This comparison was made in class, how Marlow goes into Congo-Oz down the Yellow Brick River, but I thought direct parallels, as well as theme resolutions deserved some fleshing out.
Marlow starts his journey in Kansas-Brussels, in the comfort of family and friends, to depart, on an eye-opening journey, for the Congo. Here the two stories are slightly different, but very helpful to each other. Marlow makes his initial journey from a place of comfort, on a ship, while observing a distant/unknown land. Similarly, Dorthy is in her house when she's uplifted, but the journey is in fact much quicker, since her destination is clearly not of this world. Conrad is here making a statement the Wizard of Oz doesn't in forcing us to realize that these horrors are part of our world.
In the interest of time and space, I won't go through the entire book, but make a few other connections.
Kurtz as the wicked witch. This comparison actually makes a lot more sense if you've seen Wicked. (which, for better or worse I have) The two stories inform one another in building a true sense of how the villain's role is more of a fall from grace, and less of a chosen path. In both stories, the character on the journey confronts the villain simply to help free them from the heart of darkness, not to defeat them. (Dorothy unknowingly aiding an escape, and Marlow preventing a return). Dorothy obviously doesn't feel a spiritual obligation to carry on the memory of the witch, but the Heart of Darkness is less of the classic hero's tale than the Wizard of Oz to start with.
The Manager as the wizard. This one's a bit harder, but in both cases, the two are essentially reluctant and somewhat incompetent masters of worlds they take by circumstance, staying healthy and dropping in a hot air balloon, rather than by design or prowess. In the end, we see that in both cases actual leadership skills are lacking and pure lack allows each to survive.
In the end we see why the Heart of Darkness is called the Heart of Darkness, and not the Heart of Fuzzy Bunnies- it's dark. The side of human character and nature it reveals is something the Wizard of Oz, a classic hero's journey, could never touch on. Even if they borrow some characters.
Showing posts with label macaroni and cheese. Show all posts
Showing posts with label macaroni and cheese. Show all posts
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Monday, December 8, 2008
Metacognition: Poetry
I recently wrote a poem for class. It was a fine poem reflecting on thoughts about a made up incident about something partially founded in reality with traces of a deeper meaning. Despite the poem's poignancy, I found, as Mr. Allen forewarned, the process to be very rewarding and interesting.
The process consisted of working through my work with Mr. Allen's guidance. Adjusting word usage, context, order, and meaning according to his advise, and my own sensibilities. Throughout, I tried to manage word efficiency and rhythm with the necessity of managing meaning. I did this by rewriting and rewriting phrases, as well as editing specific word order and location to maximize efficacy.
What I found surprising about my method of work was how, despite approaching the problem with a goal and rough idea of hwo to work through issues, my ability revise the poem came down to thinking, trying, and re-thinking individual phrases. Is there a better way?
The process consisted of working through my work with Mr. Allen's guidance. Adjusting word usage, context, order, and meaning according to his advise, and my own sensibilities. Throughout, I tried to manage word efficiency and rhythm with the necessity of managing meaning. I did this by rewriting and rewriting phrases, as well as editing specific word order and location to maximize efficacy.
What I found surprising about my method of work was how, despite approaching the problem with a goal and rough idea of hwo to work through issues, my ability revise the poem came down to thinking, trying, and re-thinking individual phrases. Is there a better way?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Connection: King Lear and Saturday Night Live
In King Lear there's a Fool. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's King Lear. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's Kent. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's Gloucester. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools.
I wonder which is in need of a straight man?
It seems that Shakespeare can so easily master the combination of comedy and drama, straight men and jokesters. He does this to such an effect that each joke gets that much funnier, even though the deliverer becomes predictable, the style and method are so well-suited and intrinsic to the plot and drama the punch lines are that much sweeter.
Saturday Night Live's take is obviously different. It's a comedy show. Then again, it's not always funny with every attempt. Types of humor can get old, skits can fall flat, and, by the end of the night, it seems like they really have nothing left to say.
Maybe SNL can learn from Shakespeare. The one who is funny every time can help at the one who tries to be funny every time. SNL could benefit from if not having moments of high drama and tragedy then better mixing the flavors, pace, and punch lines to make you feel like your not watching the same bad joke over and over.
SNL might try to do this, and probably does to some extent on a skit to skit basis. But week to week is another story. 5 flavors repeated is just as bad 1 all the time. You know they're trying, but realize how sad the attempts are. Instead, maybe SNL should focus on really developing a few sketches, or angles. Better yet, they just be funny.
I wonder which is in need of a straight man?
It seems that Shakespeare can so easily master the combination of comedy and drama, straight men and jokesters. He does this to such an effect that each joke gets that much funnier, even though the deliverer becomes predictable, the style and method are so well-suited and intrinsic to the plot and drama the punch lines are that much sweeter.
Saturday Night Live's take is obviously different. It's a comedy show. Then again, it's not always funny with every attempt. Types of humor can get old, skits can fall flat, and, by the end of the night, it seems like they really have nothing left to say.
Maybe SNL can learn from Shakespeare. The one who is funny every time can help at the one who tries to be funny every time. SNL could benefit from if not having moments of high drama and tragedy then better mixing the flavors, pace, and punch lines to make you feel like your not watching the same bad joke over and over.
SNL might try to do this, and probably does to some extent on a skit to skit basis. But week to week is another story. 5 flavors repeated is just as bad 1 all the time. You know they're trying, but realize how sad the attempts are. Instead, maybe SNL should focus on really developing a few sketches, or angles. Better yet, they just be funny.
Monday, October 20, 2008
What if?: I Never Get Out of Bed
In the poem Love Calls us to the Things of this World, Mr. Wilbur seems to reach the cynical conclusion that morning is beautiful until we realize we have to get. That made me wonder, what if I never got out of bed.
Would things be better if I never had to face the day? Wake up to take in the beauty of the morning, maybe have some breakfast, in bed, and then go back to sleep. Maybe not go back to sleep, maybe just lay there. I could even try just finding the paper, reading in bed, listening to the radio, and procrastinating. Either way, I'd never have to actually face the day. Does that fix or create problems? School, debate, and whatever else it is I do would take a back seat to pure relaxation and being at ease, but after a while those would be distant memories of a past more stressful. After a while, lying in bed would become a monotonous reminder of why people got up in the first place. There are things to be done, and, sometimes, a day to be won.
Would things be better if I never had to face the day? Wake up to take in the beauty of the morning, maybe have some breakfast, in bed, and then go back to sleep. Maybe not go back to sleep, maybe just lay there. I could even try just finding the paper, reading in bed, listening to the radio, and procrastinating. Either way, I'd never have to actually face the day. Does that fix or create problems? School, debate, and whatever else it is I do would take a back seat to pure relaxation and being at ease, but after a while those would be distant memories of a past more stressful. After a while, lying in bed would become a monotonous reminder of why people got up in the first place. There are things to be done, and, sometimes, a day to be won.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Blogging Around
Jenna's best of the week was about Margot's comment on how Hosseini used sugar in tea as a metaphor for worldview/outlook in The Kite Runner. She also commented on how she'd like to use this technique too.
I commented:
Jenna,
I think that the tea metaphor is very interesting as well. I've noticed that a lot of different authors use similar techniques to help with characterization.
These can range from the type of clothes someone wears representing their personality to the weather taking on someone's mood.
It's very useful for someone to be able to feel stormy without it explicitly being said.
I've noticed that in my own writing when I try to use these types of mechanisms to show mood and emotion, as well as reflect characteristics, they appear painfully obvious, and only later, when blended in with the story do they feel natural.
Better luck to you, and nice post.
Mitch
Kyle wrote about weapons manufacturing and distribution and the accompanying moral conflict, as well as whether it saves lives and how wars should in fact be fought.
I commented:
Kyle,
Gatling, the inventor of the first automatic gun, the Gatling Gun, thought that by creating a better weapon he would save lives by reducing the need for as many soldiers. Little did he know...
I think you touch on two very different ideas when dealing with the same umbrella title "weapons manufacturers."
First are the domestic weapons manufacturing giants with big time Department of Defense contracts. Companies such as these, domestically and internationally, manufacture most of the weapons across the world. Iron Man creates a fantastical character based on weapons developers and the like who work on creating the weapons of the future. Although some men like the character probably do exist, there's a reason it's a comic book superhero movie and not a documentary.
Second are the illegal arms transporters and states, such as China, who ship large amounts of weapons to rebels and insurgents, in places such as Darfur, to promote or protect US interests. The US of A has a long history of such activities, the first example I thought of being the Kennedys and Cuba. In to this category fall underground dealers in high-grade uranium and other potentially catastrophic weapons and weapons-grade materials. These people do not manufacture weapons, but do make them deadlier.
Certainly there is some moral conflict in creating things to be used to kill, but often having a better weapon is a matter of life or death for the good guys, and they make more than a pretty penny. It's immaterial whether better weapons save lives, the bottomline is that weapons are inevitable, as are people who will try to use them against us. We just have to stop those people from getting weapons in the first place, and fantastic weapons help us do that.
Mitch
I commented:
Jenna,
I think that the tea metaphor is very interesting as well. I've noticed that a lot of different authors use similar techniques to help with characterization.
These can range from the type of clothes someone wears representing their personality to the weather taking on someone's mood.
It's very useful for someone to be able to feel stormy without it explicitly being said.
I've noticed that in my own writing when I try to use these types of mechanisms to show mood and emotion, as well as reflect characteristics, they appear painfully obvious, and only later, when blended in with the story do they feel natural.
Better luck to you, and nice post.
Mitch
Kyle wrote about weapons manufacturing and distribution and the accompanying moral conflict, as well as whether it saves lives and how wars should in fact be fought.
I commented:
Kyle,
Gatling, the inventor of the first automatic gun, the Gatling Gun, thought that by creating a better weapon he would save lives by reducing the need for as many soldiers. Little did he know...
I think you touch on two very different ideas when dealing with the same umbrella title "weapons manufacturers."
First are the domestic weapons manufacturing giants with big time Department of Defense contracts. Companies such as these, domestically and internationally, manufacture most of the weapons across the world. Iron Man creates a fantastical character based on weapons developers and the like who work on creating the weapons of the future. Although some men like the character probably do exist, there's a reason it's a comic book superhero movie and not a documentary.
Second are the illegal arms transporters and states, such as China, who ship large amounts of weapons to rebels and insurgents, in places such as Darfur, to promote or protect US interests. The US of A has a long history of such activities, the first example I thought of being the Kennedys and Cuba. In to this category fall underground dealers in high-grade uranium and other potentially catastrophic weapons and weapons-grade materials. These people do not manufacture weapons, but do make them deadlier.
Certainly there is some moral conflict in creating things to be used to kill, but often having a better weapon is a matter of life or death for the good guys, and they make more than a pretty penny. It's immaterial whether better weapons save lives, the bottomline is that weapons are inevitable, as are people who will try to use them against us. We just have to stop those people from getting weapons in the first place, and fantastic weapons help us do that.
Mitch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)