Not only is A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man a long title, it is a lot to ponder. Never have I been so confused, intrigued, fascinated and frustrated with a book before. I am especially frustrated with my Big Question because how does it relate to Portrait?
Perhaps Joyce is heroic in his speech and thought that is both bold and dramatic. To me it doesn't seem that dramatic, but to the characters it's world-shaking.
Maybe being bold is one of the key characteristics every hero must posses. Bold enough to stand in the face of adversary, bold enough to know when to take a life or give it. When to speak, and when to stay silent. Bold people are the catalysts for change. They are not afraid of what is necessarily "right" or "moral" or "true" and are not boxed in by opinions. Seeing how Portrait was received when it was first released speaks volumes of its heroic abilities. It showed that people needed to be rescued from their rigid thinking. Though the youth received the book very well because they could relate to Stephen's struggles with self-worth, guilt, and the idea of beauty, adults did not look upon the book with such admiration. He was highly criticized for his unconventional writing style that lacks restraint and form. It was a bold move for Joyce to move away from traditional writing and create a masterpiece purely from the heart. Autobiographical novels that probe the heart and bring incredible realism to every young man and woman's struggle.
The true heroism of Portrait does not lie in the plot or the characters, but the mere fact it was written. Such a step was necessary to society because it opened doors for future literary works such as Beloved, and revealed an entirely new medium of literature.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Beloved
I'll be honest, I really can't stand Beloved. The book seemed to lack meaning; literal meaning, metaphorical meaning. Until the last few pages I couldn't understand what the book was about if it wasn't about slavery. If it wasn't about slavery it seemed a worthless narrative that really doesn't deserve any of the literary merits it has received.
But then there were these words...
BANG.
Realization and clarity exploded in my mind. The story wasn't written as a cry against slavery but humanity. Humanities view or sin and humanities value (or lack of value) on human life.
For much of the book the reader is set against Sethe. She is not liked, she is not loved, and she is most certainly not viewed as a hero. But, what makes the crimes Sethe committed against her daughter worse than the lynchings Schoolteacher dealt out? The rapes white men performed on black women because, god forbid, they be attracted to a black woman? Is it really worse than the complete alienation of an entire race?
Where Sethe came from there was no punishment for a white man murdering a black man. Yet Sethe's murdering Beloved was considered heinous, unforgivable, the worst form of violence existent on Earth.
Perhaps the books message was to say that we label certain things incorrectly. Murderers are worse than thieves. Embezzlers are better than kidnappers. White men are more justified in there crimes then black men. Every sin has a weight placed upon it by opinions. But then, why is Batman crowned a hero if he was a murderer first?
I don't think that any of these crimes are good, and I still don't care for Sethe, but I do agree with her thoughts. No one should have the ability to make another inferior. No one should have the ability to judge another's vices as immoral when they themselves have also messed up. No one should have the ability to demoralize and ostracize an entire race. What makes Sethe's crime so much worse than those depicted in the book's many flashbacks?
Is it worse?
But then there were these words...
... worse than that - far worse - was what Baby Suggs died of, what Ella knew, what Stamp saw and what made Paul D tremble. That anybody white could take your whole self for anything that came to mind. Not just work, kill, or maim you, but dirty you. Dirty you so bad you couldn't like yourself anymore. Dirty you so bad you forgot who you were and couldn't think it up.
(Morrison, 295)Realization and clarity exploded in my mind. The story wasn't written as a cry against slavery but humanity. Humanities view or sin and humanities value (or lack of value) on human life.
For much of the book the reader is set against Sethe. She is not liked, she is not loved, and she is most certainly not viewed as a hero. But, what makes the crimes Sethe committed against her daughter worse than the lynchings Schoolteacher dealt out? The rapes white men performed on black women because, god forbid, they be attracted to a black woman? Is it really worse than the complete alienation of an entire race?
Where Sethe came from there was no punishment for a white man murdering a black man. Yet Sethe's murdering Beloved was considered heinous, unforgivable, the worst form of violence existent on Earth.
Perhaps the books message was to say that we label certain things incorrectly. Murderers are worse than thieves. Embezzlers are better than kidnappers. White men are more justified in there crimes then black men. Every sin has a weight placed upon it by opinions. But then, why is Batman crowned a hero if he was a murderer first?
I don't think that any of these crimes are good, and I still don't care for Sethe, but I do agree with her thoughts. No one should have the ability to make another inferior. No one should have the ability to judge another's vices as immoral when they themselves have also messed up. No one should have the ability to demoralize and ostracize an entire race. What makes Sethe's crime so much worse than those depicted in the book's many flashbacks?
Is it worse?
Friday, January 25, 2013
L'Étranger
I'll just be honest, the more that I read, the more I dislike my big question. Most of the literature we pick up doesn't seem to posses heroes... heroic figures are few and far between. Even Katniss, in our beloved Hunger Games series isn't that heroic. But I think that getting hung up on finding specific heroes in books or movies or society in general is a mistake easily made.
My point; it's very difficult to be a hero, to have every fiber of your being devoted to a certain cause so much so that your life is lain on the line daily. As a whole person, Meursault is not a hero. But I do think he has a redeeming, heroic attribute: his honesty.
How many people do you know who would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth every day of his or her life? I don't know any. The most incredible thing about Meursault's honesty is that he remains honest even when the lie tastes sweeter.
I probably did love Maman, he says, but that didn't mean anything. At one time or another all normal people have wished their loved ones were dead. (Camus, 65). When dealing with death people often feel obligated to lie about their feelings, or to lie about how they saw the person when they were living. No one in their right mind would stand up at a funeral and say, "well, she was alright, but she had quite the temper." or "I think he was a good person, but I don't really miss him now that he's gone. I'm hungry, let's eat." Meursault's honesty pierces the heart and almost offends the reader. Though he continues by saying; what I can say for certain is that I would rather Maman hadn't died (65), his lawyer is not satisfied. His brutal honesty is offensive. It's sharp and bold and uncommon, but the reader expects something to escape Meursault's lips; a bit of remorse, an ounce of sorrow at her passing, but still they get nothing. And I think that's fine. Perhaps true heroes say what must be said, what should not be sugar-coated, and what hurts because people choose not to recognize truth unless it is thrust upon them.
After Meursault's trial and conviction he goes on to talk about death and how it looms above all of us. It's interesting that he's bold enough to talk about death. Death is a scary thing, but like they say, "there are two promises in life, death, and taxes". It's true, but it's a truth that is easily ignored or swept under a rug until, as said before, it is thrust upon us. Meursault says, Since we're all going to die, it's obvious that when and how doesn't matter (Camus 114).
It can be hard to confront truths. Truths about ourselves and our flaws, truths about others we wish not to see, and truths about the world we living in, and life in general. Meursault, though condemned, turns out to be a heroic character in the sense that he has the guts to say what needs to be said. He is honest, and remains true through circumstances stacked up against him where the lie is better than the truth.
I suppose that even leaves me with the question: why is it so difficult to be honest and maintain heroic qualities in and of ourselves? Why do so few accomplish this on a greater level?
My point; it's very difficult to be a hero, to have every fiber of your being devoted to a certain cause so much so that your life is lain on the line daily. As a whole person, Meursault is not a hero. But I do think he has a redeeming, heroic attribute: his honesty.
How many people do you know who would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth every day of his or her life? I don't know any. The most incredible thing about Meursault's honesty is that he remains honest even when the lie tastes sweeter.
I probably did love Maman, he says, but that didn't mean anything. At one time or another all normal people have wished their loved ones were dead. (Camus, 65). When dealing with death people often feel obligated to lie about their feelings, or to lie about how they saw the person when they were living. No one in their right mind would stand up at a funeral and say, "well, she was alright, but she had quite the temper." or "I think he was a good person, but I don't really miss him now that he's gone. I'm hungry, let's eat." Meursault's honesty pierces the heart and almost offends the reader. Though he continues by saying; what I can say for certain is that I would rather Maman hadn't died (65), his lawyer is not satisfied. His brutal honesty is offensive. It's sharp and bold and uncommon, but the reader expects something to escape Meursault's lips; a bit of remorse, an ounce of sorrow at her passing, but still they get nothing. And I think that's fine. Perhaps true heroes say what must be said, what should not be sugar-coated, and what hurts because people choose not to recognize truth unless it is thrust upon them.
After Meursault's trial and conviction he goes on to talk about death and how it looms above all of us. It's interesting that he's bold enough to talk about death. Death is a scary thing, but like they say, "there are two promises in life, death, and taxes". It's true, but it's a truth that is easily ignored or swept under a rug until, as said before, it is thrust upon us. Meursault says, Since we're all going to die, it's obvious that when and how doesn't matter (Camus 114).
It can be hard to confront truths. Truths about ourselves and our flaws, truths about others we wish not to see, and truths about the world we living in, and life in general. Meursault, though condemned, turns out to be a heroic character in the sense that he has the guts to say what needs to be said. He is honest, and remains true through circumstances stacked up against him where the lie is better than the truth.
I suppose that even leaves me with the question: why is it so difficult to be honest and maintain heroic qualities in and of ourselves? Why do so few accomplish this on a greater level?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)