Reading “Handmaid’s Tale” has been an experience to say the least. At first I did not appreciate its intricacies, and thought it was simply a boring narrative. After reading it, however, I have gained a new love for the book and its satirical nature. However, the most important theme that I have found is the idea of freedom, specifically the “freedom to” and “freedom from”. I have thought deeply about the differences, as we spoke about them in class today, and here is what I have discovered thus far.
In my eyes, “freedom to” is more of the rout of individualism. As we outlined in class, it is the ability to do what you please, but at the same time comes with an immense amount of responsibility. For instance, having this sort of freedom of dress or family means that you must also deal with the subsequent dangers that come with it. “Freedom from”, then, is the idea that you are protected from those dangers presented above, but at the same time, one loses freedom in the process. Instead of the individual being responsible for actions, it is the state that must take care to ensure that all are safe. It takes responsibility out of the hands of the people that are being protected.
With that being said, however, I really think these ideas are exactly the same, but are just worded conversely. If you want to think about, think of it like this: If you are given the “freedom to”, such as in the time before, you are also given the “freedom from” in a sense. If you are allowed to be the individual (freedom to be), you are at the same time given the opportunity to not be ruled by a government and closely monitored (freedom from). In the other sense, in the “now”, when you are given the “freedom from” personal responsibility and being taken advantage of, you are also given the “freedom to” relax and not feel obligated to serve yourself. The moral of the story here is that I really do not see that much of a difference between the different types of freedom. Within the context of the novel, I see no real difference besides the choice of words in the sentence.
Perhaps it is just me, but I really don’t think that there is a difference in the two ideals of freedom. Honestly, the only thing that I find is that one sounds more optimistic than the other (the freedom to live your life on your own terms sounds a lot better than simply being protected from harm and having to do what society deems as safe). With that being said, this idea of things sounding better than they really are is just another ironical tone played on by Atwood. The majority of the text is based on this satirical society where things are done for the betterment of the people supposedly, but it simply handicaps them in the long run and creates a giant circle of hypocrisy. The idea of different freedoms is just a perfect addition to the never-ending irony and satire that creates the world of Gildean.
Since this is going to be my last blog for the semester, I would like to reflect a little on the process of doing these assignments. I can safely say I learned a lot from this. I not only was forced to think in ways that were challenging and foreign to me, but I also was able to gain new insights from my peers and take the next step in critical thinking as well. While it was sometimes hard to find time to write the blogs, it made the process of writing my papers so much easier. I had all of my thoughts down, and brainstorming was already done for me by my blogs and the rest of the class’. This truly has been a learning experience for me, but I can honestly say it was one of the most beneficial assignments I have ever done. Finally, I would like to thank everyone who read and commented on my blogs, as I learned so much from everyone else. Thanks everyone! I hope my “English Dominance” was helpful to you!!! Have a great rest of the semester, and good luck with finals!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Presentation From Like 8 Years Ago
Sorry for the delay, but here's my PowerPoint information from my presentation on HG Wells.
1) Early Life
Herbert George Wells
Born on September 21, 1866 in Kent, England
Parents were Joseph and Sarah, and had an older sister that died before he was born
One of 4 children
Parents called him Bertie
Had much respect for his parents, and although he was poor, he still loved them
Realized his father was rather sexist, and led to his being a little sexist as well
2) Into The Real World
Father suffered a severe injury; HG had to work at father’s store
At time, was introduced to literature by Thomas Paine and Plato
Became interested in socialist readings, such as Jonathan Swift
Had no religious inclinations, as he thought God would not be create the difficult situations in the world
These ideas, along with the “Adam and Eve” belief instilled by John Ball, led to his becoming a socialist believing in equality for all.
Family hit more economic issues, and he was forced out of school to work permanently.
Refused to work, as it was not fair to do “hopeless drudgery”, and taught himself and graduated from University of London in 1890
3) Love Life
Had many affairs with women, stemming from his father’s thoughts of women
His cousin Isabel was one such affair
Married her in 1891, but marriage was short lived, as he did not respect her.
In 1893, fell in love with Amy Robbins while still married to Isabel, and later married Amy
Somewhat of a confused womanizer
4) Beginnings of Writing
Inspiration for writing came from his childhood memories, and the remembrance of injustices he had seen
Wells wanted to write about his love affairs, and wanted to make parents happy
First books were Textbook of Biology and Honours Physiography
First literature under the name H.G. Wells was “The Stolen Bacillus” in 1894
Was not accepted by many publishers, and started his writing career over many times
Socialist ideas of Oscar Wilde helped jumpstart his writing
5) The Time Machine and Other Novels
Published in 1895, it was popular as a “what if” novel against Victorian ideals of conquest and classes
Began writing science fiction, starting with The Time Machine, as it allowed him to express his dislike for inequality in the social system (like Bellamy)
Also wrote:
The Invisible Man (1897)
The First Men in the Moon (1901)
The War in the Air (1908)
Non-fiction books about love
2 autobiographies
A Modern Utopia (1905)
Books mainly tried to set up a new, more fair society of socialist roots
6) Role in WWI
Was for the war in the sense that he thought it would be the last war ever
However, found out that his prediction was wrong and thought that the thing the world needed was “world education”, as it would create a civilized world with less injustice; documented this in Outline of History in 1920
If world was more educated, he believed, the fortunes that he faced as a child would no longer occur.
After war, became very interested in the spotlight, and rather than writing books, became more interested in writing essays on all the things wrong with the world and what needed to be done
7) Late Life
From 1934-1946, he wrote approximately 28 books, dealing mostly with things of non-science fiction nature. Depressingly, his final book was called Mind at the End of its Tether in 1945 which showed quite a bleak look into the following years.
Wrote a humor book called Apropos of Delores
Died on August 13, 1946
8) Sources Used
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/herbert-george-wells/
http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~tdoyle/hgbib.html
Foot, Michael. H.G.: The History of Mr. Wells. Washington, D.C: Counterpoint, 1995. Print.
http://blog.mpl.org/mke_reads/HGWells.jpg
1) Early Life
Herbert George Wells
Born on September 21, 1866 in Kent, England
Parents were Joseph and Sarah, and had an older sister that died before he was born
One of 4 children
Parents called him Bertie
Had much respect for his parents, and although he was poor, he still loved them
Realized his father was rather sexist, and led to his being a little sexist as well
2) Into The Real World
Father suffered a severe injury; HG had to work at father’s store
At time, was introduced to literature by Thomas Paine and Plato
Became interested in socialist readings, such as Jonathan Swift
Had no religious inclinations, as he thought God would not be create the difficult situations in the world
These ideas, along with the “Adam and Eve” belief instilled by John Ball, led to his becoming a socialist believing in equality for all.
Family hit more economic issues, and he was forced out of school to work permanently.
Refused to work, as it was not fair to do “hopeless drudgery”, and taught himself and graduated from University of London in 1890
3) Love Life
Had many affairs with women, stemming from his father’s thoughts of women
His cousin Isabel was one such affair
Married her in 1891, but marriage was short lived, as he did not respect her.
In 1893, fell in love with Amy Robbins while still married to Isabel, and later married Amy
Somewhat of a confused womanizer
4) Beginnings of Writing
Inspiration for writing came from his childhood memories, and the remembrance of injustices he had seen
Wells wanted to write about his love affairs, and wanted to make parents happy
First books were Textbook of Biology and Honours Physiography
First literature under the name H.G. Wells was “The Stolen Bacillus” in 1894
Was not accepted by many publishers, and started his writing career over many times
Socialist ideas of Oscar Wilde helped jumpstart his writing
5) The Time Machine and Other Novels
Published in 1895, it was popular as a “what if” novel against Victorian ideals of conquest and classes
Began writing science fiction, starting with The Time Machine, as it allowed him to express his dislike for inequality in the social system (like Bellamy)
Also wrote:
The Invisible Man (1897)
The First Men in the Moon (1901)
The War in the Air (1908)
Non-fiction books about love
2 autobiographies
A Modern Utopia (1905)
Books mainly tried to set up a new, more fair society of socialist roots
6) Role in WWI
Was for the war in the sense that he thought it would be the last war ever
However, found out that his prediction was wrong and thought that the thing the world needed was “world education”, as it would create a civilized world with less injustice; documented this in Outline of History in 1920
If world was more educated, he believed, the fortunes that he faced as a child would no longer occur.
After war, became very interested in the spotlight, and rather than writing books, became more interested in writing essays on all the things wrong with the world and what needed to be done
7) Late Life
From 1934-1946, he wrote approximately 28 books, dealing mostly with things of non-science fiction nature. Depressingly, his final book was called Mind at the End of its Tether in 1945 which showed quite a bleak look into the following years.
Wrote a humor book called Apropos of Delores
Died on August 13, 1946
8) Sources Used
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/herbert-george-wells/
http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~tdoyle/hgbib.html
Foot, Michael. H.G.: The History of Mr. Wells. Washington, D.C: Counterpoint, 1995. Print.
http://blog.mpl.org/mke_reads/HGWells.jpg
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Losing an Arm, or Becoming a Relic of History?!?!?
So after finishing up Kindred, I was really interested in the concept at the end. We are built up to believe for the majority of the novel that everything is going to end up pretty much okay with Dana when she returns back to California (minus the whole arm incident…). Specifically, I was rather horrified with Dana’s loss of her arm. Although I knew that it was going to happen, I still was shocked and curious as to its purpose within the context of the rest of the novel. I want to try and piece the ending together so maybe I can find a real answer as to what the loss of the arm really means.
There are two possible routes I think that the loss of the arm could go, and we discussed them briefly in class today. The first is that it serves as a constant reminder of never losing roots and always having that little part of her in Maryland. While she does eventually escape this horrible past, the loss of her arm serves as a means of never being able to erase what has happened. This is a trope throughout the entire novel, I believe, as I think one of Octavia Butler’s themes in the book is that one cannot escape his or her past, as is the case with Dana, who is sent back to her roots so she can learn about where she came from. In this way, the loss of her arm is like her leaving a momento behind, so that she is always going to be somewhat stuck in this other life of hers. Although losing her arm was obviously unintentional, she will never be able to forget what happened to her.
The other explanation for the loss of her arm could be that it was a sacrifice. As we spoke about in class, the price of freedom is usually very high and impossible to bargain with. Dana, in order to save herself and the rest of the blacks on the plantation, must kill Rufus. While I do not think she knew she was going to lose a limb, I am pretty confident she knew something bad was going to happen by destroying a “relic of the past”. In this sense, Dana knows there will be consequences for doing what she does, but is willing to do whatever it takes to make life better for her and others. She is a martyr of sorts.
The bottom line is that I really am not sure what to make of this ending. There are two very different explanations for a somewhat bizarre conclusion. One involves her not being able to escape the past, while the other involves her sacrificing part of herself for the greater good of mankind. Both are feasible concepts, but I really want to know if there is a right or wrong answer to this question. I assume Butler has a meaning behind everything that goes on within her text, and an ending is no exception. There must be a right answer that she had in mind when writing. I think that I will research it for a little bit when I have free time (which is pretty much never) to see if she ever made any statements of intent. In the meantime, however, I want to know what you all think! We talked about it a little, but I know there is so much to discuss for this ending. Let me know what you all think. Is Dana leaving part of herself behind so she can never forget, or is she sacrificing? Or, is it somehow both? So many questions with so few answers. Please comment and give me a little insight! Lord knows I could use it these days.
There are two possible routes I think that the loss of the arm could go, and we discussed them briefly in class today. The first is that it serves as a constant reminder of never losing roots and always having that little part of her in Maryland. While she does eventually escape this horrible past, the loss of her arm serves as a means of never being able to erase what has happened. This is a trope throughout the entire novel, I believe, as I think one of Octavia Butler’s themes in the book is that one cannot escape his or her past, as is the case with Dana, who is sent back to her roots so she can learn about where she came from. In this way, the loss of her arm is like her leaving a momento behind, so that she is always going to be somewhat stuck in this other life of hers. Although losing her arm was obviously unintentional, she will never be able to forget what happened to her.
The other explanation for the loss of her arm could be that it was a sacrifice. As we spoke about in class, the price of freedom is usually very high and impossible to bargain with. Dana, in order to save herself and the rest of the blacks on the plantation, must kill Rufus. While I do not think she knew she was going to lose a limb, I am pretty confident she knew something bad was going to happen by destroying a “relic of the past”. In this sense, Dana knows there will be consequences for doing what she does, but is willing to do whatever it takes to make life better for her and others. She is a martyr of sorts.
The bottom line is that I really am not sure what to make of this ending. There are two very different explanations for a somewhat bizarre conclusion. One involves her not being able to escape the past, while the other involves her sacrificing part of herself for the greater good of mankind. Both are feasible concepts, but I really want to know if there is a right or wrong answer to this question. I assume Butler has a meaning behind everything that goes on within her text, and an ending is no exception. There must be a right answer that she had in mind when writing. I think that I will research it for a little bit when I have free time (which is pretty much never) to see if she ever made any statements of intent. In the meantime, however, I want to know what you all think! We talked about it a little, but I know there is so much to discuss for this ending. Let me know what you all think. Is Dana leaving part of herself behind so she can never forget, or is she sacrificing? Or, is it somehow both? So many questions with so few answers. Please comment and give me a little insight! Lord knows I could use it these days.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
I Think I Get This Book Finally!
So after finishing up "Herland" and discussing it in class, I think I finally understand why we read the book in the first place. I was really confused as to why this was read in a “time travel class”, as it does not involve a time machine or any physical movement through time. However, the quotes we discussed on pages 110-111 about the lack of reverence for the past gave me some ideas on the time moving aspect. There is not a physical movement from one time period to another, as there is in the previous books we have read. Rather, it is ideas from different time periods that have created a sense of movement from one era to another.
To further explain, I want to look at the differences in culture and religion that is explored within the text. According to the women in the book, they are unaware of many things we take for granted in our own time period, including marriage and men in general. The fact that they are not aware of certain things in everyday society makes it seem like these people are less advanced, as if the explorers had gone back in time. However, there is a different feeling later in the book, as they seem more advanced in some regards to outside society. For instance the women do not feel jealousy, are good mothers, do not have issues with their power structure, and so on. It reminds me much of Looking Backward, where an advanced society is portrayed as “perfect”, and seemingly is much more advanced than any previous era. In my eyes, this creates somewhat of a paradox: we have the society looking ignorant and oblivious, and yet they are far more advanced than Van, Jeff, and Terry in many regards.
In trying to figure out my thoughts on the above situation, I came to the conclusion that, in essence, time travel takes place without actually moving in time. Going to another land where culture are different and have never meshed creates the idea that traveling to a foreign land can be just like traveling through time in terms of learning cultures. Besides moving forward or backward, all time travel is is the blending of new ideas that are previously unknown to both sides. In Hank Morgan’s tale, he is exposed to a new culture, and consequently shares his knowledge with the people of old times. In Bellamy’s novel about Mr. West, the protagonist learns of what the new time period is like, and subsequently tries his best to accept it and be understanding of it. This is exactly what happens in Gilman’s book. Three characters go to a foreign land, and learn about each other’s habits. This, in turn, makes societies look either complex or prehistoric, depending on how one looks at it. As I said before, the ladies of Herland look ancient because they do not know many of our common cultures, but at the same time look incredibly advanced in their societal ideas because of the notions and lifestyle they enjoy.
So, just to sort of sum things up here: I finally understand why we read this book in the first place. The notion of time travel is more than just physically moving from one time period to another. Its main feature is that it combines different, seemingly incompatible cultures together, and compares and contrasts how “modern”, “ancient”, or “futuristic” they look in comparison to one another. This book has taught me a lot about time travel narratives, and has helped me appreciate "Herland" much more than I thought I would. It is somehow a time travel book without actually travelling in time! It does not seem possible, but because of my logic above, hopefully it makes sense. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know! Write on my blog! Pleaseeeee!!!!
To further explain, I want to look at the differences in culture and religion that is explored within the text. According to the women in the book, they are unaware of many things we take for granted in our own time period, including marriage and men in general. The fact that they are not aware of certain things in everyday society makes it seem like these people are less advanced, as if the explorers had gone back in time. However, there is a different feeling later in the book, as they seem more advanced in some regards to outside society. For instance the women do not feel jealousy, are good mothers, do not have issues with their power structure, and so on. It reminds me much of Looking Backward, where an advanced society is portrayed as “perfect”, and seemingly is much more advanced than any previous era. In my eyes, this creates somewhat of a paradox: we have the society looking ignorant and oblivious, and yet they are far more advanced than Van, Jeff, and Terry in many regards.
In trying to figure out my thoughts on the above situation, I came to the conclusion that, in essence, time travel takes place without actually moving in time. Going to another land where culture are different and have never meshed creates the idea that traveling to a foreign land can be just like traveling through time in terms of learning cultures. Besides moving forward or backward, all time travel is is the blending of new ideas that are previously unknown to both sides. In Hank Morgan’s tale, he is exposed to a new culture, and consequently shares his knowledge with the people of old times. In Bellamy’s novel about Mr. West, the protagonist learns of what the new time period is like, and subsequently tries his best to accept it and be understanding of it. This is exactly what happens in Gilman’s book. Three characters go to a foreign land, and learn about each other’s habits. This, in turn, makes societies look either complex or prehistoric, depending on how one looks at it. As I said before, the ladies of Herland look ancient because they do not know many of our common cultures, but at the same time look incredibly advanced in their societal ideas because of the notions and lifestyle they enjoy.
So, just to sort of sum things up here: I finally understand why we read this book in the first place. The notion of time travel is more than just physically moving from one time period to another. Its main feature is that it combines different, seemingly incompatible cultures together, and compares and contrasts how “modern”, “ancient”, or “futuristic” they look in comparison to one another. This book has taught me a lot about time travel narratives, and has helped me appreciate "Herland" much more than I thought I would. It is somehow a time travel book without actually travelling in time! It does not seem possible, but because of my logic above, hopefully it makes sense. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know! Write on my blog! Pleaseeeee!!!!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
This Isn't a Real Time Travel Book...
Reading “The Time Machine” has been a very interesting experience thus far. It has been vey different than the other texts that we have read thus far, and there is one question that has been lingering in my mind up until this point: what is the deeper meaning to this plot? Within Twain’s tale, it was obvious that the point was to make comparisons between 6th century and 19th century situations, and to show that the same sorts of problems arise in both societies, showing how far the world has to go in order to “evolve” into a fair place. Bellamy’s text created a futuristic socialist utopia where the world was a better place not because people had changed, but because the structure of society had been perfected. However, I am failing to see such an underlying premise within H.G. Well’s text so far. The narrator has been presented with a bad situation: he has lost his time machine and is forced to attempt communication with those who do not understand him. In terms of a plot, I think this fine. It is a struggle that needs a resolution. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be a deeper undertone.
Besides the fact that people in the future are not as advanced as our narrator would like, we do not know much about these people. In fact, we do not have much insight into the narrator either. In the other texts, we got to see a personal side of the characters, and it created a certain emotional connection to them. I am failing to see this within Wells’ novel. I feel rather distanced from the doctor, and to be honest, I do not feel bad for him or connected in any way to his situation. Because of this, I cannot discover any sort of meaningfulness to this story. It does not appear to be a critique of society (unless I am totally missing something, which is entirely within the realm of possibility), and thus pulls itself away from what we have established time travel novels to accomplish: either to show problems in a current society, or to form a utopia that can be realized under certain circumstances. “The Time Machine” does neither of these!
Perhaps there is an aspect of time travel novels that we need to look at that may change my perception of this book. But as for right now, this does not seem to fall into the category of books that we have talked about earlier in the class. Our previous tales have had distinct purposes: to compare societies, past, present, and future, and to send a message through the comparisons. Wells’ famous novel, in my opinion, fails to do this in any way, shape, or form. Maybe I will change my mind by the time I end the book, but if I don’t, I can make a pretty bold statement: this book, which is considered the quintessential time travel book, is really not a time travel book at all. It does not fit the mold that other books have outlined for us. I would like to know what other people think about this point, that this is not a time travel book in the sense that has been established in class.
If anyone has suggestions, or points to bring up that would make this a book that is in the mold I have spoken about, please comment. Or, if you agree with me, let me know, because I am always in need of an ego booster. Anyway, I hope I enlightened you in one or another through this blog. Let me know what you all think, and maybe we can bring this up in class!
Besides the fact that people in the future are not as advanced as our narrator would like, we do not know much about these people. In fact, we do not have much insight into the narrator either. In the other texts, we got to see a personal side of the characters, and it created a certain emotional connection to them. I am failing to see this within Wells’ novel. I feel rather distanced from the doctor, and to be honest, I do not feel bad for him or connected in any way to his situation. Because of this, I cannot discover any sort of meaningfulness to this story. It does not appear to be a critique of society (unless I am totally missing something, which is entirely within the realm of possibility), and thus pulls itself away from what we have established time travel novels to accomplish: either to show problems in a current society, or to form a utopia that can be realized under certain circumstances. “The Time Machine” does neither of these!
Perhaps there is an aspect of time travel novels that we need to look at that may change my perception of this book. But as for right now, this does not seem to fall into the category of books that we have talked about earlier in the class. Our previous tales have had distinct purposes: to compare societies, past, present, and future, and to send a message through the comparisons. Wells’ famous novel, in my opinion, fails to do this in any way, shape, or form. Maybe I will change my mind by the time I end the book, but if I don’t, I can make a pretty bold statement: this book, which is considered the quintessential time travel book, is really not a time travel book at all. It does not fit the mold that other books have outlined for us. I would like to know what other people think about this point, that this is not a time travel book in the sense that has been established in class.
If anyone has suggestions, or points to bring up that would make this a book that is in the mold I have spoken about, please comment. Or, if you agree with me, let me know, because I am always in need of an ego booster. Anyway, I hope I enlightened you in one or another through this blog. Let me know what you all think, and maybe we can bring this up in class!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Time Travel and Losing Yourself
Reading Edward Bellamy’s "Looking Backward" has been a very different experience from Twain’s "A Connecticut Yankee". The one thing that has struck me in this text is the difference in narration. This text depends on dialogue almost exclusively, which is an interesting switch from the first person view we saw in the last book. There is a specific quote said from Mr. West that has really struck me. He says that, since he has come into the future, he has had, “…moments when my personal identity seems an open question” (101). This struck me as strange when comparing it to the last book. Let me explain…
The idea of losing identity is one that is pretty apparent in Bellamy’s book. This begs a question, then: Does time travel lead to a loss of self? Within Bellamy’s book, this looks like a true fact. However, in Twain’s book, I saw Hank as finding his identity in his time travel. Before he went back in time, he was a normal man with a pretty ordinary existence. When put back in time, though, he makes he most of his situation and remolds the time period. In doing so he finds his identity: a man who, when in power, fights for the people. In this case, time travel does not cause one to lose identity; rather, it causes one to find it, as Hank made himself into the man he always wanted to be by traveling in time.
Now, looking at Bellamy’s text, I want to see if I can try to portray Dr. West has having a similar experience to Hank. Instead of going backwards, he goes into the future, so he does not have the knowledge of future events like Hank does. Part of the reason that Hank can find his identity is because he somewhat dominates society. He knows how things are supposed to be run, and therefore makes the world like he sees fit. West, though, does not have this luxury. He does not know what to expect. In this way, it is hard for him to find his identity, as he has no advantage over anybody in the time period, and cannot establish his dominance.
In a different sense, however, West does find his identity: through his infatuation with Edith Leete. This love for her somewhat creates a self perception for him: he realizes what he wants, and in doing so becomes rather introspective. While he does not gain identity like Hank, he gains something that I consider a way of discovering self: love.
The identities that are found in the respective novels are very different. Hank finds himself through power, while, in a way, West finds his through love. Whether you want to consider these identities on an equal level is up to you. Personally, I think that the finding of love is not quite as instrumental as the sort of self that Hank finds. Hank’s is one that creates who he is, while West’s is more of a “convenience”, in the sense that he finds a girl who is good for him at the time and helps him get through a difficult time. The question still remains, though: Does time travel cause one to lose the self. In Hank’s case, he had no real sense of self before, and was able to create himself in a way that made him the most powerful man in the world. West loses his sense of self, as he comes into a world that is unfamiliar, but finds a new self through his love of Edith. My conclusion on the issue, then, is that going back in time does not cause one to lose self; it makes you gain a new perspective of self. Going to the future, then, does cause one to lose identity, as being unfamiliar to the times and not having knowledge of history can make one not know what to do. While love does create a little identity, it is not enough to make up for what is lost. West lost everything, and does not know what to make of his life. Hank had nothing to lose, and created a new self. Time travel, therefore, can either make one have identity or lose it, depending on which direction one travels. Let me know what you all think and if you agree!
The idea of losing identity is one that is pretty apparent in Bellamy’s book. This begs a question, then: Does time travel lead to a loss of self? Within Bellamy’s book, this looks like a true fact. However, in Twain’s book, I saw Hank as finding his identity in his time travel. Before he went back in time, he was a normal man with a pretty ordinary existence. When put back in time, though, he makes he most of his situation and remolds the time period. In doing so he finds his identity: a man who, when in power, fights for the people. In this case, time travel does not cause one to lose identity; rather, it causes one to find it, as Hank made himself into the man he always wanted to be by traveling in time.
Now, looking at Bellamy’s text, I want to see if I can try to portray Dr. West has having a similar experience to Hank. Instead of going backwards, he goes into the future, so he does not have the knowledge of future events like Hank does. Part of the reason that Hank can find his identity is because he somewhat dominates society. He knows how things are supposed to be run, and therefore makes the world like he sees fit. West, though, does not have this luxury. He does not know what to expect. In this way, it is hard for him to find his identity, as he has no advantage over anybody in the time period, and cannot establish his dominance.
In a different sense, however, West does find his identity: through his infatuation with Edith Leete. This love for her somewhat creates a self perception for him: he realizes what he wants, and in doing so becomes rather introspective. While he does not gain identity like Hank, he gains something that I consider a way of discovering self: love.
The identities that are found in the respective novels are very different. Hank finds himself through power, while, in a way, West finds his through love. Whether you want to consider these identities on an equal level is up to you. Personally, I think that the finding of love is not quite as instrumental as the sort of self that Hank finds. Hank’s is one that creates who he is, while West’s is more of a “convenience”, in the sense that he finds a girl who is good for him at the time and helps him get through a difficult time. The question still remains, though: Does time travel cause one to lose the self. In Hank’s case, he had no real sense of self before, and was able to create himself in a way that made him the most powerful man in the world. West loses his sense of self, as he comes into a world that is unfamiliar, but finds a new self through his love of Edith. My conclusion on the issue, then, is that going back in time does not cause one to lose self; it makes you gain a new perspective of self. Going to the future, then, does cause one to lose identity, as being unfamiliar to the times and not having knowledge of history can make one not know what to do. While love does create a little identity, it is not enough to make up for what is lost. West lost everything, and does not know what to make of his life. Hank had nothing to lose, and created a new self. Time travel, therefore, can either make one have identity or lose it, depending on which direction one travels. Let me know what you all think and if you agree!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
A Battle of Morgans
I figured that we were going to talk a lot about the ending of Connecticut Yankee in the coming days, so I decided to take this blog into a different direction. We spoke earlier in class today about the connection between Hank Morgan’s and Morgan le Fay’s names. I thought about this for a long time today, and was stumped for a while. Then inspiration somehow struck: redemption! I think that Hank and Morgan le Fay share the common thread of redemption at the end of their tales. Let me explain this to the best of my abilities.
As we learned in class today from Lauren, who discussed some of the history of the King Arthur tales, Morgan and Arthur did not like each other very much. There was a lot of animosity between them. However, she is the one who ends up saving Arthur when he is wounded. She saves his life, and essentially redeems herself to him. The same thing can be said about Hank. He comes into the 6th century as a man who does not know much about what is going on, and seeks to put himself center stage in pretty much every possible way. As the story progresses, though, he becomes the champion for the people in society. He sticks up for them, and fights for them when no one else will. Hank gets to a position of power, and rather than abusing it like many would expect, he fights for justice.
The best example of this is during the knight tournament. After he wins, he makes the statement that, “…all political power has reverted back to its original source, the people of the nation…all men are become exactly equal, they are upon common level, and religion is free…” (389-390). While no one else is willing to make the playing field level, Hank does. In this sense, he redeems himself. However, it is not to the people in the society he is redeeming himself to.
While Hank does his best for the people, he still has to prove himself to one audience: the readers of the novel. As I have seen in class, many people do not trust him, and feel he is selfish and has bad intentions. The end of the book serves as a sort of reconciliation for Hank. He is able to prove himself to readers that he is a good man by helping others. In this sense, he redeems himself to a reader, as there is a lack of trust at first, but then he proves himself as a good person.
The theme of redemption connects le Fay and Hank. They both start off as untrustworthy characters that are not loved. However, at the end, they do something (le Fay saving her brother, and Hank standing up for the people) that redeems them. This the connection that I see between these people. I think Twain made a conscience decision (he usually does things for a reason) to make this common thread. It is a pretty interesting bond to create between two characters that do not seem to have anything in common. In fact, without the outside context, we would have no idea about the history of le Fay. This once again proves the importance of learning history before going into a book. While learning about Twain’s history with slaves is key to seeing his message of social justice, finding out the history of King Arthur is just as important. By seeing Mallori’s tale and seeing Arthur’s relationship with his sister turn for the better, I was able to make a connection between two seemingly unrelated characters.
To recap quickly, Hank and Morgan le Fay are related because they redeem themselves to specific people by the end of their tales. While le Fay redeems herself to Arthur, Hank redeems himself to readers who think he is a bad person and selfish. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but this is the link that I see, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Please let me know what you think…unless you disagree…just kidding! Feel free to comment please!
As we learned in class today from Lauren, who discussed some of the history of the King Arthur tales, Morgan and Arthur did not like each other very much. There was a lot of animosity between them. However, she is the one who ends up saving Arthur when he is wounded. She saves his life, and essentially redeems herself to him. The same thing can be said about Hank. He comes into the 6th century as a man who does not know much about what is going on, and seeks to put himself center stage in pretty much every possible way. As the story progresses, though, he becomes the champion for the people in society. He sticks up for them, and fights for them when no one else will. Hank gets to a position of power, and rather than abusing it like many would expect, he fights for justice.
The best example of this is during the knight tournament. After he wins, he makes the statement that, “…all political power has reverted back to its original source, the people of the nation…all men are become exactly equal, they are upon common level, and religion is free…” (389-390). While no one else is willing to make the playing field level, Hank does. In this sense, he redeems himself. However, it is not to the people in the society he is redeeming himself to.
While Hank does his best for the people, he still has to prove himself to one audience: the readers of the novel. As I have seen in class, many people do not trust him, and feel he is selfish and has bad intentions. The end of the book serves as a sort of reconciliation for Hank. He is able to prove himself to readers that he is a good man by helping others. In this sense, he redeems himself to a reader, as there is a lack of trust at first, but then he proves himself as a good person.
The theme of redemption connects le Fay and Hank. They both start off as untrustworthy characters that are not loved. However, at the end, they do something (le Fay saving her brother, and Hank standing up for the people) that redeems them. This the connection that I see between these people. I think Twain made a conscience decision (he usually does things for a reason) to make this common thread. It is a pretty interesting bond to create between two characters that do not seem to have anything in common. In fact, without the outside context, we would have no idea about the history of le Fay. This once again proves the importance of learning history before going into a book. While learning about Twain’s history with slaves is key to seeing his message of social justice, finding out the history of King Arthur is just as important. By seeing Mallori’s tale and seeing Arthur’s relationship with his sister turn for the better, I was able to make a connection between two seemingly unrelated characters.
To recap quickly, Hank and Morgan le Fay are related because they redeem themselves to specific people by the end of their tales. While le Fay redeems herself to Arthur, Hank redeems himself to readers who think he is a bad person and selfish. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but this is the link that I see, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Please let me know what you think…unless you disagree…just kidding! Feel free to comment please!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)