Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Faulkner Relaxing after his AP Lang & Comp Exam
Faulkner Relaxing after his AP Lang & Comp Exam
Contributors
- AParrish
- Alex
- Alice Rocha
- Ally
- Amanda
- Anna Burns
- Arjun
- Beth
- Celi
- Claire W.
- Dan A.
- Emma Sweet
- Eric
- Grace
- Kara Donahue
- Kate Walpole
- Katie Coyle
- Keriksen
- Lee Ving
- Lexi Cardenas
- Libbey
- Lord Byron
- Luke Clifford
- Maggie Brown
- Maggie Calcutt
- Maggie
- Maggie
- Maggie
- MeganLanglais
- Molly O'Connor
- Molly
- Nicole
- Rosie
- Sara Darcy Klik
- Sarah Wakefield
- Taylor Peterson
- brooke
- chia
- connor s.
- connor
- emily matis
- emma
- mfrasco6
- rhandler
I guess I will go off of what Amanda and I discussed in class today..? After laughing about humorous parts in the novel Amanda and I began to discuss interesting ideas in the novel. We focussed on Alexander or "Sasha" in particular and his progression throughout the novel. We found his change to be the easiest to follow but also extremely enlightening. Alex changes tremendously throughout the novel which is evident throughout his letters to Jonathan. In his first few letters he is embarrassed by his insufficient knowledge of the English language. Furthermore he questions everything he writes, and constantly seeks criticism of his story. However as the book progresses and Alex becomes less hesitant he too is able to critique Jonathan and he questions many concepts that are present in Jonathan's story. For example Alex questions whether statements in Jonathan's story are true as he states: "I don't think that there were these kinds of saws at that time, but i trust that you have a good purpose for your ignorance" (142). Furthermore in his next letter Alex for the first time corrects his mistake as he crosses a word that was conjugated incorrectly reading: "But I understanded (strike through/ crossed out) understood that... "(157). I find Alex's progression throughout the novel very interesting, because although it is not meant to be the most important part of the novel his change is definitely noticeable and interesting. Furthermore amanda and I discussed the ending of the novel and the final letter written by the grandfather- Amanda if you get a chance this could be a great chance to depict what we disused and elaborate and explore what else you found tonight.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Liz
There are several jumbled up things i want to discuss.
ReplyDeleteThis book has such a unique and mostly depressing outlook on love and having none of the charcters ever truly in love, becasue what they really love is the notion of love.
The Dial has this one line where he says "She did all of those things...and she never even loved me. Now that's love"(264). Trachimbrod's people are always searching for something greater than doesn't exist even when they exhibit all classics signs of love, they always admit to the other they are not truly in love. I'd try to analyze this more but I get the feeling that there is no single answer to this book because it is so extrordinarily complicated. I think the only generalization we can make is that love is just a word and they ruin their lives and their 'love' when they think they dont live up to it. This sort of comes back to what we were discussing today about the towns and even Jonathens and alex's need to write everything down in this book and the book of Antecedents and recurrent dreams, but the words are meaningless strings, ties to memories they get caught in like a "labirynth" (259). I think its interesting too that Alex always signs his letters guilelessly but the one where he is utterly confused about Jonathens ideas of love in his book he signs it "love, Alex" (242). I wonder if this was intentional or sort of a slip that shows how carelessly that word is used.
On the resolution of "I will...i will..."and how this emphasis on a choice for a future comes up so often. In the memory diagram on 259 one name is substitued for I will and Alex writes of the difficulty of choosing "I will not,instead of that I will"(241).In the future tense, this short phrase emphasizes that there will be a future as well as a future of action. that's why I think it is most powerful when the bokk ends with the Grandfather writing "i amcomplete with happiness, and it is what I must do, and I will do it. Do you understand me? I will walk without noise, and I will open the door in the darkness, and I will" (276). This is where the book ends with I will the infinite blank space not even with punctuation to cut it off. But the grandfather kills himself at that moment his life is over there is no more will. What do you think? is theis freedom of choice found only in death, why does he kill himself when hes most happy? Does he have more of a future in death than life?
Also on 272, 273 the last section of the book of dreams we see what is almost history repeated with a second baby almost born to the river.But it fails no new child is born from the Brod. Why do you think he does this history-does-not-repeat concept or it almost did but something was new ,changed? The healthy baby dies in her mothers arms dragged down by the umbilical cord, unlike Brod(the girl) before her.Therefore, she is never subject to Brod'slife of lies and 637 sadnesses.
Have you read 100 Years of Solitude? The Trachimbrod parts of this story remind so much of that book- magical realism,heightened sexuality, multiple generations many with the same names, and the eventual wiping out of everyone in the town.
Liz
ReplyDeleteI didnt see your comments till after I posted but I think we were on the same page anyway talking about grandfather's letter etc. and things like I will that we discussed earlier
This book is so complicated!!!!
Amanda- hopefully we are not posting at the same time! I was looking for the links Ms. Parrish posted for us but i couldn't find them, do you happen to know where she put them? I have been thinking about the relationship between Jonathan and the others, but more specifically why Alex classifies Jonathan as "the hero". As it is obvious that Jonathan is embarking on a long quest it cause me to question whether or not it is a "hero's journey". Campbell classifies the hero and his journey as "A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man". I think this directly parallels Safran's story in that Jonathan "ventures forth from" his world, embarking on a journey in hopes of answering questions about his relatives. Interestingly although the character roles are too originally have Jonathan search, the driver (grandfather) to drive, and Alex translate, however it is evident that these characters undergo a great deal of self discovery as well. Alex for example "must cut all of the strings... with you (jonathan)... with their father... and with everything they have known" (275). It is evident that because of their journey Alex was able to not only improve his English and translate to the "spoiled jew" he was able to learn about himself and 'reestablish' who he is. Furthermore the Grandfather is liberated throughout this journey as he chooses to kill himself he says: "I am complete with happiness and it is what I must do" (276). The grandfather is finally able to leave earth, he is finally happy and liberated and feels his time on earth is no longer present and his time to escape the world is occurring. So not only do these originally thought of "additional characters" complete their duties of translator and driver, but they too discover things about themselves and are liberated to start over in the end.
ReplyDeleteGood idea Liz, this is somehing we have not dicussed yet. I think there is a lot of ways which Jonathan qualifies for Campbell's definition of a hero. He leaves "common day" America for the "supernatural wonder" of Trachimbrod. The book he writes upon his return can be considered as "his power to bestow boons on his fellow man". The thing I take issue with is whether he achieves "desicisive victory" over what he encounters.Jonathan is "born to write" and may take the place of the witness rather than the hero, The Homer of the Odyessey rather than the Odeyseus(70). When something interesting takes place he removes himself from the situation in order to write it down.
ReplyDeleteI think we could argue that Alex grows to become the true hero which would show irony in how he calls Jonathan "the hero" without questioning (66). He becomes the one that Augustine looks to when she tells her story and ulitmately saves his family by telling his father "you are not my father" as well as that "he would forgive" him which adds to Alex seeming noble(274).
I have been reading the reviews that Ms. Parrish posted and I found a quote that helped to support what we discussed earlier about Alex's progression throughout the story. Mifflin claims: "At first, Alex's version of English resembles an out-of-control garden hose turned on full-force and allowed to thrash away on a summer lawn. He's got a thesaurus and he'll be damned if he's not going to use it." It is this that is first portrayed by Alex, however later on he progresses and as Hamilton claims in his review that "Alex gathers dignity with every page" (I point which i think completely sums up my first blog post.)
ReplyDeleteFurther Mifflin discusses the lack of importance and substance in Jonathan's chapters, he describes : "Ordinarily, this caveat would make "Everything is Illuminated" unrecommendable, but the Alex portions of the novel are so good that in the final calculation they far outbalance the book's weaknesses. (Plus you can skim the Trachimbrod sections without missing that much.)" (Mifflin). I found this very interesting because it contradicts everything Amanda and I have claimed. We do agree that Alex's present day story is obviously more important in its withholding of meanings and symbolism, however Jonathan's story is the basis for such importance. Without Jonathan's story Alex's tale would simply be a story of a Jewish man's journey throughout Ukraine (a very uneventful journey at that).
In the third review that Ms. Parrish linked the author talks about Foer's gravitation towards doubles. This may be a very interesting thing to elaborate and comment on. Have fun!
Liz
Like you Liz I was really kind of shocked that so many critics think “There are two stories wound together in this first novel, and as is often the case, one is more engaging than the other” (Miller). I do not think the Trachimbrod sections are any less important than the Alex sections; the book would have hardly any depth without them. Though Alex’s mangled English is the entertaining product of his misunderstanding of “common, demotic and poetic words”, without the other story I think it would get very old very fast and then the critics would be calling the story too simple(Hamilton). With the exception of Mendelsohn, most of these critics seem to not be putting the time in to analyze the story choosing rather to laugh at the most superficial, if funny, aspect of the novel, Alex’s broken English. It’s actually a bit disappointing.
ReplyDeleteMendelsohn’s article talks of doubles, but I think it might be more just separation than strictly two parts. Even when two people are in love in this book they cannot acknowledge the love because they feel such separation between themselves. There are plenty of other places we see this too, Ukraine and America and how they produce Alex and Jonathan, and even how the style between Alex and Trachimbrod parts seems to suggest different worlds that are not connected.
I did like how Miller compared Foer’s work to “Garcia Marquez” because that’s what I was thinking earlier but she sort of loses any credibility with me when she calls it “dime-store” Garcia Marquez. I would like to see her try to write something so intricate in that magical realist style.