The sixth and final chapter of Lot 49 seems very different to me from the rest of the book. For the first time there is a grim mood to the novel. When Driblette, the play’s director killed himself, he took the answer to Oedipa’s obsession with him. This greatly disappoints Oedipa as she now knows that she cannot find the answer to one of her main doubts. The reason why the play mentions Tristero at the end will remain a mystery to her forever. Then she is given a terrible idea. What if everything is a fake? What if Inverarity orchestrated the whole thing to make a practical joke? She has been destroyed to such an extent by her obsession with Tristero that she brushes this idea aside. The problem however, is that as she investigates this theory the more she realizes that Inveraity can be linked to every aspect of Tristero she has checked. This gives her that feeling that all that she lost, all that she went through was for nothing. This takes a terrible toll on her physically and emotionally. The reader can now see how Oedipa is giving up, “I needed you [Driblette]. Only bring me that memory, and you can live with me for whatever time I’ve got (pg 133).” She has become desperate, but later she decided to stop pushing the issue, it was just too much for her.
This first major deception in his quest hit her like a train. She was powerless now to find the answer she desired so badly. Communication is a two-way street only and that is a problem according to Pynchon. Those communications problems, death, anonymity, misinterpretation, are what make the system fail. Pynchon also criticizes human nature itself in this final chapter. A rational person would never expect someone like Inverarity to even conceive such a sick act like this practical joke, if that is what it is. The high possibility of the entire novel being a joke is sickening, how can someone enjoy playing with another person’s head like that? Then I realized that is not as uncommon. The media keeps us in fear and governments tell us who our enemies are. Like in 1984, the whole purpose of society is to play with our heads to the will of the leaders.
Later on, Oedipa finds out what W.A.S.T.E means, “We Await Silent Tristero’s Empire.” One more answer given, but Oedipa, despite knowing a lot about Tristero, cannot finish giving up. Then, she hears news that the Tristero stamp collection is being auctioned as Lot 49. There is a mysterious bidder that wants to acquire the stamps and he seems the sole link left between Oedipa and Tristero. She goes to the auction and sits in the back looking for the bidder. “Oedipa sat alone, toward the back of the room, looking at the napes of necks, trying to guess which one was her target, her enemy, perhaps her proof (pg 152).” The novel ends without solving the mystery, without showing who is the bidder or what was Tristero in reality. Besides mocking the streamline whodunit ending of detective novels, the mysterious ending has a deeper meaning. The mystery doesn’t matter. Pynchon has told us everything worth saying, the satires, the analysis of human life and of society, everything. He also mocks the human necessity to have a goal and purpose here. The reader’s purpose was to analyze the book and find the answer to the mystery, Pynchon eliminates any possibility to see the ending. Miscommunication? Perhaps… The ending also shows us that in reality, Tristero was of lesser importance than Oedipa’s emotional development and the novel’s insight on life. If the reader by the end was only focusing on Tristero, Pynchon is now telling him, “Go back to page one and look again.”
domingo, 30 de marzo de 2008
Policy of Truth -- Crying of Lot 49
The fifth chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 begins, for me, the really strange part of this book. Oedipa goes to Berkeley and finds John Nefastis. She tries his machine to find out if she is sensitive, attempting to give it energy through her concentration and eyesight. This is obviously highly unlikely, but with everything else that is going on, Oedipa is willing to try. She tries so hard, perhaps trying to make sense out of her life, to make it work that she ends up manufacturing a change, such a slight change that she doesn’t know if it really happened or it was just her head. “And there. At the top edge of what she could see: hadn’t the right-hand piston moved a fraction? Just like her, the reader is left wondering, but this is rebuked when Nefastis destroys all his credibility by telling her to have out-of-boredom sex. “Please don’t cry. Come on in on the couch. The news will be on any minute. We can do it there (pg 86).” This scene addresses many things. Pynchon could be showing that when one’s world is growing chaotic, we look for an escape, a scapegoat. Oedipa wanted that scapegoat to be her “sensitivity”, she was looking for order in her disorganized world, and much like Maxwell’s Demon allegedly did for his small universe. Having the Demon failed to organize her world, Oedipa can only hope that finding out more about Tristero will save her.
Pynchon also uses this event to satirize the loss of value that sex has in modern times. Much like when Oedipa cheated with Metzger, when Nefastis asks her for sex he is doing it out of boredom, not out of love. Sex is just another thing to do, before it was the ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. Pynchon satirizes this by placing these situations in the most absurd occasions, such as viewing an old movie betting whether the character dies or not or having sex during the news.
After this strange event, Oedipa decides to drive off and clear her head. She ends up in San Francisco. As she wonder into what will be a very long night for Oedipa, she enters a gay bar and meets a man who has the Tristero horn symbol in a pin. He tells her its represents Inamorati Anonymous which helps love-stricken people. Later on she continues in a bus ride throughout the city and begins to see the Tristero symbol everywhere, mentions of W.A.S.T.E everywhere and even people talking about it. This is such a heavy hit upon her conscience that the reader can see that Oedipa cannot differentiate from reality and dreams. She ends up in a poor apartment building where she meets an old sailor who asks her to deliver a letter to his wife through the W.A.S.T.E system and gives her the address to one of the Tristero mailboxes. She follows the Tristero mailman from there in a trip that leads her back to John Nefastis’ house. More confused than how she began, she returns to her hotel.
This is one of the most confusing events in the whole novel. It’s as if Pynchon places us inside Oedipa’s head so we can experience the overload of stress and pressure just like she is feeling it. Pynchon uses this event to show us how the human mind is capable of dissolving the line between reality and imagination. When things get too chaotic, the brain will attempt to eliminate all that stress by making us dream. Many times this helps us relax for those precious minutes to get our act back together. In Oedipa’s case, Pynchon does the exact opposite (making fun of dreams?) by turning her dream into a living nightmare. Murphy’s Law has a statement that says, “Enough research will tend to support your theory.” When Oedipa looks everywhere for the muted horn, I was reminded of this. Between reality and dreams, Oedipa was persuaded to completely believe the existence of Tristero. Here the truth theme from my previous blog arises again, can she believe her findings? With this same event Pynchon satirizes the common detective novel. In those novels, as the plot moves on the clues tend to help the reader solve the crime, In Lot 49 the exact opposite occurs. As she sees more muted horns, more mails and even a W.A.S.T.E mailman, Oedipa gets more confused and even deeper into the problem, no where nearer to a solution.
There’s a very interesting event when Oedipa reaches her hotel. She is driven into a deaf-mute dance party where every couple dances to the rhythm the man has in his head. “But how long, Oedipa thought could it go on before collisions became a serious hindrance? There would have to be collisions (pg 107).” Despite their various rhythms, the couples never crash in their entropy, in their chaos. There is no apparent communication and they move amongst themselves harmlessly. Again, Pynchon shows the communication theme. Words are problematic. They create conspiracies, fights and can be hurtful. In a universe, the deaf-mute universe, no such problem appears to exist. This reminded me of a Depeche Mode song titled Enjoy the Silence. The lyrics say:
Oedipa decides to return to her own town and talk with Dr. Hilarius to tell her she is imagining things. She doesn’t want to have to face the “reality” of Tristero, she just wants an explanation for everything that is going on around her. She finds that Dr. Hilarius has gone crazy, completely paranoid as his past has caught up to him. He kidnaps Oedipa and begins telling her how he used to do experiments on Jews during World War II. He is now afraid the Israelis are chasing him to punish him for his crimes. After a revealing conversation, the police arrest Hilarius and Oedipa is safe, but without answers. The character of Dr. Hilarius is a clear satire of many aspects. He makes fun of an apparently sane person, a psychiatrist by making him a paranoid freak who used to do experiment on Jews, how can someone trust him? Well he became a successful doctor with loyal clients, Oedipa herself. This makes the reader think to what extent can you trust others with helping you with your problems if they might have worse problems than yourself? He also mocks the apparent benefits of paranoia, “But I never took the drug, I chose to remain in relative paranoia, where at least I know who I am and who the others are (pg 111).” This is very ridiculous, yet many parts of society live that way. They buy guns for fears that might not exist, they hate people for reasons that might not be true, and in the end they live in permanent fear. Pynchon even attacks medicine by mocking the ridiculous use of LSD as a medicine in Dr. Hilarius’ clinic. This seems absurd, but the drugs used today as legal medicines are not that safer, they have serious side effects and, like LSD, blur reality and dreams.
After Oedipa leaves the clinic, she finds her husband, Mucho there and she meets him. She later finds out that he is taking LSD. Oedipa realizes she doesn’t really know her husband. Pynchon mocks the common junkie, they are like Mucho by saying the drug has helped them, that they can quit. In reality the drug is controlling them. After this event we can see that Oedipa has become almost completely isolated, Dr. Hilarius cannot help her, her husband is gone to drugs and the Demon didn’t give her answers. Isolation is the opposite of communication and it seems none gives benefits. Communication can lead to misinterpretations and fights, but isolation leads to paranoia like what happened to Dr. Hilarius. Which is better?
Pynchon also uses this event to satirize the loss of value that sex has in modern times. Much like when Oedipa cheated with Metzger, when Nefastis asks her for sex he is doing it out of boredom, not out of love. Sex is just another thing to do, before it was the ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. Pynchon satirizes this by placing these situations in the most absurd occasions, such as viewing an old movie betting whether the character dies or not or having sex during the news.
After this strange event, Oedipa decides to drive off and clear her head. She ends up in San Francisco. As she wonder into what will be a very long night for Oedipa, she enters a gay bar and meets a man who has the Tristero horn symbol in a pin. He tells her its represents Inamorati Anonymous which helps love-stricken people. Later on she continues in a bus ride throughout the city and begins to see the Tristero symbol everywhere, mentions of W.A.S.T.E everywhere and even people talking about it. This is such a heavy hit upon her conscience that the reader can see that Oedipa cannot differentiate from reality and dreams. She ends up in a poor apartment building where she meets an old sailor who asks her to deliver a letter to his wife through the W.A.S.T.E system and gives her the address to one of the Tristero mailboxes. She follows the Tristero mailman from there in a trip that leads her back to John Nefastis’ house. More confused than how she began, she returns to her hotel.
This is one of the most confusing events in the whole novel. It’s as if Pynchon places us inside Oedipa’s head so we can experience the overload of stress and pressure just like she is feeling it. Pynchon uses this event to show us how the human mind is capable of dissolving the line between reality and imagination. When things get too chaotic, the brain will attempt to eliminate all that stress by making us dream. Many times this helps us relax for those precious minutes to get our act back together. In Oedipa’s case, Pynchon does the exact opposite (making fun of dreams?) by turning her dream into a living nightmare. Murphy’s Law has a statement that says, “Enough research will tend to support your theory.” When Oedipa looks everywhere for the muted horn, I was reminded of this. Between reality and dreams, Oedipa was persuaded to completely believe the existence of Tristero. Here the truth theme from my previous blog arises again, can she believe her findings? With this same event Pynchon satirizes the common detective novel. In those novels, as the plot moves on the clues tend to help the reader solve the crime, In Lot 49 the exact opposite occurs. As she sees more muted horns, more mails and even a W.A.S.T.E mailman, Oedipa gets more confused and even deeper into the problem, no where nearer to a solution.
There’s a very interesting event when Oedipa reaches her hotel. She is driven into a deaf-mute dance party where every couple dances to the rhythm the man has in his head. “But how long, Oedipa thought could it go on before collisions became a serious hindrance? There would have to be collisions (pg 107).” Despite their various rhythms, the couples never crash in their entropy, in their chaos. There is no apparent communication and they move amongst themselves harmlessly. Again, Pynchon shows the communication theme. Words are problematic. They create conspiracies, fights and can be hurtful. In a universe, the deaf-mute universe, no such problem appears to exist. This reminded me of a Depeche Mode song titled Enjoy the Silence. The lyrics say:
Vows are spokenBoth Pynchon and Depeche Mode allude to the same thing: words are not the most effective way to communicate, they generate confusion and have many interpretations; therefore they are meaningless.
To be broken
Feelings are intense
Words are trivial
Pleasures remain
So does the pain
Words are meaningless
And forgettable
Oedipa decides to return to her own town and talk with Dr. Hilarius to tell her she is imagining things. She doesn’t want to have to face the “reality” of Tristero, she just wants an explanation for everything that is going on around her. She finds that Dr. Hilarius has gone crazy, completely paranoid as his past has caught up to him. He kidnaps Oedipa and begins telling her how he used to do experiments on Jews during World War II. He is now afraid the Israelis are chasing him to punish him for his crimes. After a revealing conversation, the police arrest Hilarius and Oedipa is safe, but without answers. The character of Dr. Hilarius is a clear satire of many aspects. He makes fun of an apparently sane person, a psychiatrist by making him a paranoid freak who used to do experiment on Jews, how can someone trust him? Well he became a successful doctor with loyal clients, Oedipa herself. This makes the reader think to what extent can you trust others with helping you with your problems if they might have worse problems than yourself? He also mocks the apparent benefits of paranoia, “But I never took the drug, I chose to remain in relative paranoia, where at least I know who I am and who the others are (pg 111).” This is very ridiculous, yet many parts of society live that way. They buy guns for fears that might not exist, they hate people for reasons that might not be true, and in the end they live in permanent fear. Pynchon even attacks medicine by mocking the ridiculous use of LSD as a medicine in Dr. Hilarius’ clinic. This seems absurd, but the drugs used today as legal medicines are not that safer, they have serious side effects and, like LSD, blur reality and dreams.
After Oedipa leaves the clinic, she finds her husband, Mucho there and she meets him. She later finds out that he is taking LSD. Oedipa realizes she doesn’t really know her husband. Pynchon mocks the common junkie, they are like Mucho by saying the drug has helped them, that they can quit. In reality the drug is controlling them. After this event we can see that Oedipa has become almost completely isolated, Dr. Hilarius cannot help her, her husband is gone to drugs and the Demon didn’t give her answers. Isolation is the opposite of communication and it seems none gives benefits. Communication can lead to misinterpretations and fights, but isolation leads to paranoia like what happened to Dr. Hilarius. Which is better?
Get your facts right, check your sources.... The Crying of Lot 49
The fourth chapter of The Crying of lot 49 really begins showing the reader the alleged conspiracy brewing around Oedipa. In one of Inverarity’s companies, Yoyodyne, Oedipa meets Stanley Koteks who is drawing Tristero’s symbol in a folder. Oedipa begins talking with him and the conversation leads to patent laws and corporations in America. Koteks asks Oedipa, who tells him she is a stockholder, to reform patent laws so the individual get recognition like the inventors of old. He criticizes how now everyone is part of a “team” or “task force” and he is lost amongst the paperwork while the leaders of the corporation get all the credit. Ironically, Oedipa was at a stockholder meeting where everyone sang along to a song that called for teamwork and unity. “To the end we swear undying / Loyalty to you (pg 65).” Pynchon is probably showing this contradiction to criticize megacorporations in which everyone is just a number and nothing else, yet the call for teamwork. It is to note that the ones that sang were stockholders, some of the highest positions in the company, the ones that obtain the dividends and recognition and are the ones that urge teamwork because they profit from other people’s work. Stanley’s conversation makes Oedipa start to believe a giant conspiracy involving many different areas and people is underway. Stanley points Oedipa to a Berkeley scientist, John Nefastis, who has invented a perpetual motion machine. This machine however, can only work with “sensitive” people.
Oedipa gets a book with The Courier’s Tragedy in it and reads to find out more about Tristero. She finds some strange annotations from a Berkely publisher so she decides to go there and meet the publisher and Nefastis. On her way, she stops at a retirement home property of Inverarity and there she meets a random old man who tells her about his grandfather who rode at the time of the Pony Express. He narrates how he killed some fake-indians who carried rings with the Tristero symbol. Chilled, Oedipa goes back to San Narcisso to organize her thoughts. Could this be a strange coincidence or is it just Oedipa’s paranoia and underlying wish for a change in her life?
Her worries are worsened when she meets with a stamp expert who finds some strange stamps in Inverarity’s collection. There are some that have the Tristero symbol, some American and some German, and Oedipa now believes this is a bigger conspiracy and for time-spanning than she had thought. Still the strange versions of The Courier’s Tragedy, the fake-indian ring, and the fraudulent stamps make the fact of determining what is really going on a monumental task. Pynchon shows this issue to show how even today, with science and vast knowledge, truth is still uncertain. Can a machine (Maxwell’s Demon) defy an established scientific law? Who can we trust as a source? How do we relate events? This reminds me of what we are constantly told to do in school, “Get your facts right, check your sources.” The internet has given students countless of places to obtain information from, but which do we believe? Wkipedia? A blog? A newspage? Whatever we choose, information is always being monitored, changed and edited to suit different objectives. Could we be living as the citizens in 1984? Under the information from a “Ministry of Truth” that shows us what they want us to believe? Pynchon wants us to rethink our concept of truth. This theme greatly influences the overall them of he novel which is communication. After all, is it possible to truly communicate without the truth?
Oedipa gets a book with The Courier’s Tragedy in it and reads to find out more about Tristero. She finds some strange annotations from a Berkely publisher so she decides to go there and meet the publisher and Nefastis. On her way, she stops at a retirement home property of Inverarity and there she meets a random old man who tells her about his grandfather who rode at the time of the Pony Express. He narrates how he killed some fake-indians who carried rings with the Tristero symbol. Chilled, Oedipa goes back to San Narcisso to organize her thoughts. Could this be a strange coincidence or is it just Oedipa’s paranoia and underlying wish for a change in her life?
Her worries are worsened when she meets with a stamp expert who finds some strange stamps in Inverarity’s collection. There are some that have the Tristero symbol, some American and some German, and Oedipa now believes this is a bigger conspiracy and for time-spanning than she had thought. Still the strange versions of The Courier’s Tragedy, the fake-indian ring, and the fraudulent stamps make the fact of determining what is really going on a monumental task. Pynchon shows this issue to show how even today, with science and vast knowledge, truth is still uncertain. Can a machine (Maxwell’s Demon) defy an established scientific law? Who can we trust as a source? How do we relate events? This reminds me of what we are constantly told to do in school, “Get your facts right, check your sources.” The internet has given students countless of places to obtain information from, but which do we believe? Wkipedia? A blog? A newspage? Whatever we choose, information is always being monitored, changed and edited to suit different objectives. Could we be living as the citizens in 1984? Under the information from a “Ministry of Truth” that shows us what they want us to believe? Pynchon wants us to rethink our concept of truth. This theme greatly influences the overall them of he novel which is communication. After all, is it possible to truly communicate without the truth?
jueves, 27 de marzo de 2008
Conspiracy of One -- The Crying of Lot 49
The third chapter of the Crying of Lot 49 begins by foreshadowing events to come. “If one object behind her discovery of what she was to label the Tristero System or often only the Tristero… (pg 31)” This left me wondering, a big curiosity as to what it could be. Perhaps Pynchon intended this to give the reader as much curiosity as Oedipa had on the Tristero. Pynchon is trying to lead us exactly to where he wants. Then he starts showing us small hints of something new happening, “Report all obscene mail to your potsmaster (pg 33).” First the foreshadow and then the small typo which is later noticed by Oedipa makes the reader really begin to seek the connection of the events. Is this purposely done by Pynchon? As many other things in the book I believe so.
Oedipa and Metzger go to a nightclub called The Scope and there they meet Mike Fallopian, a right-wing extremist. His society is very radical in its belief of free enterprise and capitalism to such an extent that they use an underground mail system because the U.S Postal Service had monopolized the mail. Could Pynchon mock the right-wingers by making them take a stand on such a silly matter as the post? Is this a bigger symbol for the defiance of authority in the world? Perhaps it’s both. As a satire, the novel can simply be making fun of right wings. Even the name of the extremist is funny, Fallopian? However, with the whole context of Tristero and Potsmaster, joined by the strange feelings Oedipa has, the reader would be guided to believe there’s more to practically everything to this book. What it really is seems easily debatable either way.
Later on in the chapter, Oedipa goes to Fangoso Lagoons and meets a lawyer who is suing Inverarity for not paying some bones his client sold to the corporation and were used to make charcoal or for scuba diving decorations. The bones were originally the corpses of WWII American soldiers who died in a battle in Italy. This reminded one of Oedipa’s companions, a member of The Paranoids, about a play called The Courier’s Tragedy which related a similar story. People are also killed by a lake and are thrown in, making a connection with Inverarity’s bones. They also mention Trystero, “No Hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow, / Who’s once been set his tryst with Trystero (pg 58).” Here Oedipa “clicks” and feels a strange attraction to the word. After the play, she goes backstage to talk with the director and ask about the bones in the lake, but she ends up talking about Trystero. The director, Randolph Driblette, tells Oedipa she is thinking too much about the words and he simply wrote a play to entertain, there’s no meaning to it.
These events are very interesting, Pynchon guides the reader through the events in a way that makes us feel there is something strange in them, something worth noting. Even the name of the Lagoons, Fangoso, tries to tell the reader there is something “muddy” going on. Here there is some satire regarding suits and the law. Manny di Presso is suing Inverarity for not paying for some bones, but the origin of the bones is in fact, illegal. Distrurbing resting places of the dead, especially soldiers killed in combat would not be looked upon well in court, still the lawsuit is happening. Could Pynchon be mocking the absurdities that Americans use to sue other people? I remember once hearing about a thief who sued the owners of a house he broke into because he hurt himself while entering! When Driblette tells Oedipa she is analyzing too much, I saw that comment addressed at the reader too. Pynchon has led us to a state of wonder where everything has meaning and now, when he says Oedipa analyses too much he is telling the reader he is looking in vain for meaning. “Hey I am just making fun of society….including you” is what Pynchon might be telling us.
Oedipa and Metzger go to a nightclub called The Scope and there they meet Mike Fallopian, a right-wing extremist. His society is very radical in its belief of free enterprise and capitalism to such an extent that they use an underground mail system because the U.S Postal Service had monopolized the mail. Could Pynchon mock the right-wingers by making them take a stand on such a silly matter as the post? Is this a bigger symbol for the defiance of authority in the world? Perhaps it’s both. As a satire, the novel can simply be making fun of right wings. Even the name of the extremist is funny, Fallopian? However, with the whole context of Tristero and Potsmaster, joined by the strange feelings Oedipa has, the reader would be guided to believe there’s more to practically everything to this book. What it really is seems easily debatable either way.
Later on in the chapter, Oedipa goes to Fangoso Lagoons and meets a lawyer who is suing Inverarity for not paying some bones his client sold to the corporation and were used to make charcoal or for scuba diving decorations. The bones were originally the corpses of WWII American soldiers who died in a battle in Italy. This reminded one of Oedipa’s companions, a member of The Paranoids, about a play called The Courier’s Tragedy which related a similar story. People are also killed by a lake and are thrown in, making a connection with Inverarity’s bones. They also mention Trystero, “No Hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow, / Who’s once been set his tryst with Trystero (pg 58).” Here Oedipa “clicks” and feels a strange attraction to the word. After the play, she goes backstage to talk with the director and ask about the bones in the lake, but she ends up talking about Trystero. The director, Randolph Driblette, tells Oedipa she is thinking too much about the words and he simply wrote a play to entertain, there’s no meaning to it.
These events are very interesting, Pynchon guides the reader through the events in a way that makes us feel there is something strange in them, something worth noting. Even the name of the Lagoons, Fangoso, tries to tell the reader there is something “muddy” going on. Here there is some satire regarding suits and the law. Manny di Presso is suing Inverarity for not paying for some bones, but the origin of the bones is in fact, illegal. Distrurbing resting places of the dead, especially soldiers killed in combat would not be looked upon well in court, still the lawsuit is happening. Could Pynchon be mocking the absurdities that Americans use to sue other people? I remember once hearing about a thief who sued the owners of a house he broke into because he hurt himself while entering! When Driblette tells Oedipa she is analyzing too much, I saw that comment addressed at the reader too. Pynchon has led us to a state of wonder where everything has meaning and now, when he says Oedipa analyses too much he is telling the reader he is looking in vain for meaning. “Hey I am just making fun of society….including you” is what Pynchon might be telling us.
martes, 25 de marzo de 2008
Blue Pill or Red Pill? The Crying of Lot 49
The world is filled with coincidences. I usually see them as simple events that my mind relates together but in reality are not connected or are guided by some mysterious force. In the second chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 I felt particularly intrigued by the many coincidences and weird feelings occurring throughout the novel. It makes me feel like there is a mysterious actor in this novel, working in the shadows for unknown reasons. How Metzger is speaking about his young acting career and at that very moment one of the movies he filmed when he was just a kid was passed on television in the very channel Oedipa tuned into. Like she said, it was unbelievable. “Either he made up the whole thing, Oedipa thought suddenly, or he bribed the engineer over at the local station to run this, it’s all part of a plot, an elaborate, seduction, plot (pg 20).” That event was just strange and unexpected, yet its importance was great for the whole chapter. Another strange coincidence, maybe simply artistic in the novel, was the blowing of a light fuse by a band playing outside of Oedipa’s room just as her sexual relation came to a climax. The music and the intercourse being connected by an increasing crescendo of force and reaching their climax at the same time. Her climax and Metzger’s, when it came, coincided with every light in the place, including the TV tube, suddenly going out, dead, black. It was a curious experience (pg 30).” What importance do these coincidences have in the novel? Purely aesthetic and descriptive tools used by Pynchon, or do they hide a bigger meaning? I believe they have a higher meaning because Pynchon makes them stand out from other event, mentioning they were “a curious experience”. Hopefully their importance will become greater as the novel advances.
This reminded me of the movie The Matrix. Since the whole world is a program and humans are inmerssed in it, there shouldn't be errors and bugs. When Neo has a deja vu he takes it as a simple human mind trick, but his friends know its actually a glitch in the system. This strange look on coincidences and weird occurances gave me a similar feeling to what was happening on the novel.
This novel has given me a strange mood while reading it. Nothing has really happened but there is this feeling of “calm before the storm”, as if something big is going to happen. I especially felt this when Oedipa sees the whole city and has a strange event: “Though she knew even less about radios than about Southern Californians, there were to both outward patterns a hieroglyphic sense of concealed meaning, of an intent to communicate. There’d seemed no limit to what the printed circuit could have told her; so in her first minute in San Narciso, a revelation just trembled past the threshold of her understanding (pg 14).” This whole analysis of a simple arrival of a city made me realize there is much more to these emotions than simple artistic devices, they must have a purpose and I am intrigued at what they could be.
I have noticed Pynchon uses a lot of commas in his sentences. “Either he made up the whole thing, Oedipa thought suddenly, or he bribed the engineer over at the local station to run this, it’s all part of a plot, an elaborate, seduction, plot (pg 20).” In this excerpt there are seven commas, including commas for lists and for joining clauses. His sometimes choppy thought reminds me of how a confused or scared person begins to think, ideas just rambling inside their minds at a fast speed. Pynchon achieved that effect in the excerpt as Oedipa is very confused and the sentence clearly makes the reader feel that. Still commas often make the sentences long and confusing, forcing me to read a sentence twice to fully grasp its meaning.
This reminded me of the movie The Matrix. Since the whole world is a program and humans are inmerssed in it, there shouldn't be errors and bugs. When Neo has a deja vu he takes it as a simple human mind trick, but his friends know its actually a glitch in the system. This strange look on coincidences and weird occurances gave me a similar feeling to what was happening on the novel.
This novel has given me a strange mood while reading it. Nothing has really happened but there is this feeling of “calm before the storm”, as if something big is going to happen. I especially felt this when Oedipa sees the whole city and has a strange event: “Though she knew even less about radios than about Southern Californians, there were to both outward patterns a hieroglyphic sense of concealed meaning, of an intent to communicate. There’d seemed no limit to what the printed circuit could have told her; so in her first minute in San Narciso, a revelation just trembled past the threshold of her understanding (pg 14).” This whole analysis of a simple arrival of a city made me realize there is much more to these emotions than simple artistic devices, they must have a purpose and I am intrigued at what they could be.
I have noticed Pynchon uses a lot of commas in his sentences. “Either he made up the whole thing, Oedipa thought suddenly, or he bribed the engineer over at the local station to run this, it’s all part of a plot, an elaborate, seduction, plot (pg 20).” In this excerpt there are seven commas, including commas for lists and for joining clauses. His sometimes choppy thought reminds me of how a confused or scared person begins to think, ideas just rambling inside their minds at a fast speed. Pynchon achieved that effect in the excerpt as Oedipa is very confused and the sentence clearly makes the reader feel that. Still commas often make the sentences long and confusing, forcing me to read a sentence twice to fully grasp its meaning.
Emperatrix Oedipa -- The Crying of Lot 49
The first chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 introduces us to Oedipa Maas, a woman who has strangely been chosen to execute the will of her former boyfriend Pierce Inverarity. The reason for this was unknown as Oedipa and Pierce had not had contact for a long time, the last time having been a weird three-in-the-morning call. Still, Oedipa is such a new character that I can expect anything from the novel; however, Pynchon foreshadows big and strange things, “As things developed, she was to have all manner of revelations. Hardly about Pierce Inverarity, or herself; but about what remained yet had somehow, before this, stayed away (pg 10).
The chapter and maybe the whole novel are written in a style that is pretty hard to follow. I felt very confused with Pynchon’s writing. His sentences are very long and are structured in a way hard to follow. Hopefully, I will get used to Pynchon’s writing.
The book seems to have interesting ideas, for example Mucho’s previous job of used car salesman seemed to have made a great mark on him, something I wouldn’t expect from that harmless job. When Pynchon begins describing how each car has part of its owner in it, his hopes and dreams and they are “an extension of themselves”. When we see that job from that perspective it is easier to understand Mucho’s situation. If Pynchon has such a unique perspective of the world, this book will prove very interesting.
Despite being confusing, the novel contains some very interesting descriptions, “There had hung the sense of buffering, insulation, she had noticed the absence of an intensity, as if watching a movie, just perceptibly out of focus, that the projectionist refused to fix (pg 10). That feeling is pretty strange, not fully shown by a word and Pynchon cleverly describes it like that slight annoyance in the movies which gives the reader a very vivid image of the emotion.
I found Pynchon’s choice for the character’s names deliberate and well developed. Oedipa obviously alludes to Oedipus, the famous Greek hero. The reason for this is yet to come but it gives perhaps an idea or it makes the reader purposely think of Oedipus while reading the novel. “Mucho” Maas describes the character’s personality. He has a lot going on in his head, with his obsession with the car lot and his personality as a DJ. Maybe further on in the book the name will become even more appropriate. Oeadipa’s shrink, Dr. Hilarius is very appropriately named as his whole personality is hilarious. His call in the middle of the night, his questions, his “connection” with Oedipa, his attempt to test LSD, all this makes him a very funny character.
The chapter and maybe the whole novel are written in a style that is pretty hard to follow. I felt very confused with Pynchon’s writing. His sentences are very long and are structured in a way hard to follow. Hopefully, I will get used to Pynchon’s writing.
The book seems to have interesting ideas, for example Mucho’s previous job of used car salesman seemed to have made a great mark on him, something I wouldn’t expect from that harmless job. When Pynchon begins describing how each car has part of its owner in it, his hopes and dreams and they are “an extension of themselves”. When we see that job from that perspective it is easier to understand Mucho’s situation. If Pynchon has such a unique perspective of the world, this book will prove very interesting.
Despite being confusing, the novel contains some very interesting descriptions, “There had hung the sense of buffering, insulation, she had noticed the absence of an intensity, as if watching a movie, just perceptibly out of focus, that the projectionist refused to fix (pg 10). That feeling is pretty strange, not fully shown by a word and Pynchon cleverly describes it like that slight annoyance in the movies which gives the reader a very vivid image of the emotion.
I found Pynchon’s choice for the character’s names deliberate and well developed. Oedipa obviously alludes to Oedipus, the famous Greek hero. The reason for this is yet to come but it gives perhaps an idea or it makes the reader purposely think of Oedipus while reading the novel. “Mucho” Maas describes the character’s personality. He has a lot going on in his head, with his obsession with the car lot and his personality as a DJ. Maybe further on in the book the name will become even more appropriate. Oeadipa’s shrink, Dr. Hilarius is very appropriately named as his whole personality is hilarious. His call in the middle of the night, his questions, his “connection” with Oedipa, his attempt to test LSD, all this makes him a very funny character.
A Biography on Society -- The Hollow Men
In his poem The Hollow Men, T.S Eliot narrates the views of the world from the eyes of a person who sees every other person as hollow. What does that mean? A hollow person is someone who has no emotion or personality? Despite this being an interesting hypothesis, I feel Eliot attempts to use the “Hollow” metaphor at a societal level. This could is supported by his title, The Hollow Men. Had Eliot referred to the individual he would have used “man” to state the feelings of a single person.
This first stanza of the poem is very powerful. It talks about society as a meaningless and worthless voice, much like a mouse in a cellar. Eliot’s use of “we” made me feel part of the poem and gave me a starting point for reflection. Interestingly, many of the verses are contradictions between them and this greatly highlights the purpose of this stanza. In the first two verses, “hollow” and “stuffed” have opposite meanings, why would Eliot use them to describe the same theme? The first word that came to my mind after reading these verses was “hypocrisy”. Humans are almost by their very nature two-faced. We tend to show others different, often purposely created, personalities of ourselves. This is what allows humans to be “hollow” and “stuffed” at the same time. By speaking while being “stuffed” as a different person, our voices are dried of all their meaning.
“Shape without form, shade without colour, / Paralysed force, gesture without motion (line 11); “Again, Eliot uses these contradictions to describe humans, we have a body with actual form but that doesn’t give us a true shape. Our many masks can make us change appearances easily.
Next to the first stanza, this is another extremely powerful stanza for me. It talks about people who have died with “direct eyes”, perhaps not of old age but died unexpectedly? Soldiers killed by a bullet, a man killed by a car, all these I believe have met death with direct eyes. These people, Eliot believes, do not remember the violence of their deaths but the indifference given to them by society, by the hollow men. The stanza immediately reminded me of politics. It reminded me of politicians and businessmen who express their horror at death during war or hard times but in reality think about business and personal profits. Politicians, in my opinion, are the best example of hollow men. They are stuffed with words and empty thoughts but in reality they are hollow of many values.
The second section of the poem shows one of the masks of society’s hollow men:
The fourth section speaks of how the hollow men become when hardship hits them. When others are going through dire times, hollow men lift false hope towards them, but when hollow men themselves get hit they expect everything.
As their last chance, hollow men come together and attempt to work together. Interestingly, they “avoid speech”, they avoid the poison that made their society indifferent to hardships so it will hopefully turn its eyes back on them. “Sightless, unless /The eyes reappear (line 61)… The hope only /Of empty men (line 66).”
The fifth and last section of the poem concludes and reflects on this hollow men society. “Between the motion / And the act / Falls the Shadow (line 74).” Hollow men live in the limbo of moral. They straddle between taking actions and just speaking of them, as Eliot would put it, Hollow men are masters of the Shadow. Eliot finishes the poem with a great, yet very disturbing phrase: “This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper (line 99).” I usually picture the end of the human race as a war spectacle of biblical proportions, a terrible and gruesome sight, but fantastic in power. Eliot foreshadows that humans will end very differently, whimpering and begging for help. Which is true is left to be seen, but Eliot’s end gave me tingle down my spine.
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning togetherHeadpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar (line 1)
This first stanza of the poem is very powerful. It talks about society as a meaningless and worthless voice, much like a mouse in a cellar. Eliot’s use of “we” made me feel part of the poem and gave me a starting point for reflection. Interestingly, many of the verses are contradictions between them and this greatly highlights the purpose of this stanza. In the first two verses, “hollow” and “stuffed” have opposite meanings, why would Eliot use them to describe the same theme? The first word that came to my mind after reading these verses was “hypocrisy”. Humans are almost by their very nature two-faced. We tend to show others different, often purposely created, personalities of ourselves. This is what allows humans to be “hollow” and “stuffed” at the same time. By speaking while being “stuffed” as a different person, our voices are dried of all their meaning.
“Shape without form, shade without colour, / Paralysed force, gesture without motion (line 11); “Again, Eliot uses these contradictions to describe humans, we have a body with actual form but that doesn’t give us a true shape. Our many masks can make us change appearances easily.
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us — if at all — not as lost
Violent souls, but onlyAs the hollow men
The stuffed men.
Next to the first stanza, this is another extremely powerful stanza for me. It talks about people who have died with “direct eyes”, perhaps not of old age but died unexpectedly? Soldiers killed by a bullet, a man killed by a car, all these I believe have met death with direct eyes. These people, Eliot believes, do not remember the violence of their deaths but the indifference given to them by society, by the hollow men. The stanza immediately reminded me of politics. It reminded me of politicians and businessmen who express their horror at death during war or hard times but in reality think about business and personal profits. Politicians, in my opinion, are the best example of hollow men. They are stuffed with words and empty thoughts but in reality they are hollow of many values.
The second section of the poem shows one of the masks of society’s hollow men:
In death’s other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone (line 46).
The fourth section speaks of how the hollow men become when hardship hits them. When others are going through dire times, hollow men lift false hope towards them, but when hollow men themselves get hit they expect everything.
In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river (line 57),
As their last chance, hollow men come together and attempt to work together. Interestingly, they “avoid speech”, they avoid the poison that made their society indifferent to hardships so it will hopefully turn its eyes back on them. “Sightless, unless /The eyes reappear (line 61)… The hope only /Of empty men (line 66).”
The fifth and last section of the poem concludes and reflects on this hollow men society. “Between the motion / And the act / Falls the Shadow (line 74).” Hollow men live in the limbo of moral. They straddle between taking actions and just speaking of them, as Eliot would put it, Hollow men are masters of the Shadow. Eliot finishes the poem with a great, yet very disturbing phrase: “This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper (line 99).” I usually picture the end of the human race as a war spectacle of biblical proportions, a terrible and gruesome sight, but fantastic in power. Eliot foreshadows that humans will end very differently, whimpering and begging for help. Which is true is left to be seen, but Eliot’s end gave me tingle down my spine.
What if? The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
In his poem, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, T.S Eliot explores the life of a secret lover, someone who takes long to reveal his love.
In the first part of the poem he talks about the indecisive lovers which postpone their love eternally and eventually realize there is no time left to spend with their much desired love.
“And indeed there will be time,” this phrase is thought by many who do not dare show their true love to others for fear of failing or being rejected. The speaker mentions meeting the same people his lover knows, this seems like a plan of meeting his love’s friends and getting near her in this way. He also mentions time to “murder and create”, this sounds like a planned strategy as creation and destruction need thought and organization. The speaker believes a plan without fixed time and no hurry will lead him to his love; however, Eliot later shows the reader how this is not the case.
“Do I dare?” despite the secret lover’s plans and tranquility, everything comes to taking the step and showing your love. At this time no planning really helps. When the lover doesn’t dare, he grows old without knowing what his life would have been like had he dared. Then he reflects on his life of analysis and planning, “I have known them all already, know them all-- /Have know the evenings, morning, afternoons (line 49).” He shows how every step, every coffee spoon, was measured, how every phrase was formulated. He finally realizes what he was doing all that time, “And in short, I was afraid (line 86).” This whole tale reminds me of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel, El Amor en los Tiempos del Cólera. The main character spends over 50 years waiting on his love and after all those decades he finally was able to be with her after planning every aspect of their life.
If I was on that same situation, I would ask myself “Was it worth it?” Eliot also narrates this part of the lover’s life and states how foolish and worthless this life is.
He has been “politic, cautious, and meticulous” this might seem a good think as no rash decisions or impulses would be followed, but in the game of love this makes him look ridiculous and at times the Fool.
“Love Song” by The Cure
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am home again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am whole again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am young again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am fun again
However far away I will always love you
However long I stay I will always love you
Whatever words I say I will always love you
I will always love you
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am free again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am clean again
However far away I will always love you
However long I stay I will always love you
Whatever words I say I will always love you
I will always love you
This song by The Cure speaks about love and it basically talks about the things the character in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock couldn’t say in his life. Love made Eliot’s character afraid and unwilling to risk a change. In The Cure’s song, love makes the speaker show all his emotions and really makes him show his true self. His love makes him feel at home and even free from the world. “Whenever I’m alone with you / You make me feel like I am home again (line 1). “ Love is such a powerful emotion, so overwhelming that fully explaining it seems impossible. When The Cure states this love as taking the speaker back home it depicts the emotion simply, but home is such a personal and powerful memory that the reader can grasp what the speaker means.
The planning and fear of Eliot’s character made him never experience these simple, yet filling emotions from “Love Song”.
In the first part of the poem he talks about the indecisive lovers which postpone their love eternally and eventually realize there is no time left to spend with their much desired love.
And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the
street,
Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;
There will be time, there
will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will
be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of
hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate; (line 23)
“And indeed there will be time,” this phrase is thought by many who do not dare show their true love to others for fear of failing or being rejected. The speaker mentions meeting the same people his lover knows, this seems like a plan of meeting his love’s friends and getting near her in this way. He also mentions time to “murder and create”, this sounds like a planned strategy as creation and destruction need thought and organization. The speaker believes a plan without fixed time and no hurry will lead him to his love; however, Eliot later shows the reader how this is not the case.
And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I
dare?”
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the
middle of my hair—
[They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”]
My
morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and
modest, but asserted by a simple pin—
[They will say: “But how his arms and
legs are thin!”]
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is
time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. (line 37)
“Do I dare?” despite the secret lover’s plans and tranquility, everything comes to taking the step and showing your love. At this time no planning really helps. When the lover doesn’t dare, he grows old without knowing what his life would have been like had he dared. Then he reflects on his life of analysis and planning, “I have known them all already, know them all-- /Have know the evenings, morning, afternoons (line 49).” He shows how every step, every coffee spoon, was measured, how every phrase was formulated. He finally realizes what he was doing all that time, “And in short, I was afraid (line 86).” This whole tale reminds me of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel, El Amor en los Tiempos del Cólera. The main character spends over 50 years waiting on his love and after all those decades he finally was able to be with her after planning every aspect of their life.
If I was on that same situation, I would ask myself “Was it worth it?” Eliot also narrates this part of the lover’s life and states how foolish and worthless this life is.
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or
two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of
use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit
obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.
(line 112)
He has been “politic, cautious, and meticulous” this might seem a good think as no rash decisions or impulses would be followed, but in the game of love this makes him look ridiculous and at times the Fool.
“Love Song” by The Cure
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am home again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am whole again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am young again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am fun again
However far away I will always love you
However long I stay I will always love you
Whatever words I say I will always love you
I will always love you
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am free again
Whenever I'm alone with you
You make me feel like I am clean again
However far away I will always love you
However long I stay I will always love you
Whatever words I say I will always love you
I will always love you
This song by The Cure speaks about love and it basically talks about the things the character in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock couldn’t say in his life. Love made Eliot’s character afraid and unwilling to risk a change. In The Cure’s song, love makes the speaker show all his emotions and really makes him show his true self. His love makes him feel at home and even free from the world. “Whenever I’m alone with you / You make me feel like I am home again (line 1). “ Love is such a powerful emotion, so overwhelming that fully explaining it seems impossible. When The Cure states this love as taking the speaker back home it depicts the emotion simply, but home is such a personal and powerful memory that the reader can grasp what the speaker means.
The planning and fear of Eliot’s character made him never experience these simple, yet filling emotions from “Love Song”.
lunes, 10 de marzo de 2008
The call of Jesus, Buddha, and Ovid -- The Waste Land Pts. 3,4 & 5
In sections three, four and five of The Waste Land, T.S Eliot uses many allusions to other texts and historical moments which have greatly affected humanity. Eliot effectively uses them as tools to give his epic a greater impact on the reader.
Tiresias was perhaps the most famous of Greek soothsayers. He was given the gift of seeing the future by the gods, but was blinded when he stumbled upon Athena during her bath. Why Eliot uses him in this part of the poem, when he is describing a sexual encounter between a man and a woman, is still not clear to me. Maybe Tiresias’ soothsaying could represent the inevitability of the sexual encounter and how humans are such animals that that sex could be predicted. Tiresias is also mentioned in Dante’s Inferno when he is shown in lower hell in the ring of the fraudulent. Dante shows him as a frau while Eliot shows him as a real soothsayer. During Dante’s time, it wouldn’t have been farfetched to believe in people who could predict the future but in the XX century it is far more unlikely to believe it. In The Waste Land that is exactly the case. Likely, Tiresias is simply a tool used by Eliot to unite his text with all kinds of cultures and beliefs and thus make it more universal.
The mentioning of Carthage is a very interesting one. This once-great city was burned to oblivion by the Roman Empire during the Punic Wars and it respresents the brutality of humans. The Romans enslaved over 50,000 people and burned the whole city, leaving few records. Much like the Lord did with Sodom and Gomorrah when they were destroyed by fire, the Romans did the same to Carthage. This is likely why Eliot describes the fall of Carthage and the Lord together. “The Fire Sermon” Is finished with this excerpt and thus very majestically states how human passion and impulse, like Roman hatred for Carthage or human decadence in Sodom, lead to fire and destruction.
Despite this stanza not containing any specific allusions to a text or character, after reading it I immediately thought of the Greek Tartarus. Here, people who challenge the Gods faced the worse punishment – desire. King Tantalus for example, was submerged up to his chin in water and placed in front of an apple tree. In that position he was condemned to eternal hunger and thirst. Much like the speaker in the poem who desires water while only obtaining rocks and grass, Tantalus is doomed to dissatisfaction and frustration. This is, I think, is the worse state for a person, to live in perpetual desire for something essential to our life.
Since I grew up under Catholicism, I was always told that there was always a guardian angel watching out for me, much like the figure that “walks always beside you.” We can’t see him, like the speaker states, but people who believe feel the presence of another being next to them. Could have Eliot chosen this, or something similar, when he wrote this stanza? He mentions a hooded figure, perhaps the author meant Death, which always accompanies us in life’s journey.
This allusion directly talks about the famous children’s song “London Bridge”. It describes how one of civilization’s most outstanding landmarks, London Bridge, fell. I believe Eliot attempted to use this song to show how society is crippling and falling down without humans noticing. Humans simply forget the event or rid it of importance, like “London Bridge”.
A very interesting part of this study was seeing how all human history and human beliefs can be written down in a single poem. Eliot manages to place Greeks, Romans, Catholics, and Hindus in a way that they all flow flawlessly in a call for human mental revival. I found this one of the most enduring aspects of T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land
THE river's tent is broken: the last fingers of leafEliot uses the nymphs, Greek mythological creatures that dwell in springs, rivers and wells, to give the Thames River life. Nymphs were female, playful creatures that interacted a lot with humans, much like a river interacts with people today; however, Eliot says that the nymphs have left the river. The Thames still exists but all its life and original nature are gone. This is what society has done to nature, rid it of all spark, of all life. The contrast between the beautiful and joyful nymphs with the dread of a dead river gives the text a great impact on the reader.
Clutch and sink into the
wet bank. The wind
Crosses the brown land, unheard. The nymphs are departed
(sec 3 line 175).
I Tiresias, old man with wrinkled dugs
Perceived the scene, and foretold the
rest—
I too awaited the expected guest (sec 3 line 228).
Tiresias was perhaps the most famous of Greek soothsayers. He was given the gift of seeing the future by the gods, but was blinded when he stumbled upon Athena during her bath. Why Eliot uses him in this part of the poem, when he is describing a sexual encounter between a man and a woman, is still not clear to me. Maybe Tiresias’ soothsaying could represent the inevitability of the sexual encounter and how humans are such animals that that sex could be predicted. Tiresias is also mentioned in Dante’s Inferno when he is shown in lower hell in the ring of the fraudulent. Dante shows him as a frau while Eliot shows him as a real soothsayer. During Dante’s time, it wouldn’t have been farfetched to believe in people who could predict the future but in the XX century it is far more unlikely to believe it. In The Waste Land that is exactly the case. Likely, Tiresias is simply a tool used by Eliot to unite his text with all kinds of cultures and beliefs and thus make it more universal.
To Carthage then I came
Burning burning burning burning
O Lord
Thou pluckest me out
O Lord Thou pluckest
burning (sec 3 line
307)
The mentioning of Carthage is a very interesting one. This once-great city was burned to oblivion by the Roman Empire during the Punic Wars and it respresents the brutality of humans. The Romans enslaved over 50,000 people and burned the whole city, leaving few records. Much like the Lord did with Sodom and Gomorrah when they were destroyed by fire, the Romans did the same to Carthage. This is likely why Eliot describes the fall of Carthage and the Lord together. “The Fire Sermon” Is finished with this excerpt and thus very majestically states how human passion and impulse, like Roman hatred for Carthage or human decadence in Sodom, lead to fire and destruction.
If there were water
And no rock
If there were
rock
And also water
And water
A
spring
A pool among the rock
If there were the
sound of water only
Not the cicada
And dry grass
singing
But sound of water over a rock
Where the
hermit-thrush sings in the pine trees
Drip drop drip drop drop
drop drop
But there is no water (sec 5 line 346)
Despite this stanza not containing any specific allusions to a text or character, after reading it I immediately thought of the Greek Tartarus. Here, people who challenge the Gods faced the worse punishment – desire. King Tantalus for example, was submerged up to his chin in water and placed in front of an apple tree. In that position he was condemned to eternal hunger and thirst. Much like the speaker in the poem who desires water while only obtaining rocks and grass, Tantalus is doomed to dissatisfaction and frustration. This is, I think, is the worse state for a person, to live in perpetual desire for something essential to our life.
Who is the third who walks always beside you?
When I count, there are only
you and I together
But when I look ahead up the white road
There is always
another one walking beside you
Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded
I
do not know whether a man or a woman
—But who is that on the other side of
you (sec 5 line 361)?
Since I grew up under Catholicism, I was always told that there was always a guardian angel watching out for me, much like the figure that “walks always beside you.” We can’t see him, like the speaker states, but people who believe feel the presence of another being next to them. Could have Eliot chosen this, or something similar, when he wrote this stanza? He mentions a hooded figure, perhaps the author meant Death, which always accompanies us in life’s journey.
Ganga was sunken, and the limp leavesEliot mentions Hindu mythology in this stanza. Ganga is the name for the Ganges River in India, perhaps one of the most meaningful and important objects to Indian life. When Eliot describes such a great power sunken and limp, it gives the reader a tremendous impact and clearly states how even the most powerful can be in need. Following Ganga, Eliot mentions Himavant, the Hindu god of Snow, and he is believed to represent the Himalayas. How Ganga depends on Himavant might show how even the most powerful and important are not almighty and omnipresent.
Waited for rain, while the black
clouds
Gathered far distant, over Himavant.
The jungle crouched, humped in
silence (sec 5 line 395).
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down (sec 5 line 426)
This allusion directly talks about the famous children’s song “London Bridge”. It describes how one of civilization’s most outstanding landmarks, London Bridge, fell. I believe Eliot attempted to use this song to show how society is crippling and falling down without humans noticing. Humans simply forget the event or rid it of importance, like “London Bridge”.
A very interesting part of this study was seeing how all human history and human beliefs can be written down in a single poem. Eliot manages to place Greeks, Romans, Catholics, and Hindus in a way that they all flow flawlessly in a call for human mental revival. I found this one of the most enduring aspects of T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land
martes, 4 de marzo de 2008
Earth & Air - Power & Appearance -- The Waste Land I-II
After reading the first tow parts of "the Waste Land" once more, I believe my belief regarding Eliot's meaning in the poem seems to be confirmed. I believe that Eliot depicts modern human world as a decadent society and shows the elements that "compose" a world is his way of passing his message to the reader. He does uses the classical elements of fire, earth, water and air to show modern society, but this is not to be taken literally. Eliot uses these elements to represent what he believes are the main aspects of this decadent society.
In my previous entry of "The Burial of the Dead", I gave a general idea of this theory, but I feel it lacked a little depth. During the whole section, the narrator describes geographical landmarks such as mountains, deserts, lakes and cities. Next to this, Eliot also describes climate and seasons. What is Eliots pupose in carrying this general theme? I believe it attempts to show powerlessness and power itself. Mountains and deserts are vast things, much bigger than a human or beyond a human to change dramatically. They are power.
A human cannot possibly effectively control climate, they are powerless against it. We are forced to accept it or be surprised by it, like the narrator was by Summer. Of course summer can be predicted to an extent, but its effects and its intensity cannot be accurately predicted, much less controlled.
In the second stanza of the section, Eliot depicts a desert, barren land. He also uses words such as "broken", "rubbish", "dead", and "fear". For this I picture it as an apocalyptic area. This strong imagery shows man's greatest power in the world: destruction. Human capability for destruction is tremendous and it can have world-wide effects, such as pollution and war. By showing how "Earth" or "Nature" in the section makes humans powerless and how it is capable of great destruction, I believe Eliot uses this as a metaphor for human society. As a whole it is acapble of tremendous power and destruction, and when an individual, maybe someone of different beliefs, is attacked by it the person is completely impotent to combat society.
This is an interesting stanza of the poem. It does not mention vast landmasses or feelings of impotence; however, it still contains products form the Earth such as the Hyacinths. This flower is believed to be the Flower of the Orient, and thus carries great meaning. The sun sets in the orient and by this it can represent the end of an era or time. If we join this with the beauty that a flower carries, we see how Eliot mentions the end of a good or beautiful time. Having lived WWI, and the great expectations of "The War to End War" and the League of nations must have brought great hope for human progress after unimaginable death during the war. However, after the great disilusionment that came after the failure of the League of Nations and a prediction of war, society was seen as irreparable. This is represented by Eliot in the stanza above, "I was neither Living nor dead, and I knew nothing (sec 1 line 40)." The next line reads, "Looking into the heart of light, the silence (sec 1 line 41)." The narrator is looking into light, into good and hope, but he only finds silence. Society has no goodness to offer.
The next stanza talks about the future. The narrator is shown his fortune with the cards of the Tarot. The narrator is given the Phoenician Sailor, Belladona the Lady of Situations, the Man with Three Staves, the Wheel and the One-eyed Merchant. He mentions that "I do not find / The Hanged Man (sec 1 line 56)." The Tarot is completely foreign to me and I do not know how to interpret these cards, but I'm sure these carry heavy metaphorical meanings in the poem. The Phoenician Sailor, is known to be an invention as this card does not exist in the Tarot deck. What did Eliot intend it to represent? This card is mentioned throughout the poem, even in an entire section, "Death by Water."
Unreal City. This final stanza speaks mostly about death. “A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many, / I had not thought death had undone so many (sec 1 line 62).” What kind of death does Eliot mean? It is not physical, as there are people flowing through the city. I believe he is talking about a moral and spiritual death. The grim view of society after war and the failure of peace would make people feel that society was dead, irreparable. ”That corpse you planted last year in your garden, /'Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year? / 'Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed (sec 1 line 71)? Besides spiritual death, we can see the corpse buried in the garden as all the sacrifice made by society for peace during the war. The garden shows how everyone was affected in their most personal aspects. The sudden frost again alludes to climate, to power and how we cannot control it. Society killed our sacrifice and we are still waiting for the rewards it was supposed to bring.
“A Game of Chess” speaks of another element of modern society: air. Like European courtiers that often spoke lies and acted like they were someone else, modern society speaks and shows itself as if it was another thing.
In vials of ivory and colored glass Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes, Unguent, powdered, or liquid--troubled, confused And drowned the sense in odors; stirred by the air That freshened from the window, these ascended In flattening the prolonged candle flames, Flung their smoke into the laquearia, Stirring the pattern on the coffered ceiling. (Sec 2 line 87)
This vivid description depicts a room filled with fragrances and exotic essences that make it feel mysterious, different, something that, in reality, it might not be. This resembles humans because our species is always trying to hide its true being with a “civilized” mask. The savagery of war is hidden behind Laws and Customs of War. Domination of others is hidden behind politics and laws. With this, Eliot makes a call to the reader to realize how humans live in a fragrance-impregnated society.
But what does the author attempt to uncover after unmasking society?
The person asking the questions in this excerpt seems insecure, scared. His companion, the person who answers, acts calmly and sure of himself. When T.S Eliot read this part of the poem, he talked briskly and at a higher tone during the questions and at a slower and lower voice during the answers. This clearly shows the feelings intended for these speakers. The voices, the words each one speaks again represent society. The questions represent individual humans, people who feel scared and overwhelmed in a world filled with death and ignorance. The responses I feel are the answers of society to the individual, sure of itself and even bored by the whining of the individual. This shows the reader how society is in self denial, desiring to be secure and powerful but in reality it is scared and vulnerable.
Do You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember Nothing? (Sec 2 line 122)
As T.S Eliot reads the questions above, he seems exasperated, angry, and resentful. He is asking society why it is keeping this mask. No, it’s asking why the people allow that mask to be placed. Why does the individual seem to forget his true beliefs and falls into slavery under society? Can’t society remember its mistakes and prevent them? After such a terrible event as war, why did it go back to the way of life that led to that butchery?
This is what I feel was missing to the analysis of the first two parts of The Waste Land, after writing this and reading the sections several times I feel I have a greater understanding of T.S Eliot’s purpose when writing his masterpiece.
In my previous entry of "The Burial of the Dead", I gave a general idea of this theory, but I feel it lacked a little depth. During the whole section, the narrator describes geographical landmarks such as mountains, deserts, lakes and cities. Next to this, Eliot also describes climate and seasons. What is Eliots pupose in carrying this general theme? I believe it attempts to show powerlessness and power itself. Mountains and deserts are vast things, much bigger than a human or beyond a human to change dramatically. They are power.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower
of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten, (sec 1 line 9)
A human cannot possibly effectively control climate, they are powerless against it. We are forced to accept it or be surprised by it, like the narrator was by Summer. Of course summer can be predicted to an extent, but its effects and its intensity cannot be accurately predicted, much less controlled.
In the second stanza of the section, Eliot depicts a desert, barren land. He also uses words such as "broken", "rubbish", "dead", and "fear". For this I picture it as an apocalyptic area. This strong imagery shows man's greatest power in the world: destruction. Human capability for destruction is tremendous and it can have world-wide effects, such as pollution and war. By showing how "Earth" or "Nature" in the section makes humans powerless and how it is capable of great destruction, I believe Eliot uses this as a metaphor for human society. As a whole it is acapble of tremendous power and destruction, and when an individual, maybe someone of different beliefs, is attacked by it the person is completely impotent to combat society.
"You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;
They called me the
hyacinth girl."
--Yet when we came back, late, from the Hyacinth garden,
Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed,
I was neither Living nor
dead, and I knew nothing,
Looking into the heart of light, the
silence.
Oed' und leer das Meer. (sec 1 line 35)
This is an interesting stanza of the poem. It does not mention vast landmasses or feelings of impotence; however, it still contains products form the Earth such as the Hyacinths. This flower is believed to be the Flower of the Orient, and thus carries great meaning. The sun sets in the orient and by this it can represent the end of an era or time. If we join this with the beauty that a flower carries, we see how Eliot mentions the end of a good or beautiful time. Having lived WWI, and the great expectations of "The War to End War" and the League of nations must have brought great hope for human progress after unimaginable death during the war. However, after the great disilusionment that came after the failure of the League of Nations and a prediction of war, society was seen as irreparable. This is represented by Eliot in the stanza above, "I was neither Living nor dead, and I knew nothing (sec 1 line 40)." The next line reads, "Looking into the heart of light, the silence (sec 1 line 41)." The narrator is looking into light, into good and hope, but he only finds silence. Society has no goodness to offer.
The next stanza talks about the future. The narrator is shown his fortune with the cards of the Tarot. The narrator is given the Phoenician Sailor, Belladona the Lady of Situations, the Man with Three Staves, the Wheel and the One-eyed Merchant. He mentions that "I do not find / The Hanged Man (sec 1 line 56)." The Tarot is completely foreign to me and I do not know how to interpret these cards, but I'm sure these carry heavy metaphorical meanings in the poem. The Phoenician Sailor, is known to be an invention as this card does not exist in the Tarot deck. What did Eliot intend it to represent? This card is mentioned throughout the poem, even in an entire section, "Death by Water."
Unreal City. This final stanza speaks mostly about death. “A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many, / I had not thought death had undone so many (sec 1 line 62).” What kind of death does Eliot mean? It is not physical, as there are people flowing through the city. I believe he is talking about a moral and spiritual death. The grim view of society after war and the failure of peace would make people feel that society was dead, irreparable. ”That corpse you planted last year in your garden, /'Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year? / 'Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed (sec 1 line 71)? Besides spiritual death, we can see the corpse buried in the garden as all the sacrifice made by society for peace during the war. The garden shows how everyone was affected in their most personal aspects. The sudden frost again alludes to climate, to power and how we cannot control it. Society killed our sacrifice and we are still waiting for the rewards it was supposed to bring.
“A Game of Chess” speaks of another element of modern society: air. Like European courtiers that often spoke lies and acted like they were someone else, modern society speaks and shows itself as if it was another thing.
In vials of ivory and colored glass Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes, Unguent, powdered, or liquid--troubled, confused And drowned the sense in odors; stirred by the air That freshened from the window, these ascended In flattening the prolonged candle flames, Flung their smoke into the laquearia, Stirring the pattern on the coffered ceiling. (Sec 2 line 87)
This vivid description depicts a room filled with fragrances and exotic essences that make it feel mysterious, different, something that, in reality, it might not be. This resembles humans because our species is always trying to hide its true being with a “civilized” mask. The savagery of war is hidden behind Laws and Customs of War. Domination of others is hidden behind politics and laws. With this, Eliot makes a call to the reader to realize how humans live in a fragrance-impregnated society.
But what does the author attempt to uncover after unmasking society?
"What is that noise?"
The wind under the door.
"What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?"
Nothing again nothing. (Sec 2 line 118)
The person asking the questions in this excerpt seems insecure, scared. His companion, the person who answers, acts calmly and sure of himself. When T.S Eliot read this part of the poem, he talked briskly and at a higher tone during the questions and at a slower and lower voice during the answers. This clearly shows the feelings intended for these speakers. The voices, the words each one speaks again represent society. The questions represent individual humans, people who feel scared and overwhelmed in a world filled with death and ignorance. The responses I feel are the answers of society to the individual, sure of itself and even bored by the whining of the individual. This shows the reader how society is in self denial, desiring to be secure and powerful but in reality it is scared and vulnerable.
Do You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember Nothing? (Sec 2 line 122)
As T.S Eliot reads the questions above, he seems exasperated, angry, and resentful. He is asking society why it is keeping this mask. No, it’s asking why the people allow that mask to be placed. Why does the individual seem to forget his true beliefs and falls into slavery under society? Can’t society remember its mistakes and prevent them? After such a terrible event as war, why did it go back to the way of life that led to that butchery?
This is what I feel was missing to the analysis of the first two parts of The Waste Land, after writing this and reading the sections several times I feel I have a greater understanding of T.S Eliot’s purpose when writing his masterpiece.
domingo, 2 de marzo de 2008
Hurry please it's time - The Waste Land
The other four sections of T.S Eliot's are entitled "A Game of Chess", "The Fire Sermon", "Death by Water", and "What the Thunder Said".
On broad terms, I think The Waste Land talks about the barren and terrible world in which human society now exists. Eliot approaches this description by talking about each part of the world.
In "A Game of Chess", Eliot speaks about air, voices and scent.
In vials of ivory and colored glass,
Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes,
Unguent, powdered, or liquid--troubled, confused
And drowned the sense in odors; stirred by the air
That freshened from the window, these ascended
In fattening the prolonged candle-flames,
Stirring the pattern on the coffered ceiling.
What are fragances used for? For covering bad smells or for portraying people and objects as prettier than they areally are. What does Eliot think humans are really coevring up? Further down in "A Game of Chess" he portrays what society is covering up. "My nerves are bad tonight. Yes, bad. Stay with me (sec 2 line 111)." Society seems a functioning machine that permits human progress and improvement. However, it is really unsecure and always makes the individual ask himself where it is going, ""Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak. /"What are you thinking of? What thinking? What (sec 2 line 112)?" It also makes a human ask himself why does our races continue to commit the same mistakes, " Do /You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember /
"Nothing (sec 2 line 123)?" How does society answer? With silent air, or meaningless words.
"What shall I do now? What shall I do?
I shall rush out as I am, and walk the street
With my hair down, so. What shall we do tomorrow?
What shall we ever do?"
The hot water at ten.
And if it rains, a closed car at four.
And we shall play a game of chess,
Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door (sec 2 line 133).
Eliot continues to portray the meaninglesness of words in society with the phrase, "Hurry up please it's time." In this phrase I find a double meaning. The first one is of ignorance and disrespect in society as this phrase calls for people to leave a British pub, and in the poem they simply disregard the order and continue talking,
When Lil's husband got demobbed, I said--
I didn't mince my words, I said to her myself,
Hurry up please it's time
Now Albert's coming back, make yourself a bit smart.
He'll want to know what you done with that money he gave you
To get yourself some teeth. He did, I was there. (sec 2 line 140)
The second meaning is directed towards the reader. In my previous blog I mentioned how Eliot urges the reader to change perspective with the verses "There is shadow under this red rock, / (Come in under the shadow of this red rock), / And I will show you something different from either (sec 1 line 26)." With the phrase "Hurry up please it's time" I feel Eliot is carrying a message for all readers to change the way society works.
Having seen air in Eliot's The Waste Land, the author moves forward to Fire and Water in "The Fire Sermon" and "Death by Water." In the first stanza of Fire Sermon, Eliot describes the Thames River and how it keeps on flowing and how it will keep flowing after humans,
Sweet Thames, run softly, till I end my song.
The river bears no empty bottles, sandwich papers,
Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends
Or other testimony of summer nights. The nymphs are departed (sec 3 line 177).
This reminded me of the Tao te Ching as in that text the permanent and persistent nature of water is reflected upon.
Rivers keep flowing to their oceanic destiny permanently and few forces can change them. Eliot realtes this to human life with a brief sexual encounter between a woman and a man.
She turns and looks a moment in the glass,
Hardly aware of her departed lover;
Her brain allows one half-formed thought to pass:
"Well now that's done: and I'm glad it's over."
When lovely woman stoops to folly and
Paces about her room again, alone,
She smoothes her hair with automatic hand,
And puts a record on the gramophone (sec 3 line 249).
The woman had sex with an almost complete stranger, he left and she hardly cares about that. What happened happened and now its time to move on. She simply plays some music.This resembles a flowing river as whatever decadence happens in society, life will continue. Could this be a criticism of Eliot's time in particular? This was just published after a major war, and the world seem to descend into normal life again, same conflicts, same wars. Such a major force couldn't move human society into change.
The character of Tiresias was a Greek soothsayer that saw the future and predicted every major occurence in the history of Thebes. He also predicts the sexual encounter depicted in the poem, much like any human being and predict the course of a river. Despite these predictions, nothing will change their course.
In "Death by Water", the author narrates the story of Phlebas the Phoenician Sailor. He drowns in the ocean and is basically vanished form existence by the currents. I think Phlebas represents some kind of ideal, maybe democracy or peace which was really "handsome and tall" when they were introduced, but as the currents of society swept over them, their original state was entirely forgotten. Eliot then urges us to "Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you (sec 4 line 322). " This means we have to rememebr our ideals as society and go back to them to save the decadent human being.
Fire is interloped with water in "The Fire Sermon". Fire can represent the passion with which humans act. Such as the spur-of-the-moment sexual encounter in the section. This passion is what make humans do things they don't really desire, such as the sexual encounter, but the waters of society and life simply douse the fire and permit humans to relit it some other time. The Fire allegory is contiued with the mention of Carthage,
To Carthage then I came
Burning burning burning burning
O Lord Thou pluckest me out
O Lord Thou pluckest
burning (sec 3 line 308)
The famous destruction of Carthage by the Romans is know for its thoroughness in destroying a whole culture and leaving only scorches of a once-great civilization. This greatly exemplifies Eliot's criticism of human impulse and passion. Adding to this, civilization's waters forgot Carthage and left the destroying Romans with all the glory.
"What the Thunder Said" represents ideas and imagination. This seems not to be as tangible as air, water or fire, but it is still a very important part of the human race as we are the only creatures, at least it is believed, that can imagine things and think outside instinct. Even this milestone in human evolution has been touched by the hand of modern society.
Hope is an ever-present human idea that gives even the most despicable person a reason to live. Eliot depicts this as two people walking in a dry land with no water. They do not attempt to find water, they just hope there would be:
If there were water
And no rock
If there were rock
And also water
And water
A spring
A pool among the rock
If there were the sound of water only
Not the cicada
And dry grass singing
But sound of water over a rock
Where the hermit thrush sings in the pine trees
Drip drop drip drop drop drop drop (sec 5 line 358)
Then Eliot ruthlessly destroys all human hope with a shot of reality, "But there is no water (sec 5 line 359)." This resembles what humans do in society, they hope to become rich, to live happily and comfortably. They live in perpetual thirst. Then comes society and splashes them with reality, showing them that they are poor, sorrounded by death and there won't be happiness.
There is another idea closely related to hope: religion. Eliot also mentions this in the poem.
Who is the third who walks always beside you?
When I count, there are only you and I together
But when I look ahead up the white road
There is always another one walking beside you
Gliding wrapped in a brown mantle, hooded
I do not know whether a man of a woman
---But who is that on the other side of you (sec 5 line 360)?
To me, this hooded figure represents God. It allegedly accompanies every human everywhere, thus giving them hope; however it maintains this position. It gives hope but never fulfills it, thus humans will do whatever in their reach to even catch a glimpse of a fulfilled hope.
The Wasteland joins all that is human, powerlessness (earth), ignorance and cover-up (air), consistency and forgetfulness (water), passion and impulse (fire) and thought and ideals (hope).
As Eliot states it, with modern society, we can only hope for us to Hurry. It's time to change.
oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ
tat savitur vareṇyaṃ
bhargo devasya dhīmahi
dhiyo yo naḥ prachodayāt
oṃ shantih shantih shantih
On broad terms, I think The Waste Land talks about the barren and terrible world in which human society now exists. Eliot approaches this description by talking about each part of the world.
In "A Game of Chess", Eliot speaks about air, voices and scent.
In vials of ivory and colored glass,
Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes,
Unguent, powdered, or liquid--troubled, confused
And drowned the sense in odors; stirred by the air
That freshened from the window, these ascended
In fattening the prolonged candle-flames,
Stirring the pattern on the coffered ceiling.
What are fragances used for? For covering bad smells or for portraying people and objects as prettier than they areally are. What does Eliot think humans are really coevring up? Further down in "A Game of Chess" he portrays what society is covering up. "My nerves are bad tonight. Yes, bad. Stay with me (sec 2 line 111)." Society seems a functioning machine that permits human progress and improvement. However, it is really unsecure and always makes the individual ask himself where it is going, ""Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak. /"What are you thinking of? What thinking? What (sec 2 line 112)?" It also makes a human ask himself why does our races continue to commit the same mistakes, " Do /You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember /
"Nothing (sec 2 line 123)?" How does society answer? With silent air, or meaningless words.
"What shall I do now? What shall I do?
I shall rush out as I am, and walk the street
With my hair down, so. What shall we do tomorrow?
What shall we ever do?"
The hot water at ten.
And if it rains, a closed car at four.
And we shall play a game of chess,
Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door (sec 2 line 133).
Eliot continues to portray the meaninglesness of words in society with the phrase, "Hurry up please it's time." In this phrase I find a double meaning. The first one is of ignorance and disrespect in society as this phrase calls for people to leave a British pub, and in the poem they simply disregard the order and continue talking,
When Lil's husband got demobbed, I said--
I didn't mince my words, I said to her myself,
Hurry up please it's time
Now Albert's coming back, make yourself a bit smart.
He'll want to know what you done with that money he gave you
To get yourself some teeth. He did, I was there. (sec 2 line 140)
The second meaning is directed towards the reader. In my previous blog I mentioned how Eliot urges the reader to change perspective with the verses "There is shadow under this red rock, / (Come in under the shadow of this red rock), / And I will show you something different from either (sec 1 line 26)." With the phrase "Hurry up please it's time" I feel Eliot is carrying a message for all readers to change the way society works.
Having seen air in Eliot's The Waste Land, the author moves forward to Fire and Water in "The Fire Sermon" and "Death by Water." In the first stanza of Fire Sermon, Eliot describes the Thames River and how it keeps on flowing and how it will keep flowing after humans,
Sweet Thames, run softly, till I end my song.
The river bears no empty bottles, sandwich papers,
Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends
Or other testimony of summer nights. The nymphs are departed (sec 3 line 177).
This reminded me of the Tao te Ching as in that text the permanent and persistent nature of water is reflected upon.
Rivers keep flowing to their oceanic destiny permanently and few forces can change them. Eliot realtes this to human life with a brief sexual encounter between a woman and a man.
She turns and looks a moment in the glass,
Hardly aware of her departed lover;
Her brain allows one half-formed thought to pass:
"Well now that's done: and I'm glad it's over."
When lovely woman stoops to folly and
Paces about her room again, alone,
She smoothes her hair with automatic hand,
And puts a record on the gramophone (sec 3 line 249).
The woman had sex with an almost complete stranger, he left and she hardly cares about that. What happened happened and now its time to move on. She simply plays some music.This resembles a flowing river as whatever decadence happens in society, life will continue. Could this be a criticism of Eliot's time in particular? This was just published after a major war, and the world seem to descend into normal life again, same conflicts, same wars. Such a major force couldn't move human society into change.
The character of Tiresias was a Greek soothsayer that saw the future and predicted every major occurence in the history of Thebes. He also predicts the sexual encounter depicted in the poem, much like any human being and predict the course of a river. Despite these predictions, nothing will change their course.
In "Death by Water", the author narrates the story of Phlebas the Phoenician Sailor. He drowns in the ocean and is basically vanished form existence by the currents. I think Phlebas represents some kind of ideal, maybe democracy or peace which was really "handsome and tall" when they were introduced, but as the currents of society swept over them, their original state was entirely forgotten. Eliot then urges us to "Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you (sec 4 line 322). " This means we have to rememebr our ideals as society and go back to them to save the decadent human being.
Fire is interloped with water in "The Fire Sermon". Fire can represent the passion with which humans act. Such as the spur-of-the-moment sexual encounter in the section. This passion is what make humans do things they don't really desire, such as the sexual encounter, but the waters of society and life simply douse the fire and permit humans to relit it some other time. The Fire allegory is contiued with the mention of Carthage,
To Carthage then I came
Burning burning burning burning
O Lord Thou pluckest me out
O Lord Thou pluckest
burning (sec 3 line 308)
The famous destruction of Carthage by the Romans is know for its thoroughness in destroying a whole culture and leaving only scorches of a once-great civilization. This greatly exemplifies Eliot's criticism of human impulse and passion. Adding to this, civilization's waters forgot Carthage and left the destroying Romans with all the glory.
"What the Thunder Said" represents ideas and imagination. This seems not to be as tangible as air, water or fire, but it is still a very important part of the human race as we are the only creatures, at least it is believed, that can imagine things and think outside instinct. Even this milestone in human evolution has been touched by the hand of modern society.
Hope is an ever-present human idea that gives even the most despicable person a reason to live. Eliot depicts this as two people walking in a dry land with no water. They do not attempt to find water, they just hope there would be:
If there were water
And no rock
If there were rock
And also water
And water
A spring
A pool among the rock
If there were the sound of water only
Not the cicada
And dry grass singing
But sound of water over a rock
Where the hermit thrush sings in the pine trees
Drip drop drip drop drop drop drop (sec 5 line 358)
Then Eliot ruthlessly destroys all human hope with a shot of reality, "But there is no water (sec 5 line 359)." This resembles what humans do in society, they hope to become rich, to live happily and comfortably. They live in perpetual thirst. Then comes society and splashes them with reality, showing them that they are poor, sorrounded by death and there won't be happiness.
There is another idea closely related to hope: religion. Eliot also mentions this in the poem.
Who is the third who walks always beside you?
When I count, there are only you and I together
But when I look ahead up the white road
There is always another one walking beside you
Gliding wrapped in a brown mantle, hooded
I do not know whether a man of a woman
---But who is that on the other side of you (sec 5 line 360)?
To me, this hooded figure represents God. It allegedly accompanies every human everywhere, thus giving them hope; however it maintains this position. It gives hope but never fulfills it, thus humans will do whatever in their reach to even catch a glimpse of a fulfilled hope.
The Wasteland joins all that is human, powerlessness (earth), ignorance and cover-up (air), consistency and forgetfulness (water), passion and impulse (fire) and thought and ideals (hope).
As Eliot states it, with modern society, we can only hope for us to Hurry. It's time to change.
oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ
tat savitur vareṇyaṃ
bhargo devasya dhīmahi
dhiyo yo naḥ prachodayāt
oṃ shantih shantih shantih
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust" - The Wasteland 1. The Burial of the Dead
T.S Eliot's masterpiece, The Wasteland, is composed of four parts. The first of these is entitled "The Burial of the Dead".
April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
This first sentence of the poem is very interesting as it talks with strange opposites. April is the cruelest month yet it breed lilacs, a beautiful flower, from dead land. In April, spring begins its blossoming of the land after the cold winter. This time is usually related with new life, animals have their offsprings and flowers bloom. Why does Eliot compare Spring with death? Later, Eliot writes "Winter kept us warm, covering (sec 1 line 5)", again the narrator gives the reader an apparent paradox. How can winter keep us warm?
Throughout the first stanza we see actions that are completely out of the narrators control, spring, summer, rain, and sunlight. The narrator even shows how he cannot control it, "Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee (sec 1 line 8) The narrator, Marie, even is forced to read at night because she can't go outside at that time and during winter she has to move south, "I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter (sec 1 line 18)." Perhaps its this feeling of powerlessness that makes the narrator feel the seasons and nature as powerful and maybe even mortal. However, positive feelings and liberty are still given by the author, "In the mountains, there you feel free (sec 1 line 17)."
The second stanza changes from location and it now speaks of a desert land. The description of the area places it almost as a post-apocalypse location. "The dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,/ And the dry stone no sound of water (sec 1 line 23-24)." This makes the reader feel hopeless and barren, yet the reader is still given some hope of life, "There is shadow under this red rock (sec 1 line 25). What could Eliot mean with this dreaded description? Perhaps a criticism of the destruction of society? The author mentions the "Son of man", which refers to Christianity. The "son of man" is a Biblical reference, as it is mentioned dozens of times, especially when regarding the Prophet Ezekiel. In the Bible, David also predicts Jesus and he menitons him as "the son of man". With this comes a "heap of broken images" which might refer to idols of religion. "I will show you fear in a handful of dust (sec 1 line 30)." This phrase is very interesting. It inmediately reminded me of God talking in the Ancient Testament, especially during Sodom and Gomorrah. It shows power from the person showing the dust and powerlessness from the viewer. Another allusion to religion and its decay on society? Yet Eliot still keeps the reader with hope of safety and salvation with the "red rock".
There is shadow under this red rock
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
Under the shadow of the red rock, the narrator will show the reader something different form anything he has ever seen. Could Eliot be urging the reader to change perspective regarding society in order to save it? Is a change of perspective the only hope left for the world?
In "The Burial of the Dead", Eliot uses different languages on ocassions, what effect could this bring on the text?
Frish weht der Wind
Der Heimat zu
Mein Irisch Kind,
Wo weilest du?
This might give the reader feelings of powerlessness if he doesn't understand the language, or it might be the entrance of a second narrator in the various occassions German is used. The meaning of language I hope can be revealed to me as I read on.
While hearing T.S. Eliot's reading of the poem, I felt dread and pessimism. His entonation accented negative words such as "cruellest" or "dead" in the first stanza. However, when the poem talks about the archduke's and riding a sled, Eliot changes his tone to a more cheerful one. Later though, he goes back to a more dreary tone in the second stanza when he uses the word "no", this in the poem feels hopeless when he mentions "no shelter, no relief, no sound of water." In the first stanza, Eliot enjambs "winter", saying very quickly, perhaps to differentiate the cold of witner with the warmth and fast-pace of his view of winter.
April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
This first sentence of the poem is very interesting as it talks with strange opposites. April is the cruelest month yet it breed lilacs, a beautiful flower, from dead land. In April, spring begins its blossoming of the land after the cold winter. This time is usually related with new life, animals have their offsprings and flowers bloom. Why does Eliot compare Spring with death? Later, Eliot writes "Winter kept us warm, covering (sec 1 line 5)", again the narrator gives the reader an apparent paradox. How can winter keep us warm?
Throughout the first stanza we see actions that are completely out of the narrators control, spring, summer, rain, and sunlight. The narrator even shows how he cannot control it, "Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee (sec 1 line 8) The narrator, Marie, even is forced to read at night because she can't go outside at that time and during winter she has to move south, "I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter (sec 1 line 18)." Perhaps its this feeling of powerlessness that makes the narrator feel the seasons and nature as powerful and maybe even mortal. However, positive feelings and liberty are still given by the author, "In the mountains, there you feel free (sec 1 line 17)."
The second stanza changes from location and it now speaks of a desert land. The description of the area places it almost as a post-apocalypse location. "The dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,/ And the dry stone no sound of water (sec 1 line 23-24)." This makes the reader feel hopeless and barren, yet the reader is still given some hope of life, "There is shadow under this red rock (sec 1 line 25). What could Eliot mean with this dreaded description? Perhaps a criticism of the destruction of society? The author mentions the "Son of man", which refers to Christianity. The "son of man" is a Biblical reference, as it is mentioned dozens of times, especially when regarding the Prophet Ezekiel. In the Bible, David also predicts Jesus and he menitons him as "the son of man". With this comes a "heap of broken images" which might refer to idols of religion. "I will show you fear in a handful of dust (sec 1 line 30)." This phrase is very interesting. It inmediately reminded me of God talking in the Ancient Testament, especially during Sodom and Gomorrah. It shows power from the person showing the dust and powerlessness from the viewer. Another allusion to religion and its decay on society? Yet Eliot still keeps the reader with hope of safety and salvation with the "red rock".
There is shadow under this red rock
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
Under the shadow of the red rock, the narrator will show the reader something different form anything he has ever seen. Could Eliot be urging the reader to change perspective regarding society in order to save it? Is a change of perspective the only hope left for the world?
In "The Burial of the Dead", Eliot uses different languages on ocassions, what effect could this bring on the text?
Frish weht der Wind
Der Heimat zu
Mein Irisch Kind,
Wo weilest du?
This might give the reader feelings of powerlessness if he doesn't understand the language, or it might be the entrance of a second narrator in the various occassions German is used. The meaning of language I hope can be revealed to me as I read on.
While hearing T.S. Eliot's reading of the poem, I felt dread and pessimism. His entonation accented negative words such as "cruellest" or "dead" in the first stanza. However, when the poem talks about the archduke's and riding a sled, Eliot changes his tone to a more cheerful one. Later though, he goes back to a more dreary tone in the second stanza when he uses the word "no", this in the poem feels hopeless when he mentions "no shelter, no relief, no sound of water." In the first stanza, Eliot enjambs "winter", saying very quickly, perhaps to differentiate the cold of witner with the warmth and fast-pace of his view of winter.
Lead Me Zeus, and you too, Destiny - Handbook of Epictetus sec. 31-53
To the Greeks, the Olympic Gods were the supreme voice in the world, whatever they desired it was carried out with no complain. Where can we see this today or in other times throughout human history? Who's will was it when millions marched to the Holy Land? Who's will was it when thousands were burned across Europe? Who wills it today that hundreds of his followers imolate themselves for a cause? What the Stoics saw as the natural order of things, the Gods' will is the truth, soon became an excuse for some of the greatest brutalities in human history. For this I attempt to avoid relating any of these teachings with religion but will take it as "the order of nature".
The most important aspect of piety towrds the gods is certainly both to have correct beliefs about them, as beings that arrange the universe well and justly, and to set yourself to obey them and acquiesce in everything that happens and follow it willingly, as something brought to completion by the best judgement (sec 31).
In section 31, Epictetus attempts to tell us that nature controls everything not up to us, so there is no point in complaining or discerning about it and just follow its course. If it is not up to us, it is neither good nor bad, it just is. The only time where we are in full authority to discern between good or bad is when the thing were analyzing is up to us. A great example of this was the death of Raul Reyes recently, for many it is a tremendous success. For others it might be a terrible act of war and of lack of respect for frontier lines. But for a Stoic it is just what happened, not good but not bad. The Stoic is in complete control of his perspective. This again reminds me of the Tao te Ching and its belief of letting the force of the world take its course. It seems to me this believe is not cultural or geoghraphic, but a human belief that around the world can be appreciated as the Greeks and Chinese did.
The final sections of The Handbook talk about how a true philosopher should lead his life and his relation with "non-philosophers". After reading this I think Stoic way of life was too thoretical, too perfect:
Be silent for the most part, or say what you have to in a few words....If you happen to be stranded among strangers, do not talk.... Do not laugh a great deal or at a great many things or unrestrainedly (sec 33).
For me this life, though maybe happy and free from all desires, is boring and too forced. Sometimes it is delightful to laugh hard at silly things or make new friends form completely new people. Sometimes it is relaxing to ramble on with friends about frivolous subjects to release the stress from daily life. A Stoic apparently seems a quiet person who does not engage in small talk or even laughs at jokes, and whenever he speaks he says excatly the appropiate thing. That is not a human, it is the museum specimen and textbook definition of a good human. Perhaps for a true Stoic that would be fun, if they accept having fun, but for me I'd rather be happy at times and unhappy at times. If I experience sadness and happiness, I can enjoy happiness even more because I know what sadness is. A Stoic, as he lives his entire life being fulfilled, he can't enjoy those amazing feelings that a human has the capability of. I agree with Stoic philosophy as a way to understand life and how to avoid terrible misfortunes, but a Stoic life is rid of all emotion. Perhaps this is why the definition of stoic is "one apparently or professedly indifferent to pleasure or pain."
"If someone reports back to you that so-and-so is saying bad things about you, do not reply to thembut answer, 'Obviously he didn't know my other bad characteristics, since otherwise he wouldn't just have mentioned these (sec 33)." I feel this is a great response to a criticism. It shows how no one can now how a person truly is. Only person you can truly know is yourself and thus the only person with authority to criticize you is yourself. To this, Epictetus adds, "For until you have discerned what his judgement was, how do you know whether he did it badly (sec 45)?" This shows that you, despite having philosophical ways of thinking, are in no authority to criticize until it is completely apparent what kind of judgement someone had at the moment of his actions.
Epictetus says that a true philospher, "Never talks about himself as a person who amounts to something or knows something......if someone censures him he does not respond (sec 48)." However a few sections back he says, "Stay away from raising a laugh, since this manner slips easily into vulgarity and at the same time is liable to lessen your neighbor's respect for you (sec 33)." Didn't Stoics avoid outside influences? What does a Stoic care about a lack of respect? That is not up to them.
The end of the Handbook speaks of philosophical propositions. "The first and most important aspect of philosophy is that of dealing with philosophical propositions, such as 'not to hold to falsehood (sec 52)." This greatly shows how the Stoics thought. They didn't question their environment, their reason to exist, even thier moral. For them, what happened, happened no questions or doubts. That is why they state "not to hold to falsehood" and not ask themselves "what is falsehood?"
For me, Stoic philosophy is summarized into one of the final phrases of the book:
Well, Crito, if it is pleasing to the gods this way, then let it happen this way (sec 53)."
The most important aspect of piety towrds the gods is certainly both to have correct beliefs about them, as beings that arrange the universe well and justly, and to set yourself to obey them and acquiesce in everything that happens and follow it willingly, as something brought to completion by the best judgement (sec 31).
In section 31, Epictetus attempts to tell us that nature controls everything not up to us, so there is no point in complaining or discerning about it and just follow its course. If it is not up to us, it is neither good nor bad, it just is. The only time where we are in full authority to discern between good or bad is when the thing were analyzing is up to us. A great example of this was the death of Raul Reyes recently, for many it is a tremendous success. For others it might be a terrible act of war and of lack of respect for frontier lines. But for a Stoic it is just what happened, not good but not bad. The Stoic is in complete control of his perspective. This again reminds me of the Tao te Ching and its belief of letting the force of the world take its course. It seems to me this believe is not cultural or geoghraphic, but a human belief that around the world can be appreciated as the Greeks and Chinese did.
The final sections of The Handbook talk about how a true philosopher should lead his life and his relation with "non-philosophers". After reading this I think Stoic way of life was too thoretical, too perfect:
Be silent for the most part, or say what you have to in a few words....If you happen to be stranded among strangers, do not talk.... Do not laugh a great deal or at a great many things or unrestrainedly (sec 33).
For me this life, though maybe happy and free from all desires, is boring and too forced. Sometimes it is delightful to laugh hard at silly things or make new friends form completely new people. Sometimes it is relaxing to ramble on with friends about frivolous subjects to release the stress from daily life. A Stoic apparently seems a quiet person who does not engage in small talk or even laughs at jokes, and whenever he speaks he says excatly the appropiate thing. That is not a human, it is the museum specimen and textbook definition of a good human. Perhaps for a true Stoic that would be fun, if they accept having fun, but for me I'd rather be happy at times and unhappy at times. If I experience sadness and happiness, I can enjoy happiness even more because I know what sadness is. A Stoic, as he lives his entire life being fulfilled, he can't enjoy those amazing feelings that a human has the capability of. I agree with Stoic philosophy as a way to understand life and how to avoid terrible misfortunes, but a Stoic life is rid of all emotion. Perhaps this is why the definition of stoic is "one apparently or professedly indifferent to pleasure or pain."
"If someone reports back to you that so-and-so is saying bad things about you, do not reply to thembut answer, 'Obviously he didn't know my other bad characteristics, since otherwise he wouldn't just have mentioned these (sec 33)." I feel this is a great response to a criticism. It shows how no one can now how a person truly is. Only person you can truly know is yourself and thus the only person with authority to criticize you is yourself. To this, Epictetus adds, "For until you have discerned what his judgement was, how do you know whether he did it badly (sec 45)?" This shows that you, despite having philosophical ways of thinking, are in no authority to criticize until it is completely apparent what kind of judgement someone had at the moment of his actions.
Epictetus says that a true philospher, "Never talks about himself as a person who amounts to something or knows something......if someone censures him he does not respond (sec 48)." However a few sections back he says, "Stay away from raising a laugh, since this manner slips easily into vulgarity and at the same time is liable to lessen your neighbor's respect for you (sec 33)." Didn't Stoics avoid outside influences? What does a Stoic care about a lack of respect? That is not up to them.
The end of the Handbook speaks of philosophical propositions. "The first and most important aspect of philosophy is that of dealing with philosophical propositions, such as 'not to hold to falsehood (sec 52)." This greatly shows how the Stoics thought. They didn't question their environment, their reason to exist, even thier moral. For them, what happened, happened no questions or doubts. That is why they state "not to hold to falsehood" and not ask themselves "what is falsehood?"
For me, Stoic philosophy is summarized into one of the final phrases of the book:
Well, Crito, if it is pleasing to the gods this way, then let it happen this way (sec 53)."
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)