1. Uneasy dreams: indication of difference from normal
"gigantic": imagery, tells us the state and absurdity of his transformation, childlike word
Sentence as a whole states an absurd idea in a casual or flippant (tone?) way.
2. Even simpler than first sentence. "Giant" is a smaller word in itself. No commas or breaks, only sentence to begin with the name of the character
3. Starts with a hook, something happened "when gregory woke up". More artistically written than the first two, meant to draw in readers. Use of word "enormous" more dramatic. "troubled" dreams in place of "uneasy" implies more of an issue than a discomfort.
4. Far more breaks; 4 commas, waits two breaks to mention the name of the character, lots of suspense, "agitated" more casual than "troubled" or "uneasy" sounds more like a nightmare than a night terror, "monstrous vermin" implies negative connotation, far worse than other descriptions.
The four different translations of the opening sentence of Metamorphosis provide an excellent example of the difference a translation can make. Changing syntax and replacing words can make a monumental difference in the interpretation of a sentence and the story as a whole. In these examples, the word choice and sentence order is particularly relevant in the different translations. For example, the position of the character (Gregor Samsa) is relevant to the amount of emphasis that is placed on him and the suspenseful aspect in the sentence.
Diction, or word choice, is extremely important to this sentence. For example, the adjective used to describe Samsa as a bug defines both the reader's interpretation of the transformation and his or her mental image of the bug. One sentence uses the word "giant", while the other uses "monstrous". The first reader would probably have a mild/neutral interpretation of Samsa, while the second reader would have a negative interpretation. Furthermore, the two mental pictures would be entirely different. One would likely be a normal, perhaps cartoonish, insect, while the other would be an alien, disgusting bug. The use of certain words in the text is important to the readers interpretation of the story.
The use of sentence structure is also important to the reader's interpretation of the text. As stated above, the position of Samsa's name defines the reader's interpretation of the text. For example, the second translation, the most simple one, begins with the name. This eliminates any question of who is being spoken about. Conversely, the fourth translation mentions Samsa's name seven words and two commas into the sentence. The fourth sentence will appeal to readers who enjoy suspenseful aspects, as the lead in causes readers to wonder the subject. The second will appeal to readers who connect with logical storytelling and to-the-point writing styles.
These elements of translation can change the mood, tone, and story of a text. It's really interesting what a difference it can make. Props to you for a cool example, Mrs. G! I may read this one if I ever have free time!
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
The Politics of Fiction
https://www.ted.com/talks/elif_shafak_the_politics_of_fiction#t-1165327
Elif Shafak is an author of fiction who claims she is "from everywhere." She is not referring to her place of birth or even her nationality, but she is referring to her writing. In her TED talk, Shafak is arguing the importance of fictional storytelling through imagination. She begins by telling her own story, one of being racially stereotyped and bullied by her elitist schoolmates. She connects this to the politics of fiction. Shafak claims that stories should evoke a "transcendental journey into other lives; other possibilities." She wants to emphasize the importance of leaving behind your own identity, your own "cozy apartment" when reading a story. Shafak introduces the idea of identity politics in writing: a Muslim woman will be expected to write about a Muslim woman, a Japanese man will be expected to write about a Japanese man, and the creativity will be left to Western authors. Shafak hopes to abolish these stereotypes by articulating the importance of separating identity politics and fiction. Through her use of pathos and ethos, Shafak effectively argues against the popular idea of "writing what you know" and for "writing what you feel."
In making her argument, Shafak primarily uses pathos. Her use of storytelling within her talk, such as the story of her childhood or one about her voodoo doctor grandma, connect the listener to the speaker emotionally. Her argument connects at the ends like a circle, each personal example linking to and supporting her theory. Though the use of ethos is rare, it can be seen in her allusions to her own novels and the use of quotes from other famous novelists and professors. Outside of the orthodox ethos, logos and pathos methods, Shafak uses a personable, laid back, down to earth technique in delivering her talk. She does not move about frantically or widely vary her vocal intonation. The talk feels like a conversation, though Shafak is the only one speaking.
I selected this talk because the title included the word politics. As politics is my favorite subject area, I figured it would be a perfect fit. I truly connected with Shafak's argument. Though the talk was not about neoliberalism or foreign policy, the topic truly connected to subjects with which I regularly have mental struggles. With IB English comes novels such as Woman at Point Zero and the God of Small Things. These are novels written by authors from the settings in which their stories take place. While the stories being told are important, is fiction not supposed to be about imagination? Is it not supposed to be literally made up? Shafak discusses her struggle impressing critics, as she was expected to write about Turkish characters in Turkey, as she is Turkish. She responds to this mindset with two extremely substantial points: primarily, she illustrates the togetherness that fiction brings, regardless of nationality. Fiction can eliminate bias. A Canadian author can write about an African character with whom an Indian reader connects. Shafak states that "stories bring people together." Relatedly, Shafak argues that stories can allow and escape from our own minds, creeds, and nationalities. "Stories cannot demolish frontiers, but they can punch holes in our mental walls." This is so powerful to me, because it illustrates the power of words. I am a white female living in a middle class neighborhood. I am certainly not a Turkish writer who has lived across the world, but words can connect me to Elif Shafak. I believe this is Shafak's ultimate purpose in delivering the talk; to illustrate the power of words, and to urge listeners and viewers not to waste them perpetuating the idea of identity politics.
Elif Shafak is an author of fiction who claims she is "from everywhere." She is not referring to her place of birth or even her nationality, but she is referring to her writing. In her TED talk, Shafak is arguing the importance of fictional storytelling through imagination. She begins by telling her own story, one of being racially stereotyped and bullied by her elitist schoolmates. She connects this to the politics of fiction. Shafak claims that stories should evoke a "transcendental journey into other lives; other possibilities." She wants to emphasize the importance of leaving behind your own identity, your own "cozy apartment" when reading a story. Shafak introduces the idea of identity politics in writing: a Muslim woman will be expected to write about a Muslim woman, a Japanese man will be expected to write about a Japanese man, and the creativity will be left to Western authors. Shafak hopes to abolish these stereotypes by articulating the importance of separating identity politics and fiction. Through her use of pathos and ethos, Shafak effectively argues against the popular idea of "writing what you know" and for "writing what you feel."
In making her argument, Shafak primarily uses pathos. Her use of storytelling within her talk, such as the story of her childhood or one about her voodoo doctor grandma, connect the listener to the speaker emotionally. Her argument connects at the ends like a circle, each personal example linking to and supporting her theory. Though the use of ethos is rare, it can be seen in her allusions to her own novels and the use of quotes from other famous novelists and professors. Outside of the orthodox ethos, logos and pathos methods, Shafak uses a personable, laid back, down to earth technique in delivering her talk. She does not move about frantically or widely vary her vocal intonation. The talk feels like a conversation, though Shafak is the only one speaking.
I selected this talk because the title included the word politics. As politics is my favorite subject area, I figured it would be a perfect fit. I truly connected with Shafak's argument. Though the talk was not about neoliberalism or foreign policy, the topic truly connected to subjects with which I regularly have mental struggles. With IB English comes novels such as Woman at Point Zero and the God of Small Things. These are novels written by authors from the settings in which their stories take place. While the stories being told are important, is fiction not supposed to be about imagination? Is it not supposed to be literally made up? Shafak discusses her struggle impressing critics, as she was expected to write about Turkish characters in Turkey, as she is Turkish. She responds to this mindset with two extremely substantial points: primarily, she illustrates the togetherness that fiction brings, regardless of nationality. Fiction can eliminate bias. A Canadian author can write about an African character with whom an Indian reader connects. Shafak states that "stories bring people together." Relatedly, Shafak argues that stories can allow and escape from our own minds, creeds, and nationalities. "Stories cannot demolish frontiers, but they can punch holes in our mental walls." This is so powerful to me, because it illustrates the power of words. I am a white female living in a middle class neighborhood. I am certainly not a Turkish writer who has lived across the world, but words can connect me to Elif Shafak. I believe this is Shafak's ultimate purpose in delivering the talk; to illustrate the power of words, and to urge listeners and viewers not to waste them perpetuating the idea of identity politics.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Double Indemnity has been called “a film without a single trace of pity or love.” Do you agree with this statement? Think about the motivations that lie behind the actions of Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson when you consider your response.
In Double Indemnity, each character supports the idea of id, ego, and superego. For example, Phyllis wants to kill her husband in order to collect insurance money, however, she strikes a flirtation with Walter Neff in order to get him to help her. I do not think that Phyllis ever had genuine feelings for Walter Neff. Also, she lied with such ease that it would be difficult to believe that she felt any pity or remorse for her actions. Contrarily, I believe Walter Neff did truly love Phyllis. I think Walter is the exception to this statement. Walter would not have risked his entire career and freedom in order to help Phyllis. The argument could be made that Neff wanted to share in Phyllis' earnings, but Walter seemed to be successful and wealthy, meaning that he would not need the money. Furthermore, Walter truly pities the victims of his crime, as he calls and confesses for the entire happenings. This statement can be supported by the actions of the wealthy insurance agency bosses. These men perform their jobs with one goal: to make money. They do not care who they hurt or take money from in the process. I think this statement is true for some characters of the film, but untrue for others such as Walter Neff.
In Double Indemnity, each character supports the idea of id, ego, and superego. For example, Phyllis wants to kill her husband in order to collect insurance money, however, she strikes a flirtation with Walter Neff in order to get him to help her. I do not think that Phyllis ever had genuine feelings for Walter Neff. Also, she lied with such ease that it would be difficult to believe that she felt any pity or remorse for her actions. Contrarily, I believe Walter Neff did truly love Phyllis. I think Walter is the exception to this statement. Walter would not have risked his entire career and freedom in order to help Phyllis. The argument could be made that Neff wanted to share in Phyllis' earnings, but Walter seemed to be successful and wealthy, meaning that he would not need the money. Furthermore, Walter truly pities the victims of his crime, as he calls and confesses for the entire happenings. This statement can be supported by the actions of the wealthy insurance agency bosses. These men perform their jobs with one goal: to make money. They do not care who they hurt or take money from in the process. I think this statement is true for some characters of the film, but untrue for others such as Walter Neff.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Thanks for the Excuse to Watch Netflix
- Gossip Girl: Yes, how "white girl" of me. In this show, we see numerous guys being controlled and manipulated by their incredibly well dressed yet catty upper-east-side girlfriends. Lady Macbeth would have drawn inspiration by Blair, Serena, and even the ruthless yet scarily intelligent Gossip Girl herself. XOXO, Lady Macbeth.
- Once Upon a Time: Lady Macbeth would have loved Storybrooke's devious mayor and resident evil queen, Regina. her I-don't-need-no-man attitude and murders of countless Storybrooke citizens would have made the two destined BFFs.
- Vampire Diaries: Though the heroine and antagonist in this series is whiny, needy Elena whom I strongly dislike, her doppelganger Katharine reminds me a lot of LM. Not only can she literally control people with her compulsion, Katharine successfully uses both of the Salvatore brothers in this series to do all of her bidding. Go Katharine!
- Orange is the New Black: This one goes without saying. Not only is the series full of powerful female roles, but these females constantly control the weak men though they supposedly have more power over the women. A perfect parallel with the life of LM.
- Blacklist: LM could have definitely gotten some ideas for murder plots from this show, and hopefully she watched it on an empty stomach. Though heroine and FBI Profiler Elizabeth Keen isn't always the most brave, neither is LM. LM would have identified with her.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
C'mon, Macbeth, Be a Man!
"Eat that bug or you're not a real man!" "Oh, come on, be a man!" "Kiss her if you want her to think you're a real man!" From recess to relationships, it seems like men are constantly being questioned. You're too emotional, not a real man. Are you wearing a fedora? Definitely not a real man (personally I'm against the institution of fedoras as a whole, but that's not what this blog post is about). In Shakespeare's Macbeth, a whole new level of "be a man" is brought to the table. We've gone from "jump the farthest and you're a man" to "kill your BFF alongside several other important figures in your life and you're a man." So, what is this "manhood" about which we so wildly speculate and how is it different now than it was when Shakespeare wrote about it?
Reading Macbeth for the first time has caused me to speculate about expectations of men in today's society and how young men are raised to act, feel, speak and think. Surprisingly, I can not find many differences between expectations of men in modern situations and the expectations that Lady Macbeth and society as a whole had on Macbeth. Granted, Macbeth's situation is a tad more amplified than most modern ones, but the idea remains the same. Men are often expected to do strange, unexpected, and foolhardy things for the sake of being "manly," and often, the only argument that is required is "be a man." When trying to convince Macbeth to stop having a panic attack about Banquo's ghost, Lady Macbeth literally asks if Macbeth is a man. This stigma of being "unmanly" is not something that has not really changed. As women's rights have become prominent, the requirement for men to provide totally for a family has been eliminated, but the stereotypical man image still remains and the expectation of manly qualities such as strength and bravery exists.
Personally, I believe that there are no specific qualities that make "good men," but that there are good people. Good people are kind, honest, giving, etc. I do not think that one needs to be particularly brave or strong to be a good person. My views are vastly different from those in the play, because Shakespeare's world presented two mutually exclusive roles of "woman" and "man." For example, Lady Macbeth literally begged the spirits to make her a man so she could have power. During that time period, it was nearly impossible for women to gain any power without being married to a man with it (Lady Macbeth would have been a true fan of Beyoncé's "Run the World (Girls)"). I think that for any position of power, the candidate with the most potential to thrive in the position should be selected, however, very rarely have women been seen in real powerful positions. For example, the United States has yet to see a female president. I think Lady Macbeth had the right idea (before she convinced Macbeth to start killing people) about gender roles in society. A true example of forward thinking in history.
Reading Macbeth for the first time has caused me to speculate about expectations of men in today's society and how young men are raised to act, feel, speak and think. Surprisingly, I can not find many differences between expectations of men in modern situations and the expectations that Lady Macbeth and society as a whole had on Macbeth. Granted, Macbeth's situation is a tad more amplified than most modern ones, but the idea remains the same. Men are often expected to do strange, unexpected, and foolhardy things for the sake of being "manly," and often, the only argument that is required is "be a man." When trying to convince Macbeth to stop having a panic attack about Banquo's ghost, Lady Macbeth literally asks if Macbeth is a man. This stigma of being "unmanly" is not something that has not really changed. As women's rights have become prominent, the requirement for men to provide totally for a family has been eliminated, but the stereotypical man image still remains and the expectation of manly qualities such as strength and bravery exists.
Personally, I believe that there are no specific qualities that make "good men," but that there are good people. Good people are kind, honest, giving, etc. I do not think that one needs to be particularly brave or strong to be a good person. My views are vastly different from those in the play, because Shakespeare's world presented two mutually exclusive roles of "woman" and "man." For example, Lady Macbeth literally begged the spirits to make her a man so she could have power. During that time period, it was nearly impossible for women to gain any power without being married to a man with it (Lady Macbeth would have been a true fan of Beyoncé's "Run the World (Girls)"). I think that for any position of power, the candidate with the most potential to thrive in the position should be selected, however, very rarely have women been seen in real powerful positions. For example, the United States has yet to see a female president. I think Lady Macbeth had the right idea (before she convinced Macbeth to start killing people) about gender roles in society. A true example of forward thinking in history.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
CAM
At the Contemporary Art Museum in Downtown Raleigh, I chose to analyse the work Make Out by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer. This piece was created in 2008 and is a 104.5 x 80 x 12 centimeters HD Resolution display with a computerized surveillance system which monitors and reacts based on movements of the viewer. Lozano is a 47 year old artist who was born in Mexico City. However, the work was made in 2008 as a reaction to the explosion of internet use during the modern era.
This is a representational work that focuses on the subject of internet availability and use, particularly videos of couples making out. This work is certainly a new media, as it contains technology within technology. It really does not convey any traditional art, especially with the unorthodox picture of hundreds of pairs making out.
The colors of the work are widely varied based on the millions of videos that are included in the piece, however the shape is very important. the shape of the viewer directly affects what is seen. The portion that the viewer is covering based on the computerized surveillance system is the only one to move, showing the pairs kissing. the other part is unlit and still. The new technology is more powerful than traditional media because it further conveys the artist's message.
The work serves to comment on the power of the modern internet-user. When the viewer is out of the view of the camera, the screen shows only couples looking at each other, but when he or she moves into the line of the surveillance system, the couples begin to kiss. based on the amount of coverage of the screen, the viewer can choose the proportion of man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman kissing based on the coverage of the screen. Lozano is commenting on the ability of the modern computer owner to quickly access any information, including sensitive videos. In addition, the video can stream for 8 months without looping. This means that 8 months worth of short clips of couples making out exists online. Lozano is also attempting to comment on the gargantuan amounts of information available online.
Citations:
"Make Out." Rafael Lozano-Hemmer.
http://www.lozano-hemmer.com/make_out.php
The piece can be viewed here: http://www.lozano-hemmer.com/videos/artwork/makeout.mp4
This is a representational work that focuses on the subject of internet availability and use, particularly videos of couples making out. This work is certainly a new media, as it contains technology within technology. It really does not convey any traditional art, especially with the unorthodox picture of hundreds of pairs making out.
The colors of the work are widely varied based on the millions of videos that are included in the piece, however the shape is very important. the shape of the viewer directly affects what is seen. The portion that the viewer is covering based on the computerized surveillance system is the only one to move, showing the pairs kissing. the other part is unlit and still. The new technology is more powerful than traditional media because it further conveys the artist's message.
The work serves to comment on the power of the modern internet-user. When the viewer is out of the view of the camera, the screen shows only couples looking at each other, but when he or she moves into the line of the surveillance system, the couples begin to kiss. based on the amount of coverage of the screen, the viewer can choose the proportion of man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman kissing based on the coverage of the screen. Lozano is commenting on the ability of the modern computer owner to quickly access any information, including sensitive videos. In addition, the video can stream for 8 months without looping. This means that 8 months worth of short clips of couples making out exists online. Lozano is also attempting to comment on the gargantuan amounts of information available online.
Citations:
"Make Out." Rafael Lozano-Hemmer.
http://www.lozano-hemmer.com/make_out.php
The piece can be viewed here: http://www.lozano-hemmer.com/videos/artwork/makeout.mp4
The
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)