does that matter? It doesn't. I'm short; I like talking about others who are short. The end.
But what really surprised me about Keats is the love story. I honestly had no idea (don't remember it) that it was so tragic. We definitely live in a world--a society--where love is the basis for our relationships. We are apalled when we hear of someone being forced into a marriage he/she doesn't want. We just don't know what to do with information like that. There are still cultures in the 21st Century where arranged marriages are the norm, but it's difficult for most of us to fathom that. So reading Keats' love story with Fanny is just so sad. I find myself rooting for the two of them--I want them to overcome the obstacles (his lack of money as well as his illness, consumption--or tuberculosis--for those of you who missed what it's called) and find a way to BE together. A love like that deserved a chance.
While we were watching the modern movie in class (Bright Star, I do believe it's called--based on the poem of the same title--poem titles are in quotation marks, btw!), you heard me mention the line from Steal Magnolias where Julia Roberts' character tells Sally Field's character (the mom) that she's rather have a minute of happiness than a lifetime of nothing--they'd been discussing Shelby (Julia Robert's character's name) not being able to have children, but getting pregnant anyway. (Shelby is a diabetic and sick a lot. Her doctor had told her before she ever got married that having children would kill her, so she was told not to have any.) Anyway, that line about desiring even a moment in time of having her heart's desire is a theme that so many of us can identify with. We will fight tooth and nail in order to be with the one we love--even if it's only for one moment.
I remember when I was in college and dating my [current] husband. I would have a TON of homework to do; I would have told him that I couldn't see him--that he couldn't come see me--because of all my homework. Then, I'd turn right around as soon as my last class was over for the day and drive the hour or so to his house just so I could see him for a little while! We'd eat supper together, swap some spit (I'm trying not to be too gross), and I'd jump back in my car to race back to my house so I could work on the mountain of homework waiting for me. It didn't matter that I lost sleep because I'd done that. It didn't matter that sometimes I made mistakes on my work. All that mattered was that we had those few stolen moments TOGETHER.
In watching Bright Star, I see that it seems possibly to have been that way for Keats and Fanny. They were willing to take what they could get TOGETHER. Of course, they had other forces to contend with (her mother, his friends, his ailing health, etc.), but yet they lived for those stolen MOMENTS together.
It's so very romantic.
But so very unrealistic.
It's definitely what we love to see as far as the romance department goes, but reality is another ball game. I guess over the years of being married (it will be 19 this August), I've lost a lot of my romantic notions. Sure, I love my husband. But the realities of life are: jobs, school, our son, our church (he's a pastor), odd hours, and the list goes on. These things crowd in and take away any and all romance. It IS sad when a couple has to schedule time to BE together, but it is more a reality in marriages than not.
So what I'm saying is that Keats' love story is beautiful, tragic, and interesting, but more real than most of the love stories we're used to. I guess that's what makes Nicholas Sparks' stories so popular, too, though. They're beautiful, tragic, interesting, yet realistic. I hate the endings of Sparks' stories, but at the same time, I prefer his endings than those of the Twilight series. Reality--as we all know since we love reality shows so much--is much more interesting. Come on....we can't make most of this stuff up!!!!! Yet, Sparks does a great job of really creating beautiful love stories with great characters who we care about and want to see end up together. Yet, like Keats, death or some other tragedy keeps the lovers apart.
Ahhhh......love stories....ain't they grand?!
Bright Star. Screenplay by Jane Campion. Dir. Jane Campion. 2009. Pathe Renn Productions, 2010. DVD.
Keats, John. "Bright Star." Norton Anthology of British Literature. 8th ed. Eds. Jack Stillinger and Deidre Shauna Lynch. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006. 898. Print.
Anyway, what I was getting at is how surprising it to study him [again] and actually enjoy studying Keats! I find his life absolutely fascinating! Of course, it's very interesting to note that he was a very short man--barely above 5 ft.! Why does that matter? It doesn't. I'm short; I like talking about others who are short. The end.
But what really surprised me about Keats is the love story. I honestly had no idea (don't remember it) that it was so tragic. We definitely live in a world--a society--where love is the basis for our relationships. We are apalled when we hear of someone being forced into a marriage he/she doesn't want. We just don't know what to do with information like that. There are still cultures in the 21st Century where arranged marriages are the norm, but it's difficult for most of us to fathom that. So reading Keats' love story with Fanny is just so sad. I find myself rooting for the two of them--I want them to overcome the obstacles (his lack of money as well as his illness, consumption--or tuberculosis--for those of you who missed what it's called) and find a way to BE together. A love like that deserved a chance.
While we were watching the modern movie in class (Bright Star, I do believe it's called--based on the poem of the same title--poem titles are in quotation marks, btw!), you heard me mention the line from Steal Magnolias where Julia Roberts' character tells Sally Field's character (the mom) that she's rather have a minute of happiness than a lifetime of nothing--they'd been discussing Shelby (Julia Robert's character's name) not being able to have children, but getting pregnant anyway. (Shelby is a diabetic and sick a lot. Her doctor had told her before she ever got married that having children would kill her, so she was told not to have any.) Anyway, that line about desiring even a moment in time of having her heart's desire is a theme that so many of us can identify with. We will fight tooth and nail in order to be with the one we love--even if it's only for one moment.
I remember when I was in college and dating my [current] husband. I would have a TON of homework to do; I would have told him that I couldn't see him--that he couldn't come see me--because of all my homework. Then, I'd turn right around as soon as my last class was over for the day and drive the hour or so to his house just so I could see him for a little while! We'd eat supper together, swap some spit (I'm trying not to be too gross), and I'd jump back in my car to race back to my house so I could work on the mountain of homework waiting for me. It didn't matter that I lost sleep because I'd done that. It didn't matter that sometimes I made mistakes on my work. All that mattered was that we had those few stolen moments TOGETHER.
In watching Bright Star, I see that it seems possibly to have been that way for Keats and Fanny. They were willing to take what they could get TOGETHER. Of course, they had other forces to contend with (her mother, his friends, his ailing health, etc.), but yet they lived for those stolen MOMENTS together.
It's so very romantic.
But so very unrealistic.
It's definitely what we love to see as far as the romance department goes, but reality is another ball game. I guess over the years of being married (it will be 19 this August), I've lost a lot of my romantic notions. Sure, I love my husband. But the realities of life are: jobs, school, our son, our church (he's a pastor), odd hours, and the list goes on. These things crowd in and take away any and all romance. It IS sad when a couple has to schedule time to BE together, but it is more a reality in marriages than not.
So what I'm saying is that Keats' love story is beautiful, tragic, and interesting, but more real than most of the love stories we're used to. I guess that's what makes Nicholas Sparks' stories so popular, too, though. They're beautiful, tragic, interesting, yet realistic. I hate the endings of Sparks' stories, but at the same time, I prefer his endings than those of the Twilight series. Reality--as we all know since we love reality shows so much--is much more interesting. Come on....we can't make most of this stuff up!!!!! Yet, Sparks does a great job of really creating beautiful love stories with great characters who we care about and want to see end up together. Yet, like Keats, death or some other tragedy keeps the lovers apart.
Ahhhh......love stories....ain't they grand?!
Bibliography
Bright Star. Screenplay by Jane Campion. Dir. Jane Campion. 2009. Pathe Renn Productions, 2010. DVD.
Keats, John. "Bright Star." Norton Anthology of British Literature. 8th ed. Eds. Jack Stillinger and Deidre Shauna Lynch. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006. 898. Print.
How long before Immortality would bore you?
One question I wanted to go around the room and ask regarding Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's The Mortal Immortal that I ran out of time for is: How long do you think it would take for you before you'd get sick and tired of being immortal? A sub-question to that one: WHAT would it take for Immortality to lose its appeal? (Assuming, of course, that immortality is appealing and desirable.....) Whether you read my post for this or not, I hope you'll answer this question yourself!!!!
(*I think the title is supposed to be in quotation marks rather than italicized....yikes! That one's mine!)
For me, it would honestly be the same answer whether I'm immortal or not: I wouldn't want to go on living if anything were to happen to my son, Samuel. This isn't easy to write about, but I'm going to go ahead and say it--just so you know, this is going to get really personal, so if you don't want to read something really personal about your instructor, stop reading here.
Anyway, I have, in my lifetime, dealt with death enough to last several lifetimes for one person. Most significantly have been my child losses. I had a stillbirth in March 1999. (I was two weeks away from my due date, so I was full term.) Later that same year, in November, I had a miscarriage. Samuel was finally born in May 2001 after a long, difficult, scary pregnancy. Then, in 2005, in November--yes, again, I had another miscarriage (that one actually started while I was here at CVCC--I was taken away via ambulance). So, for me, Samuel is the light of my life. Sure, my husband and other family members are very important to me. I love them all very much. But Samuel is IT. I live for him. My life does revolve around him.
Maybe it's wrong of me to put so much time and effort into my son, but after what I've been through, I simply can't help it. I have always been a person who wanted children. Yes, children. Even though I went to college to get a DEGREE in teaching English rather than for my "Mrs." degree, I still knew that I would one day get married and have children. Being a working woman was not going to keep me from being a mother. I was living in the 20th Century, for heaven's sake. Women all around me were having their cake and eating it, too (getting married and having families as well as jobs outside the home). There was no reason whatsoever that I couldn't have the same.
(So why haven't I tried again since 2005? Several reasons: one, my husband is sick and tired of watching me suffer--which is ironic considering my recent health issues (I had a diverticulitus attack back in 2009--I almost died--I had two separate operations within 3 months--both to save my life, essentially) and two: I can't because in 2010, I had something called an ablasion, which destroys the lining of the uterus, so I can't get pregnant--at all.)
Therefore, I'd be happy to have immortality as long as it means that I can be alive to see my son grow up, go to college, get married, have a family of his own, have a job he loves, and LIVE. Otherwise, that's it. My "bucket list" is void next to that. Sure I'd love to write something that would actually get published and be successful as a writer. That WOULD BE awesome--a dream come true. But even that is insignificant next to being around for my son.
I GET the whole idea that we talked about in class about the desire to end life, even an immortal one, because of loneliness. There truly is nothing worse in this world than being alone. My true worst fear in life is to die alone. The saddest stories I've ever heard are the one about people who die and it's weeks before anyone even knows they've died. Friends, family, and even acquaintances are more important in our lives than most people realize or even understand. It's only when we are left standing alone, especially at times in our lives when we NEED our loved ones, that we truly realize how very important they really are.
The easy answer to the question of what would ruin immortality for me would be when I finally have read all the books I've ever wanted to read--several times. Or when I've seen all the movies I'd ever want to see. Sad that I couldn't write about those things instead, I know.....
I LOVE stories about immortality and Mary Shelley's "The Mortal Immortal" certainly fits into that category!!!!!!
(Just for fun, if I can find it, I'm going to post a link to a clip from the movie Highlander with Christopher Lambert (one of my hotties) where the title line is "There can be only one!" and the way for the immortals in this story to die is via beheading. It's actually the music video by Queen for the movie, but it's still worth watching! Yeah, I know Queen!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYOE_b4aYD0)
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. "The Mortal Immortal." The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Eds. Jack Stillinger and Deidre Shauna Lynch. 8th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 961-970. Print.
(*I think the title is supposed to be in quotation marks rather than italicized....yikes! That one's mine!)
For me, it would honestly be the same answer whether I'm immortal or not: I wouldn't want to go on living if anything were to happen to my son, Samuel. This isn't easy to write about, but I'm going to go ahead and say it--just so you know, this is going to get really personal, so if you don't want to read something really personal about your instructor, stop reading here.
Anyway, I have, in my lifetime, dealt with death enough to last several lifetimes for one person. Most significantly have been my child losses. I had a stillbirth in March 1999. (I was two weeks away from my due date, so I was full term.) Later that same year, in November, I had a miscarriage. Samuel was finally born in May 2001 after a long, difficult, scary pregnancy. Then, in 2005, in November--yes, again, I had another miscarriage (that one actually started while I was here at CVCC--I was taken away via ambulance). So, for me, Samuel is the light of my life. Sure, my husband and other family members are very important to me. I love them all very much. But Samuel is IT. I live for him. My life does revolve around him.
Maybe it's wrong of me to put so much time and effort into my son, but after what I've been through, I simply can't help it. I have always been a person who wanted children. Yes, children. Even though I went to college to get a DEGREE in teaching English rather than for my "Mrs." degree, I still knew that I would one day get married and have children. Being a working woman was not going to keep me from being a mother. I was living in the 20th Century, for heaven's sake. Women all around me were having their cake and eating it, too (getting married and having families as well as jobs outside the home). There was no reason whatsoever that I couldn't have the same.
(So why haven't I tried again since 2005? Several reasons: one, my husband is sick and tired of watching me suffer--which is ironic considering my recent health issues (I had a diverticulitus attack back in 2009--I almost died--I had two separate operations within 3 months--both to save my life, essentially) and two: I can't because in 2010, I had something called an ablasion, which destroys the lining of the uterus, so I can't get pregnant--at all.)
Therefore, I'd be happy to have immortality as long as it means that I can be alive to see my son grow up, go to college, get married, have a family of his own, have a job he loves, and LIVE. Otherwise, that's it. My "bucket list" is void next to that. Sure I'd love to write something that would actually get published and be successful as a writer. That WOULD BE awesome--a dream come true. But even that is insignificant next to being around for my son.
I GET the whole idea that we talked about in class about the desire to end life, even an immortal one, because of loneliness. There truly is nothing worse in this world than being alone. My true worst fear in life is to die alone. The saddest stories I've ever heard are the one about people who die and it's weeks before anyone even knows they've died. Friends, family, and even acquaintances are more important in our lives than most people realize or even understand. It's only when we are left standing alone, especially at times in our lives when we NEED our loved ones, that we truly realize how very important they really are.
The easy answer to the question of what would ruin immortality for me would be when I finally have read all the books I've ever wanted to read--several times. Or when I've seen all the movies I'd ever want to see. Sad that I couldn't write about those things instead, I know.....
I LOVE stories about immortality and Mary Shelley's "The Mortal Immortal" certainly fits into that category!!!!!!
(Just for fun, if I can find it, I'm going to post a link to a clip from the movie Highlander with Christopher Lambert (one of my hotties) where the title line is "There can be only one!" and the way for the immortals in this story to die is via beheading. It's actually the music video by Queen for the movie, but it's still worth watching! Yeah, I know Queen!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYOE_b4aYD0)
Bibliography
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. "The Mortal Immortal." The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Eds. Jack Stillinger and Deidre Shauna Lynch. 8th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 961-970. Print.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Never takes me this long to read a book....
Good grief. I am so embarrassed, but I guess it happens to the best of us at some point.....I have been reading North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell since last April (I think that's when I started it). It's not that the book isn't good; it is...very good. It is very political, though, and I really can't stand politics. It is a romance even more than political, but I still found it very challenging to get through. I don't know why I had such a hard time with this book. It's a British story set during the turn the 19th century--a country and time period I LOVE studying!
A friend loaned the book (and movie) to me. Someone I trust to share a good read, so I was certainly looking forward to reading something chosen by her. Honestly, I think I was more intimidated by the Lord of the Rings than I'm willing to admit. Ever since I finished reading the last book in that series, I have had a hard time reading anything at all. In fact, I don't think I've finished a single novel, really, since then. Every book I've picked up since finishing the last book of the series, I've read only bits and pieces of....except for Breaking Dawn. For some reason or other, I had a wonderful time re-reading that one! Probably because the first movie was out in November and I was looking forward to seeing it after reading the book--again.
But, now I've finally finished North and South and I can honestly say that not only did I actually enjoy reading it, but that I'll more than likely read the book again at some point. I hope the next time I read it, I can read it much more quickly! I'll watch the movie this weekend and let Amanda know I'm done so we can meet for lunch one day and talk about it.....my favorite part about reading any book!!!!
The book itself is pretty predictable, yet still enjoyable. It's no real secret that a large number of the major characters in the story die and the ones who don't die are the most boring characters who we wish would have been the ones to die. That's a terrible thing to say, I know, but if you'd read the book, you'd understand exactly what I mean!
One thing that the book brings up that almost falls by the wayside of the political aspect that arises is the importance of religion (faith in God) in a person's life. The father, Mr. Hale is really all we ever get, of Margaret (the main character) gives up his position as pastor (at the very beginning of the story) and renounces his faith completely and thoroughly. His family tries to be supportive, but it obviously affects everyone severely. Throughout the book, faith in God is brought up in various ways, but always in a way that makes it more a taboo subject than something of importance. What I mean is that, while faith in God seems to be an important issue throughout the story, it's often swept under the carpet and made light of. Even Margaret attempts at times to reassure those around her who are dying that they need to keep their faith in God and not lose hope, but she's afraid to bring it up when she does, so she starts to say something about the importance of faith, but she always stops herself. Oddly enough, though, it's very effective in that most of the people around her love her for trying and are reassured in spite of her hesitation and lack of knowledge in how to provide comfort through God in their times of need.
To make things even more odd, Margaret does NOT rely on or turn to God in her own time of need. And even though she suffers severely after telling a lie, it's not really because of her fear of having sinned (even though that DOES upset her), she is even more upset about the fact that her lie made her look bad in the eyes of the man she soon learns she loves (even though she thinks she dislikes Mr. Thornton, it's through her lie that she realizes she cares more for him and his opinion of her than she thought). As a result, she is tortured by the lie she's told and suffers severely as a result. It is not until she realizes that Mr. Thornton doesn't care so much (or he learns the truth) that the resolution comes about. The resolution does not come because Margaret repents and receives forgiveness from God for her sin of lying--even though she does attempt to repent of her sin.
So, is the book saying that, as far as religion (or faith) is concerned, we are not really and truly absolved of our sin by God but by the people around us when they forgive us our sin---rather than absolution/forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells me forgiveness comes?
It's an interesting question. One I'm not sure Gaskell really meant to bring up through her story, but one that comes up for me. I guess I'm supposed to walk away from her story having paid more attention to the politics of the story (the relationship between the common, working man and the factory owner) rather than the religious aspect of the story, but since I find politics boring and completely uninteresting and anything related to religion absolutely fascinating, it makes sense which part of the book/story stands out more for me than it might for other readers of this story.
Other than politics, the other thing that bothered me about this book is the fact that it is very predictable....and that every time we turn around, someone else dies--yet I don't often have the time to care about the death of so-and-so because said person comes into the story just a few pages before his/her death. Even one of the most horrific deaths in the book, a suicide, isn't all that interesting for me to read since I don't know that character too well. I should have been more horrified about his death, mostly because it IS a terrible suicide, than I was. I just wanted the story to get back to Margaret and her relationship with Mr. Thornton.
I guess, then, a final comment is that the book could have been half the length it was if it didn't have as many pointless, needless characters--not only the ones who die, but also the ones who don't, who I actually wish would have died because they're either so boring or narcissistic (which I guess is one of the points of the story). It does seem that Gaskell is trying to show how each individual is so wrapped up in his/her own life (cares, worries, joys, sins, etc.) that we don't know or care so much about others and what's going on their lives---at least, not until their lives interfere with our own and make our own lives uncomfortable until/unless we do something about (to help) the others around us.
And then we can feel a little self-righteous, knowing that we've done our good deed for the day/week/month/year. We're more noble or maybe, as in Margaret's role, a little bit self-sacrificing--a martyr, even, because we put the needs/wants/desires of others before our own---even if it is out of sense of moral obligation and/or because if we don't, our own lives will be that much more miserable.
I realize a lot of what I'm saying won't make any sense unless you read the book, but think about it. How many times have we done something for someone else because it actually makes our lives easier rather than because of the joy it will bring him/her? For example, right now in my own home, my husband has decided to move things around and make what was originally going to be my office our bedroom and our bedroom now my office. Because he'd painted the smaller room a beautiful purple, I am disappointed to lose that room as my office. But, in reality, having the larger room as my office is better for me than having the smaller room since I have so many books and "stuff!" So, if he'll paint the bigger bedroom, now my office, purple, it's actually the perfect solution to a problem I didn't even realize existed!!!!! Bottom line, the move is actually better for me than anyone else....
(Not the greatest example, but it's fresh on my mind!)
Anyway, North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell is a very good read, in spite of the fact that it took me more than 7 months to read it! I am really looking forward to seeing the movie later this weekend! I probably ought to wait a few days to see the movie so I can enjoy it more. Usually, if I see a movie too soon after reading a book, I don't enjoy the movie very much because I'm comparing it so much to the book.....
One final comment....yes, when I first heard the title, I thought of the American story North and South that was made into a mini-series back in the '80s starring Patrick Swayze as Orrie Maine. Yes, I read that whole series of books and loved them, so I thought that was this book when Amanda first mentioned it to me. She quickly assured me that it's not the same thing, so I did not go into the reading of it with a false expectation. Maybe that's why I had so much trouble reading it.....I was hoping for the other book......(Sad.)
A friend loaned the book (and movie) to me. Someone I trust to share a good read, so I was certainly looking forward to reading something chosen by her. Honestly, I think I was more intimidated by the Lord of the Rings than I'm willing to admit. Ever since I finished reading the last book in that series, I have had a hard time reading anything at all. In fact, I don't think I've finished a single novel, really, since then. Every book I've picked up since finishing the last book of the series, I've read only bits and pieces of....except for Breaking Dawn. For some reason or other, I had a wonderful time re-reading that one! Probably because the first movie was out in November and I was looking forward to seeing it after reading the book--again.
But, now I've finally finished North and South and I can honestly say that not only did I actually enjoy reading it, but that I'll more than likely read the book again at some point. I hope the next time I read it, I can read it much more quickly! I'll watch the movie this weekend and let Amanda know I'm done so we can meet for lunch one day and talk about it.....my favorite part about reading any book!!!!
The book itself is pretty predictable, yet still enjoyable. It's no real secret that a large number of the major characters in the story die and the ones who don't die are the most boring characters who we wish would have been the ones to die. That's a terrible thing to say, I know, but if you'd read the book, you'd understand exactly what I mean!
One thing that the book brings up that almost falls by the wayside of the political aspect that arises is the importance of religion (faith in God) in a person's life. The father, Mr. Hale is really all we ever get, of Margaret (the main character) gives up his position as pastor (at the very beginning of the story) and renounces his faith completely and thoroughly. His family tries to be supportive, but it obviously affects everyone severely. Throughout the book, faith in God is brought up in various ways, but always in a way that makes it more a taboo subject than something of importance. What I mean is that, while faith in God seems to be an important issue throughout the story, it's often swept under the carpet and made light of. Even Margaret attempts at times to reassure those around her who are dying that they need to keep their faith in God and not lose hope, but she's afraid to bring it up when she does, so she starts to say something about the importance of faith, but she always stops herself. Oddly enough, though, it's very effective in that most of the people around her love her for trying and are reassured in spite of her hesitation and lack of knowledge in how to provide comfort through God in their times of need.
To make things even more odd, Margaret does NOT rely on or turn to God in her own time of need. And even though she suffers severely after telling a lie, it's not really because of her fear of having sinned (even though that DOES upset her), she is even more upset about the fact that her lie made her look bad in the eyes of the man she soon learns she loves (even though she thinks she dislikes Mr. Thornton, it's through her lie that she realizes she cares more for him and his opinion of her than she thought). As a result, she is tortured by the lie she's told and suffers severely as a result. It is not until she realizes that Mr. Thornton doesn't care so much (or he learns the truth) that the resolution comes about. The resolution does not come because Margaret repents and receives forgiveness from God for her sin of lying--even though she does attempt to repent of her sin.
So, is the book saying that, as far as religion (or faith) is concerned, we are not really and truly absolved of our sin by God but by the people around us when they forgive us our sin---rather than absolution/forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells me forgiveness comes?
It's an interesting question. One I'm not sure Gaskell really meant to bring up through her story, but one that comes up for me. I guess I'm supposed to walk away from her story having paid more attention to the politics of the story (the relationship between the common, working man and the factory owner) rather than the religious aspect of the story, but since I find politics boring and completely uninteresting and anything related to religion absolutely fascinating, it makes sense which part of the book/story stands out more for me than it might for other readers of this story.
Other than politics, the other thing that bothered me about this book is the fact that it is very predictable....and that every time we turn around, someone else dies--yet I don't often have the time to care about the death of so-and-so because said person comes into the story just a few pages before his/her death. Even one of the most horrific deaths in the book, a suicide, isn't all that interesting for me to read since I don't know that character too well. I should have been more horrified about his death, mostly because it IS a terrible suicide, than I was. I just wanted the story to get back to Margaret and her relationship with Mr. Thornton.
I guess, then, a final comment is that the book could have been half the length it was if it didn't have as many pointless, needless characters--not only the ones who die, but also the ones who don't, who I actually wish would have died because they're either so boring or narcissistic (which I guess is one of the points of the story). It does seem that Gaskell is trying to show how each individual is so wrapped up in his/her own life (cares, worries, joys, sins, etc.) that we don't know or care so much about others and what's going on their lives---at least, not until their lives interfere with our own and make our own lives uncomfortable until/unless we do something about (to help) the others around us.
And then we can feel a little self-righteous, knowing that we've done our good deed for the day/week/month/year. We're more noble or maybe, as in Margaret's role, a little bit self-sacrificing--a martyr, even, because we put the needs/wants/desires of others before our own---even if it is out of sense of moral obligation and/or because if we don't, our own lives will be that much more miserable.
I realize a lot of what I'm saying won't make any sense unless you read the book, but think about it. How many times have we done something for someone else because it actually makes our lives easier rather than because of the joy it will bring him/her? For example, right now in my own home, my husband has decided to move things around and make what was originally going to be my office our bedroom and our bedroom now my office. Because he'd painted the smaller room a beautiful purple, I am disappointed to lose that room as my office. But, in reality, having the larger room as my office is better for me than having the smaller room since I have so many books and "stuff!" So, if he'll paint the bigger bedroom, now my office, purple, it's actually the perfect solution to a problem I didn't even realize existed!!!!! Bottom line, the move is actually better for me than anyone else....
(Not the greatest example, but it's fresh on my mind!)
Anyway, North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell is a very good read, in spite of the fact that it took me more than 7 months to read it! I am really looking forward to seeing the movie later this weekend! I probably ought to wait a few days to see the movie so I can enjoy it more. Usually, if I see a movie too soon after reading a book, I don't enjoy the movie very much because I'm comparing it so much to the book.....
One final comment....yes, when I first heard the title, I thought of the American story North and South that was made into a mini-series back in the '80s starring Patrick Swayze as Orrie Maine. Yes, I read that whole series of books and loved them, so I thought that was this book when Amanda first mentioned it to me. She quickly assured me that it's not the same thing, so I did not go into the reading of it with a false expectation. Maybe that's why I had so much trouble reading it.....I was hoping for the other book......(Sad.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)