Positional Memory

Question #4:
What do you think Faulkner is suggesting about memory and the process of memory? Is memory different for each person? Can several people see the past in different ways?

Faulkner's use of a ruling servant, an invalid matriarch, an observant idiot, and a brutally abusive end to the family's patriarchal line suggest that memory depends greatly on one's position in life. Dilsey, who is the family servant and therefore slightly further removed from the family's downfall, views the past with acceptance and understanding. She acts as the calming influence for Mrs. Compson. She reprimands Luster and disapproves of Jason's actions. She criticizes both on occasion, yet she does so without anger or bitterness. She remembers the past in a way similar to Benjy, who is separate from the Compsons because of his retardation. Neither one of them feels slighted over their positions in life. They do not place blame on other characters. Their memories are viewed with rose-tinted glasses.

On the other hand, Jason and Quentin are in the center of the family's downfall. Their experiences are tinted with anger, jealousy, bitterness, and an overwhelming sense of regret. Their reactions to memory provide the largest contrast between the two. Quentin obsesses over his childhood and the relationship with Caddy, and each of his memories is linked somehow with Caddy--whereas Jason lives very much in the present. Jason does not often reflect on the past, only the past that affects his money-making schemes or lack thereof. As the head of the family, he seems to have inherited the most sin in the form of character flaws. He remembers the fathers as struggling patriarchs. He does not have many memories of the women except for what his father has told him.

These memories are further enhanced by how widely they differ from each other. Dilsey and Benjy can again be grouped as people who remember Caddy's goodness as well as the faults. They quietly record the most accurate catalog of her life. Jason, on the other hand, hates her passionately and only remembers her broken promise and his petty revenge. Quentin's memories radiate guilt. Each picture of her and their childhood friendship is tinted with shame and regret that her story did not turn out differently. Every one of these differences serves to show how the past is remembered differently depending on the position from which the character views the family.

The Sound and the Fury- Second Generation

It is interesting to me to see how different characters and personalities react to the same events. For instance, what made Caddy such a loving protector for Benjy? Was she predisposed to act kindly toward him? Her character is extremely gentle, and she focuses all her love on Benjy--perhaps to make up for what both of them lack in the parental department. On the other hand, Jason takes his parents' attitudes to the opposite extreme. All their prejudice, stingy and mean behavior, and intolerance for less capable people show up in the way Jason treats not only neighbors, but his own family. He openly scorns and publicly castigates Miss Quentin, whereas Quentin privately argues with Caddy about her behavior. Both boys are obsessed with appearances like their mother, but Quentin objects quietly, and when that doesn't work, he ends his problem quietly. Jason acts out spitefully and loudly, threatening everyone he comes across- from the lazy, no good household help to his only niece. The only slight concession he makes is toward his mother, who depends on him and has always preferred him to his siblings. But he considers her stupid and annoying as well. At this point, as far as I can see, Jason has been affected the least by sins of the older generation. Caddy is forced to watch after her retarded brother and deliver illicit love letters from her uncle--this act, if nothing else may have pushed her to promiscuity. Benjy, of course, is an observer by nature- he does not react as obviously as his siblings, although he does sense events and actions. . . . Quentin, always pushed to succeed, is the reason Benjy's field must be sold--guilt over this contributes to his early death. But Jason? Who ever did anything to Jason? Does Faulkner reveal something later, or was Jason born mean and hateful?

Blog #4- Apocalypse Now: Light in the darkness

The focal point of Heart of Darkness is the setting’s sinister description. In the book, Conrad uses adjectives to heighten the tension. He writes, “Here and there a military camp lost in a wilderness, like a needle in a bundle of hay—cold, fog, tempests, disease, exile, and death,––death skulking in the air, in the water, in the bush. They must have been dying like flies here (p. 49). . . . She seemed to know all about them and about me, too. An eerie feeling came over me. She seemed uncanny and fateful. Often far away there I thought of these two, guarding the door of darkness, knitting black wool as for a warm pall (p. 55).” Throughout the novel, these images compound to embody Conrad’s own vision of darkness. In Apocalypse Now, this role is filled with increasing violence and bloodier battles. The major difference lies in what creates the darkness.

Apocalypse Now uses people and human interaction to lead viewers to “the horror.” The movie begins with Marlow hurting only himself. This gradually escalates until the point where he kills an innocent girl who gets in his way. As he states, you "cut them in half with a machine gun and give them a bandaid." The use of Wagner, the man with the cowboy hat, and the surfing highlight the characters, whereas Conrad focuses on setting to show the darkness. “We called at some more places with farcical names, where the merry dance of death and trade goes on in a still and earthy atmosphere as of an overheated catacomb; all along the formless coast bordered by dangerous surf, as if Nature herself had tried to ward off intruders; in and out of rivers, streams of death in life, whose banks were rotting into mud, whose waters, thickened into slime, invaded the contorted mangroves, that seemed to writhe at us in the extremity of an impotent despair (p. 60).” These bleak images do not waver—there is no lessening of the dark sensations.

On the other hand, the music and personalities in Apocalypse Now provide a bit of comic relief. These aspects weaken the sense of growing darkness that the setting of the book provides. During the serious scene where one soldier sends the dead helmsman down river, the soldier wears a ridiculous bandana with a broken arrow sticking out. This oddity greatly lessens the gravity of the moment. In Heart of Darkness, the most comic character is the Russian sailor wearing multicolored patches. However, he does not provide relief for readers. He behaves oddly, deeply admires Kurtz, and wishes to stay behind in the jungle. These characteristics make the man appear indecipherable and slightly creepy, whereas the odd characters of Apocalypse Now create light in the darkness.

Blog #4 - short stories

For me, Metamorphosis is the most complex, the most difficult to understand. Why a bug? The entire thirty pages described the life of a bug. This seemed simple to me, but I can't find a greater purpose for it. As far as the title goes, I can only see the metamorphosis as his change into a bug. His relationship with his family doesn't change. He is not, at any point, important to the family as anything other than a source of rent. He doesn't interact; he is cut off from the family even before his physical change. his family doesn't change - they alter their habits and get jobs, but they eventually fall back to their original state. Can any one clue me in on the interpretation of this?

Blog #3- Moral Pyromaniac?

     The fire is set before we enter. Small tinders have begun a slow burn and Iago's schemes are merely ideas. However, none of these ideas show the respect one would attribute with a religion, especially one with Othello as God. Iago's first words about Othello are "but he; as loving his own pride and purposes, evades them, with a bombast circumstance horribly stuff'd with epithets of war. . . ." His words hardly seem respectful, much less reverent, as would befit a God-like figure.

     As far as treating war like a religion, Iago shows in-depth knowledge of battle and rankings, but again lacks commitment to it. Form the beginning, Iago undermines the workings of their navy. He sets fire to the traditions of loyalty and honor and informs us of his ideas regarding Othello as the leader of their war. He says, "We cannot all be masters, nor all masters connot be truly follow'd. . . . Others there are who . . . keep yet their hearts attending on themselves, and, throwing but shows of service on their lords, . . . do themselves homage . . . and such a one do I profess myself."

    We know Iago considers himself intellectually above Othello, but envies his morals. We know Iago torches these morals toward the end of the play. We know that Iago enjoys playing with the other characters' minds during his battle. But Iago doesn't seem to view his war as a game or a religion. The moral pyre Iago builds holds great importance to Iago, but lacks the emotional depth normally shown toward a religion. Iago acts with diligence; he is more careful than he would be if playing a game. Especially toward the end, there is nothing game-like about his attitude. His future and reputation hinge on whether or not his plan works.

Blog Post #2 -

The most problematic part of Oedipus Rex for me is the fact that he was running the country. On the surface, he may appear to have all of the qualifications necessary for a leader - he has a strong voice, great credentials, a moral conscience, and experience in problem solving. Dig an inch deeper, and his story falls apart.
Firstly, he may have solved the Sphinx riddle by some fluke, but he does not possess much intelligence beyond that. Any idiot could see the similarities in Laios's prophecy and Oedipus's, whether they feel innocent or not. Instead of viewing the claim that he wasn't Polybos's child with mild interest and only a passing glance, Oedipus ought to have started interrogating himself the moment he heard that story.
Also, having a leader who kills someone out of mere road rage doesn't seem like the best idea. Does Oedipus show any fairness in this act? Decency? A little understanding for others? Not by any stretch of the imagination.