Big I, Eye, Aye.

I’m going to post this before my presentation, because tomorrow after school I probably won’t be in the condition to write nice pretty coherent things.

1 – I’m sorry if my presentation was in any way offensive. I think at one point I may have said something about obsolete writings, and thrown in the Bible as an example… I didn’t mean the Bible was obsolete, more as not everyone reads it, and archetypes reference it a lot… I had just talked about things archetypes to refer/allude to.

2 – I’m sorry that I sounded stupid. I was a bit tired. Correction: I am/was very tired, and annoyed at recording. :P

3 -  I didn’t explain myself fully.
Scapegoat in Oklahoma: Big bad guy who ruins everything, then dies in the end, and everything is happy and light… blame is eradicated with the big bad guy.
Songs of Innocence/Songs of Experience: William Blake wrote the Tyger (songs of experience) and the Lamb (songs of innocence). Related to poles of myth.
Also, poles of myth thing = came primarily from wiki. I may not have reworded very well, and I was actually going to reference it when explaining… but I’m not there, and I forgot while I was recording. So  here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_Criticism#Third_essay_-_Archetypal_Criticism:_Theory_of_Myths

 If I missed anything else, just ask.

Mythopoeic Criticism

Objectives: Students will be able to
1. Recognize some general archetypes in relation to mythopoeic criticism
2. Apply their knowledge to characters/plots etc. in literature. (Be comfortable with criticizing)
3. Be able to analyse novels in relation to mythopoeic criticism.

Resources

Materials Needed
paper and pen
ISU novels

Equipment Needed
TV with VCR and DVD
Computer + projector
photocopier for handouts

Introduction:
Mary: Slideshow presentation (20something slides – time?)
Ilayda: General overview, some examples of archetypes and where they’re used, poles of myth, Blake’s two poems.
Olivia: Example of how to apply this, more archetype examples, and evaluation (ask class to help deconstruct a movie). Movie clips also.

Evaluation:
- Question and Answer period (they can ask questions to us)
- Put up a few scenarios, plots and characters and have students discuss what kind of archetypes each contain.
- Have students write one paragraph finding archetypes in their ISU novel.

Testable Concepts:
- What an archetype is
- A few forerunners in mythopoeia/archetypal criticism
- Genres related to seasons
- apocolyptic vs. demonic

Order
Ilayda (part 1) – general overview
Mary – origins, terms, influential people
Ilayda (part 2) – general archetypes, poles of myth, charts to hand out
Olivia – criticizing examples and exercises

I’ve re-realized why I abhor outlines. They muddle my brain and I end up more confused about my essay than when I started. Eventually, of course, I’ll read this outline again, have a fantastic Eureka! moment, and all will be well.
Eventually…
Here is the outline: There are lots of  long quotes and rambly sentences for now, because I’ll pick through it as I flesh it out. Oy yoy yoy. Bare (bear?) with me here.

Also, does the rough thing of going

existentialism

transition

nihilism

work? Or should I have 2 existentialisms/1 nihilism or 1 existentialism/2 nihilism? Feedback please on this monstrous outline.

Introduction: Briefly explain the concepts behind existentialism and nihilism. Thesis: Kafka’s The Trial is anchored first in existentialism and gradually converts to nihilism.
Reason 1: The Trial can be considered existentialist in the beginning because of K’s aim to articulate and reason, and because of the chaos he is attempting to fight. Example: The seeming irrelevance and chaos of the court system and building exemplify the world existentialism paints – one of meaningless and emptiness. Josef K recognizes this as the book begins.“When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being “thrown” into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning. It’s a situation that’s nothing short of absurd.” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm)
“K. turned to the stairs to find the room for the inquiry, but then paused as he saw three different staircases in the courtyard in addition to the first one; moreover, a small passage at the other end of the courtyard seemed to lead to a second courtyard. He was annoyed that they hadn’t described the location of the room more precisely; he was certainly being treated with strange carelessness or indifference, a point he intended to make loudly and clearly.” (39)
“And at last he leaned across the bed and opened the door. [...] he looked through the open door and drew his foot back. “What’s that?” he asked the painter. [...] Those are law court offices. Didn’t you know there were law court offices there? There are law court offices in practically every attic” (164)
Example: Josef K., in the beginning, is striving to figure out what the trial is about. He sets boundaries for the irrelevance, doesn’t accept it all, and cuts his own swath in the sea of defendants. He is ‘articulating his being’, not just going with the flow and accepting the chaos and meaninglessness. “You may object that these aren’t proceedings at all, and you’re certainly right there, they are only proceedings if I recognize them as such.” (45)
“”What sense?” K. cried out, more startled than annoyed. “Who do you think you are? You ask what sense it makes, while you stage the most senseless performance imaginable? Wouldn’t it break a heart of stone? First these gentlemen assault me, and now they sit around or stand about and put me through my paces before you.” (15)

Reason 2: The difference between existentialism and nihilism is that while both say that humans struggle against the thought of nothingness, that the world has no true meaning, existentialists believe that humans can survive it. Nihilists, do not, and believe that ‘death’ is inevitable. In the middle, both -isms are present, and hence the feeling of turmoil and slow defeat. Example: K.’s attempt to fashion his own petition… it didn’t succeed but the attempt to ’swim’ instead of just ’sink’ was apparent. “To accomplish this K. would obviously have to do more than simply sit in the hall with the others and place his hat beneath the bench. He, or the women, or some other messengers, would have to besiege the officials day after day and force them to sit down at their desks and study K.’s petition, instead of staring through the grille into the hall. [...] He recalled how one morning…he had suddenly shoved everything aside and taken out his notepad to have to try at drafting the general outlines of such a petition and perhaps making it available to his slow-witted lawyer” (126)

Example: A turning point of the book is when K. refuses to cease the flogging, and his sense of morality seems to slip. (84-87)

Reason 3: Josef K’s failure to be original and find meaning signalled the end of existentialism and entrance of nihilism. Wiki: “In existentialist views, personal articulation of being is the only way to rise above humanity’s absurd condition of much suffering and inevitable death.” Josef K. ceases to be original, commits the only sin known to existentialism and inevitably dies. The latter portion of the book (especially the pages entitled ‘Fragments’… but I’m not sure if that’s considered part of The Trial) exemplifies some nihilistic principles. Example: Josef K’s renouncement of God. “Not wishing to remain entirely dependent on the priest, K. asked him: “Are we near the main entrance now?” “No,” said the priest, “we’re a long way from it. Do you want to leave already?” Although K. hadn’t been thinking of that at the moment, he said at once: “Of course, I have to go.”" (223-224)“

“Can’t you see two steps in front of you?” It was a cry of rage, but at the same time it was the cry of someone who, seeing a man falling, shouts out in shock, involuntarily, without thinking.” (214)

Example: The fact that his executioners are so blase about his death? That he is so blase about his death? Supports the ‘life has no meaing and there is no truth, morality’ clause? “Like a dog” – no morality, no… ethics?“There would be nothing heroic in resistance, in making trouble for these men, in trying to enjoy a final vestige of life by fighting back.” (227)
From Nietzsche (http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm): “Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one’s shoulder to the plough; one destroys” (Will to Power).
From The Trial :“K. knew clearly now that it was his duty to seize the knife as it floated from hand to hand above him and plunge it into himself. But he didn’t do so;” (230)

Conclusion: Existentialism and nihilism are connected, similar except for the person’s mindset… optimism or pessimism, Trial shows this… ‘accept fate’, progression from e-ism to nihilism, etc. SUM UP with a bang.

I’m about 30 pages into Stand on Zanzibar and so far…

I love it.

It’s strange, it’s completely non-linear and all over the place. And at the same time it’s incredibly easy to read, apart from Brunner’s lingo (but that’s pretty easy to decipher). Brunner spews information out left and right, and while there is a sequence of events, it always seems small, like there’s a bigger picture to be considered. The only problem is that there isn’t always a lot of setting being described, so characters sort of just float in front of vague backdrops in my head sometimes. And did I mention it’s about 500 pages long? Thank goodness it’s mostly dialogue (which is another change for me).

The book feels, so far anyways, like a puzzle. It’s not straightforward or pretentious in it’s speech… I like the feeling that I’m being led through this mess of parts, and in the end I’ll come out with something whole and interesting. Like a noiseless vacuum cleaner. Man, what I’d give to have one of those.

WARNING: Following content is/has

• tirelessly naive and hopeful
• written personally (uses I, we, etc.)
• enthuisastic
• only 6paragraphs (and not in properTREEREEREEC form)I need to get it out there so I can step back and tone it down.

________________________________________________________________

               The three greatest humans who have ever or never lived, have no names for me. To tie down that title to one person, one face, one identity is too great a task for my Taurus-born-Gemini mind. The three best people to have lived, or never lived, are nameless characters. Those who have been, and those who will be. And mostly, those who bring life and truth. These three people expose humanity for all it’s ugliness. To bring man’s folly and triumph to light, and thus truth to light is a gift to everyone. My choices 
do not do the following, they embody it.

              The first is the writer. To capture life and put it on paper was man’s greatest achievement. A writer can catch the philosophical churning of a mind, the swift rising of a chest during a moment of passion or the full-blooded flush of rage. They can take these emotions, settings, and characters into a person’s mind and enable a reader to live as if they were there. It is great that we are able to escape as fully as we are able in a story, and that we may glean strength from characters as a cat gleans heat from a patch of sun. A writer is not a writer of just letters. A writer wrangles the soul and harnesses it to do their bidding, if only for a short while. Whether the writer is a published author or a closet scribbler is inconsequential to me. The brave undertaking of the act of creating art is enough to make them an admirable person in my eyes. So I name the writer one of the three greatest humans to live.

               The next greatest person is a person that will be in 15, 20 or 30 years from now. I think they will be the greatest because of what they will have to face, and in turn what they will do. Today’s world is brimming with problems, especially when one considers new global dilemmas such as the energy crisis, animal extinction, and exploding human populations. A future person will have to face these. Through my thick naivete and optimism, I know that some end will come, but I believe it won’t be an entire tragedy. Disaster will strike, maybe there will be deaths, famine, war. That the world will be changed is a fact. But through that sometimes comes profound understanding. The human ability to find love and light in times of tragedy is astounding. I think that because the possible tragedy is so enormous the findings will in turn be on an even larger scale. In short, a future person will fail. But they will tumble blazing with truths. In the very least, they will blaze with humanity – something which seems to be sorely lacking in today’s world.

                  The third person of my choice bends the image of a ‘greatest person’. They are not great, per se, but greatly influential. This person is the objector of change and acceptance. These are the religious extremists, the traditionalists, and the scared little people. I will not include the infamous (the Crusades, Hitler, etc.), because at a certain point human suffering is entirely needless and cruel and no positivity that may be gathered from the tragedy in retrospect outweighs the pain the victims were put through. I include the small objectors who steadfastly cling to the mast of their ever quicker sinking ship, serving as a necessary kick in the pants of society. 

                   Without conflict we would lack the fuel of revolutions. Revolutions not as an overthrowing of government, but an overthrow of prejudice and misconceptions. Revolutions need, essentially, passion. Passion in the form of anger, despair or hope. If there was no opposition, what would there be to lose? There would be passion, but the quantity and quality would reduce. Without these ‘great people’, we would have no foe to fight. The edges of our battles would become unfocused and slowly our battle against ignorance, cruelty, greed would become undefined, diluted. In 1984, Big Brother held meetings centered on intense emotion against the ‘enemies’ of the moment. Without these meetings, would 1984’s society function properly? No, for there would be no drive ((justification?)). Our situation need not be so extreme, no government-induced convulsions are needed, but our society is a dystopia as well. Without some aim, revolution will flounder, and necessary changes will never be made.

                   Let me ask any of my blog visitors three questions. One, has a piece of writing affected your life, significantly or otherwise? Two, did the generations before Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Susan B. Anthony dream for them? And finally, would you play hockey against an empty net? It has, I hope, and I would not. This, simply, is why these three figures are the greatest people who have ever (or never) lived.
 

My thesis statement for Kafka’s The Trial is:

The Trial progresses from existentialism to nihilism. While Josef K. is on trial, the novel reflects or is anchored in existentialism. This changes in the last portion of the book, where it is then anchored in nihilism.

Existentialism
I’ve found slightly different definitions of existentialism, which annoyed me.
From my go-to site (wikipedia):  
“Existentialism is a philosophical movement that posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them. It emerged as a movement in twentieth-century literature and philosophy, though it had forerunners in earlier centuries. Existentialism generally postulates that the absence of a transcendent force (such as God) means that the individual is entirely free, and, therefore, ultimately responsible. It is up to humans to create an ethos of personal responsibility outside any branded belief system. In existentialist views, personal articulation of being is the only way to rise above humanity’s absurd condition of much suffering and inevitable death.”
Whereas this site http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/lit/chap10.htm defines it as:
“A philosophical movement embracing the view that the suffering individual must create meaning in an unknowable, chaotic, and seemingly empty universe.”

Nihilism
From Merriam-Webster.com (which always reminded me of great-aunts, don’t you agree?):
“-a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
 -a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths”
From wiki again:
“a philosophical position which argues that Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following:

• there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
• a “true morality” does not exist, and
• objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other. “

I know, what a shinyhappy essay this is going to be!

The Trial was a strange book… I didn’t think much of it while I was reading it, but once I was finished I really enjoyed it. And I finally appreciated how depressing it was.