Generalizations. . .

So. . . I really dont't mean to be the downer of the class at this point. . but sitting in class yesterday, all I could really think about was, "Is he REALLY trying to generalize us all into one catagory of ignorant teenagers/semi-adults?"

For the past few class period, this thought has ran across my mind, during which Dr. Sexson is usually lecturing on how "we need to become more interesting people" or "people these days have an average attention span of 7 seconds". So, when these topics are referenced, one must assume that they're being applied to the class. Are we being generalized? Grouped into the society that is the masses? When speaking of the Brothers K, I feel as if, just because Ashley hasn't read a book bigger than 300 pages, it means that the vast majority of the class hasn't. That reading a challenging book is a whole new, exciting adventure for everyone, and this is the first one.

Ok. . . I'm gonna start to be blunt here. ~ We're not all ignorant to large, challenging books, and we're not all ignorant to the symbolism within them, or the importance of the work itself, just by itself. From listening to Garrett, and reading other people's blogs, I can speculate that alot of people have read big books, and that this isnt the first one. Speaking for myself, I'm constantly searching for a more challenging read, and was in the middle of one until the Brothers K forced it out of my hands. Don't get me wrong, I really love reading the book, but I don't find it as challenging, or as "wordy" as other people might. I really love how Dostoevsky goes into great depth to really explain things, even if it means going off topic to give a background story. It really adds to the experience. But seriously, not all of us can get sick like Garrett and spend 12 straight hours reading a book and finish. I would get into the whole "boring person" business at this point, but I'm saving that for another time, seeing as it's a topic that will come up with me at the end of the semester.

I'm quite possibly the only person in class who thinks about this, but so be it. I dont like being lumped into a catagory I dont belong in, nor do I like think that someone else is being thrown in right along side of me. I've ranted long enough, and I don't want to offend anyone, so I'll end here.

Brothers K. . . Not coming along as well as I intended.

So as the title implies, Brothers K and I are not meshing to a point where we can go along with our stories. I'm not as far in as I thought I would be. As an explanation, at the beginning of the book, I mixed up parts and books, so when it said to be done with Part 2, I thought that meant book 2. . oops. So now I'm half way through Part 3, desperately trying to catch up, reading when i can. Most of the time that's 12 o'clock at night after all my other homework, and i usually fall asleep after 10 pages or so. . . Soooo.... ya my progress has been limited to say the least.

Anyway, I'm at the point where Father Zossima has passed away, Aloysha is (or was) stricken with grief, and Greshenka has fled with her officer who appears to be more inferior than he lets on. I must admit, I only skimmed the last bit of Father Zossima's notes, because it's religious talk, and me being the complete opposite, I find it, not uninteresting, but. . . unreal. Say what you will. . I didn't quite grasp the lingo, nor did i really care, so I figured the talk of finding God wasn't essential to the story. I may be wrong, but oh well.

At this point, I'm quite intrigued by the female characters, Greshenka especially. She's so complex!! More so than Fydor Paloyovich (or however you spell that). I find the men easy to analyze, so I've moved onto the non-essential female characters. Greshenka, though, seems to posess human emotions, but also is SO kniving! Using the men "in her life" to better herself, in a cruel way almost. Yet i suspect this is because she doesn't know who she is, or what she wants in life, so playing men is her way of guessing and checking what she wants. Her mind is always changing. I love the challenge of trying to figure out what she's gonna do next. I hope she comes back into the plot, though i again suspect that she will not, for as in all tragedies, someone is going to die soon. The main confict seems to be on the next rise. . I'm excited to get there.

Final Sonnet and Found Poem Drafts

Caught Off Guard

I dare jnot write a cheery love poem,
For I am not cheery, nor am I in love.
The words I write may sound to you solemn,
Yet they be pure as the white wings a dove.

Moments ago, whole I was, whole I sought.
Yet now I see the pieces that I fear.
Forced from my comfort, out of my thought,
I behold my wreckage of formers dear.

Where did you come from, and whence did you came?
For you've awakened this demon in me
That I'm forced to rein in till it comes tame,
Knowing little enought to let it flee.

Tell me, how do you know I to the soul?
For I've barely known you, known you at'all.

~I didn't change this final draft much from the last draft either. I know that my iambic pentameter isn't perfect at all, and is missing from a few lines, but I happen to like it like that. I don't like . . . how do I say this. . . sing-song verses? The words should just flow, without there being a struggle to count the syllables or da-dums. So here is what I have to present. Now for the found poem:

Good Earth

The super-fruit,
The pomegranate
All natural from
This good earth.
Flavors rich of
Tea of Green,
Rich of rich cherries
Wrapped with
Pomegranate flavors
And new earth. A good earth.
Wrapped with natural sources
From a good earth.

~I actually really like this poem. Again, I didn't change a whole lot, I think I added 2 or 3 lines from the first draft, and added words here and there. I really like the repetition I used, cause I feel I didn't over-do it. I wish I was someone else, so I could have an outside readers opinion on how to make it better possibly. But I feel this is sufficient and well written.

Found poem drafts

so. . . little did i realize that we could mess with the words of our found poem, until he told me twice in class to do so, which i would of liked to have done, but i interpreted the assignment as making anything normal sound like a poem, not an inspiration to write one. hmm.. oh well. here's a new one anyway:

The superfruit,
the pomegranate,
all natural from
this Good Earth.
Flavors rich of tea
of Green,
rich of rich cherries.
Wrapped with
pomegranate flavors
and new earth. A good earth.
Wrapped with natural sources.
From a good earth.

This came from a tea box, if you couldn't tell. I don't have alot of random things in my room that inspired me, so why not turn around a label of one's own favorite tea? I may leave it the way it is. I messed around with this one:

Natural care
of Tom's
Oringal Care
of Maine.
For an alcoholic-free
exprience,
experience refreshing and
soothing
clean.
breath of witch hazel,
oil of aloe vera,
.....
Thats as far as i got. I didn't know what else to do with a mouthwash bottle. It's not as interesting Seth's poem was. I hate using other people's words to create my own meaning.

Sonnet Draft

So. . as everyone has previously stated about their drafts, this could be changed a little bit. I know in some of the lines the meter is off, but i think i may like it like that. idk, this may also be a final draft. I'm fairly happy with it.

The Great Awakening

I dare not write a cheery love poem,
For I am not cheery, nor am I in love.
The words I write will sound to you solemn,
Yet they be pure as the white wings a dove.

Moments ago, whole I was, whole I sought,
Yet now I see the pieces that i fear.
Forced out of my comfort, out of my thought,
I behold my wreckage of formers dear.

Where did you come from, and whence did you came?
For you've awakened the demon in me.
Yet you've forced me to rein it, till it comes tame.
I view the sun, I see its' grace on thee.

Tell me, how do you know I to the soul?
For I've barely known you, known you at'all.


I had such a hard time writing this poem at first, I still feel that it doesnt convey what I want. But in the end, the words just kind of came to me. Probably cause, in preparation for this poem, I wrote about 5 or 6 of my own to draw inspiration. I was my own muse! Though, they only provided ideas, for i write long, free verse poems generally. I might edit this, i might not. i have yet to decide. suggestions are welcome.

Yet another title christened "Sonnets"

I'm not the poet that usaually rhymes. Actually. . . i never rhyme at all. I just. . write. And it becomes to be what is. So this sonnet business, though I truly do appreciate them for what they are, never quite grasped my whole-hearted affections. But. . i do understand that to be a better writer, i must expand my comfort zone and try new things, explore different options of writing and saying things. To think of new ways to state the common. (I've tried, but it's a proven fact by my sister and previous English teachers that I cannot rhyme worth my life. I am no Shaherizad in that sense. I would die . . ) I find lines restricting. I don't like short poems, and to me 14 lines is a short poem. I like a good Poe.

But I vow to give it my best shot; to crack open my own soul and mind to allow inspiration to flow freely. I hope i have a muse that takes my body over. . For I no longer have a "significant other" that i can write about, and I can't duck out of the light by writing one about the only thing in this world that I truly love, my horse. So maybe this one will be about hope. . about my imaginary love of my life. . . after my life experiences I kinda know what im looking for. maybe this sonnet shall be a guideline to myself; a healthy reminder. I know what i will write. . just don't know how the in between process of putting pen to paper will turn out. I'll let you know when i post it, and then you too can figure out what it is i seek.

Are we defeating purposes???

I'm reading Tim's blog, and Ashley's blog, about the archetypal female. I was even reading an essay for yet ANOTHER class about abuse in women, and how we all fail to come to terms with our own pain. Anyway, this idea kept forming in my head, rising up it's ugly head to shout it's opinion. The comment i wrote on Tim's blog touches on the beginnings of this topic. After this blog I'm done with female archetypes.

We've beaten the topic to death, talked all the new meanings out of it, to the point that all we can do is come full circle to what already was. And that's just it. Everything is full circle of itself. I even have a tattoo of an ankh that has the same meaning of life. Yet again this is referring to Mother Earth. People are still trying to draw conclusions, and make an ending for their points. They try to describe the archetype for what it already is, and come up with examples and stories and other relations. The describing of the Plutionic Ideal, of the devouring mother, and of the great earth mother has lead to many great discussions, don't get me wrong there. But something in Ashley's blog sparked my thoughts enough to have to rant about them even more. She's talking about another author from a favorite reading.


"...The female archetype throughout his works alone fits every single one of the descriptions we've talked about in class, everything from the temptress to the earth mother."

In Tim's blog I commented this: "Maybe it's not what you said. . . or what you did. . but simply the fact that real life fails to follow literature, seeing as many literary authors use ideals and archetypes. There is never one archetype to a person, it's never that easy. . ." (in that sense, in literature, im mainly referring to romantic literature. . as that was the topic of his blog.)


So in saying and quoting those, here's where I draw my conclusion, and will thusly expand and explain: There is no ONE archetype to a person or character. Even male and felmale archetypes are often confused, the lines blurred. Can't a woman have a hero's journey? Can't a man play the "temptress" in a way? Why not? We see them in real life all the time. In a perfect ideal, the female hero would become the Plutonic Ideal, innocent but strong. The male temptress would become "the player" in real life, tempting women from their morals and twisting their emotions. Wouldn't he then also be a trickster? ?

Real life complicates literature, and blurs the lines of everything. A woman can be the male, female, or trickster archetype all in one character, as in the life we all live, which inspired literature (to a point, there are the authors who write total fiction and write nothing but ideals in an ideal world with an ideal fantasy love affair. . .)I can go off on even more deep tangeants of thoughts, all logical, just as Jay did about rappers,but I'll shut up for the moment. I'll leave with this though. . If all archetypes can be one another, is it useful to even try to describe them? Just as it's useless to pull a moral from a story? Does defining a character and giving it a catagory defeat the purpose and intended complexity of the character and the story???

Too Much Reality: Oates vs. Chekov

I hate to say the same thing that other people in the class have already stated, but I too must agree with the overwhelming majority of them on this. I too preferred the Chekov version of "The Lady with the Pet Dog", as compared to the version Joyce Carroll Oates wrote. I have a theory as to why we preferred the old, outdated, seemingly-unrelated-to-modern-times version:
We're all romanticists. Almost every human, man or woman, whether they admit it or not, wants to live that fantasy; that fairytale love affair. They want to find "the love of their life" in odd and unconventional ways. And a weekend (or years-long) affair seems to fit the bill quite nicely. As Heather just announced in her blog, the "Romeo and Juliet" tends to come out of people, and the yearning, and longing, and constant searching for that type of emotional connection with someone is irresistable, even if that someone or someones are fictionally written almost a hundred years ago.
Oates is a morvelous story teller, she's real without being too raw, but raw enough that one is able to connect almsot instantly with whatever character she is writing about. I'll admit, even though I liked Chekov better, I related to Oates much much more. Just as with the girl who wrote about "Disillusionment at 10 o'clock", I cried. Not hard, not sobbing, but tears were definately present. Everyone has felt the uncertainty, the guilt, the unmistakeable feeling of loving someone other than who you should. If someone hasn't, they probably will. Here's my hypothesis as to why the majority of the class prefered Chekov: Oates's version is too real. I'm not criticizing, for I loved her version, but the emotions, the pain, that was not portrayed in Chekov's version, were very VERY real, and they did not meet the fantasy, the romance, that we were all searching for. And maybe it's because Chekov's version was put before Oates's, and that set us up for seeming failure in a way.
The way the two were written, from two points of view, may of had something to do with it. One was from a man's point of view, how he "put her on a pedastle" as Dr. Sexson would say. He elevated her to beyond his reach, and therefore he was drawn to her in the most romantic of ways (and lustful. . . ). His emotions, though real, were safe to the readers. They were what we expected. Now, with Oates's version, it's the opposite. It was from the woman's point of view. She loved him, her lover, and she knew it. Yet, as is mostly the case, she was ashamed of it, for she already had a husband that she "loved". And to have to actually admit to herself that she made a mistake is one of the hardest and most painful things of all, especially when it's a mistake of love. That's what this version portrayed correctly that the other one didn't. Pain.
So, even though Dr. Sexson thought we would like the newer version better, for maybe we would relate to the times it was written in easier, the fact is, maybe that's why we didn't prefer it. We all related to it too much.

Venus of Lespugue: A small fact from my Anth. class

We have a beaten this female archetype thing to death almost, like beating a dead horse with a stick. We get it, we understand, and we all have our opinions. The female archetype is one of the most complex archetypes there is, though it's easy to understand. Yet, here's a little "treasure for your nuggetbox" as my friend would say.

The assignment was to read the first chapter of The Dawn of Human Culture by Richard G. Klein. Human culture bores me, or rather I must bore it, for I find humans a little on the dull side; they're predictable (unlike animals). I read this chapter a while ago to see what the book was like, so I just skimmed through it. I got interested in what the book would lead to in the end, what conclusions it would draw, so i flipped and skimmed the back of the book. Lo' and Behold!!! There, staring me in the face as if, once again, I was meant to see it this very day, was the Venus Willendorf (or in this case it was the Venus of Lespugue). It was a figurine from the Upper Paleolithic Gravettian Culture (the picture above is a replica of the one found), and was being used as an example to compare a small "carved" rock that may have resembled a human figure made by Neanderthals some 280,000 - 233,000 years ago in a site called Berekat Ram, on the Golden Heights of the Syrian territory, which is now controlled by Israel. Now, the older figure can only be described as "human in shape", and cannot be depicted as a woman at all. But thats not the point. .

The point is, these figurines of Venus and IDEAS of the female archetype and the Earth Mother have been around for 30,000 years or more. . . now. . thats a long time to be able to understand and idolize where life came from. To think that cultures had only really started some 20,000 yrs before that. .well. . I'd say it was a big leap forward, and it shows just how powerful and important these ideas to ancient civilizations.