Here’s some stuff that never made it into my essay…thought I’d share it. My essay was about the ‘Nunnerator’.
This is where I end my essay, but I have one more point to make and I reckon it is way too far-fetched to be considered a justifiable reason as to why a frame narrative is used. But I do not mind throwing in a theory that somehow made sense in my brain. As I said in my introduction, I experienced this sense of ‘mind distortion’ or mind – *insert f-word* when I first read the novel. I almost got mad at Hausman for leaving so many plot holes and questions unanswered. Then I remembered how puzzling it was to read the first two chapters, and so I thought – Why not reread those two chapters with the knowledge I have now? And my goodness, my mind was blown. Everything came full circle. And me, yearning to connect this ‘Nunnerator’ to a character in the story, I came to the conclusion that the narrator in the frame narrative is Chef telling his tale of the larger story of Riding the Trail of Tears. I am not entirely sure how I am supposed to back up this theory without wanting to talk to you in person about this but I’ll just list some reasons as to why I see this theory fitting. Firstly, I searched up what ‘Nunnehi’ meant and it meant travelers. The ‘Nunnehi’ are a supernatural spirit race that are friendly with the Cherokee tribe and often intercede in battle on the Cherokee’s behalf. And doesn’t that happen during the ride in the Trail of Tears when the Misfits from the Stockade come charging in and killing all those soldiers and essentially saving Group 5709? Moreover, the ‘Nunnerator’ in the frame narrative states how the Misfits “fit into all the stories that have been recorded, but they don’t fit very well into reality” (Hausman 6), which makes me think of how the Chef told Tallulah to not talk about him, Ish, and Fish from the kitchen, but it was all right to talk about the Misfits and hence that is how they fit into all the stories that have been recorded. Furthermore, the ‘Nunnerator’ comes off as wise and experienced and I believe it is because he is the one who left and walked out with Tallulah and experienced the world. From the encounters Irma Rosenberg and Tallulah Wilson has had with the Chef, the Chef comes off as extremely reserved. He does not tell you specific details of events, he often answers you by starting a different conversation, which makes him mysterious and unreliable, and I think the frame narrative here is to act as his confession. This confession is the one part of the larger tale between him and Tallulah Wilson’s story – it is a story within a story basically. Just like how the story of Tallulah’s last ride in the Trail of Tears was split between two perspectives – Irma and Tallulah. I hope that makes some sense.
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with Hausman
I know that Oedipus the King was our first ever text for Arts One and that today was the day of our final exam, but it would be selfish of me to not share this amazing discovery. As I was listening to one of my favorite songs, Demons by the Imagine Dragons, I realized how it almost seems like the entire song is narrating the life of Oedipus. I’d love to explain how I they relate to one another, but then the song is as self-explanatory as it gets. So, if you’re an Oedipus fan or an Imagine Dragons fan or both like me, please take this moment to relish this piece of art.
When the days are cold
And the cards all fold
And the saints we see
Are all made of gold
When your dreams all fail
And the ones we hail
Are the worst of all
And the blood’s run stale
I wanna hide the truth
I wanna shelter you
But with the beast inside
There’s nowhere we can hide
No matter what we breed
We still are made of greed
This is my kingdom come
This is my kingdom come
When you feel my heat
Look into my eyes
It’s where my demons hide
It’s where my demons hide
Don’t get too close
It’s dark inside
It’s where my demons hide
It’s where my demons hide
At the curtain’s call
It’s the last of all
When the lights fade out
All the sinners crawl
So they dug your grave
And the masquerade
Will come calling out
At the mess you made
Don’t wanna let you down
But I am hell bound
Though this is all for you
Don’t wanna hide the truth
No matter what we breed
We still are made of greed
This is my kingdom come
This is my kingdom come
When you feel my heat
Look into my eyes
It’s where my demons hide
It’s where my demons hide
Don’t get too close
It’s dark inside
It’s where my demons hide
It’s where my demons hide
They say it’s what you make
I say it’s up to fate
It’s woven in my soul
I need to let you go
Your eyes, they shine so bright
I wanna save that light
I can’t escape this now
Unless you show me how
When you feel my heat
Look into my eyes
It’s where my demons hide
It’s where my demons hide
Don’t get too close
It’s dark inside
It’s where my demons hide
It’s where my demons hide
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with Oedipus, Oedipus the King
Subjectively speaking, describing Paul Karasik and David Mazzucchelli’s comic rendition of Paul Auster’s City of Glass as interesting is quite rather an understatement. One of the many things that caught my attention is the unusual use of transitions between panels. In reference to Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, Blood in the Gutter, there are two peculiar transitions used in City of Glass that may be considered as orthodox in the context mainstream comics. Such panel transitions are what McCloud refers to as moment-to-moment and non-sequitur type of transitions.
Moment-to-moment transitions are seen as early as page 15, where Peter Stillman Jr. is seen to narrate the story of his life as the speech bubble eerily enters his mouth panel by panel. The same transition continues in the following pages, but although the speech bubble seem to be shift from different persons and things, the words still remain as Peter Stillman Jr.’s. This particular scene is where the evident use of moment-to-moment and non-sequitur transitions are seen. It is interesting to ask what the purpose of using these unconventional transitions are, and although I do not have the certain answers to that question, I do have a few thoughts on them.
In my opinion, I believe that Karasik and Mazzucchelli intentionally uses these two transitions in an effort to particularly dramatize Peter Stillman Jr.’s life story. In his own self narration, it is seen how he begins by providing very meticulous and particular details about his life. In this part of the narration, moment-to-moment transition is seen to be used in an effort to highlight how detail is given importance. However, as Stillman begins to talk about matters regarding “god’s language” the moment-to-moment transition gradually turns into non-sequitur.
In page 21, it is seen how each panel presents an item that contains no correlation what-so-ever to the previous image, although each item seems to have a speech bubble with Stillman’s voice. This seemingly random transitions in a way reflect god’s language. The mere fact that each panel no longer has to illustrate a scene from detail to detail represents how god’s language is certain, definite and blunt. It needs no preceding image to understand its meaning, for it stands alone, such as the words in a “perfect” language.
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with Auster, karasik and mazzucchelli
Read my blogpost about Peter Stilman’s theories, it may help with your understanding of this post 
Anyone else noticed the similarities between Peter Stilma Jr. and Quinn? The ending was slightly ridiculous to me and I asked myself at the end of the book- what exactly did it take for an intelligent writer like Quinn to become the huge mess that he is by the end of the book? I could not figure it out. So I decided to take it upon myself, as the reader, to find out. Another reason why I love City of Glass– readers get to play detective too.
I skimmed the book a second time and I discovered these parallels of Quinn and Peter Stilman Jr. that were jumping out at me. (sorry I don’t have all of the page numbers)
In Quinn’s very first entry in his red notebook, he wrote: “My name is Paul Auster. That is not my real name” (66). Does the sentence structure of this quote remind you of a time… say the time when Peter Stilman Jr. ended his speech with “My name is Peter Stilman. This is not my real name.”? What’s with the phrasing?? Well, to me…Quinn is off to a great start and ready to explore the language of God.
Like in my essay, I don’t actually have concrete explanations for any of these parallels (which is really bad LOL).
One of Henry Dark’s (Peter Stilman) theories about the language of God is that it will be acquired as soon as mankind retreat into the pitch dark cubicles of this tower of babel where they will forget everything. Peter Stilman Jr is the product of his father’s experiment which as a result, causes him to lose his ability to speak. And Quinn…in addition to forgetting his agent’s name (196), his world tumbles into darkness(199) and he “felt that his words had been severed from him” (200).
How about when Quinn buys a pen from the death-mute? It came with a label “‘LEARN TO SPEAK TO YOUR FRIENDS’” (84), could this be an indicator of the journey Quinn is about to embark on? One that requires him to learn a new language…the language of God perhaps?
I argued in my essay that Peter Stilman Sr. may have been the one orchestrating the whole episode. It’s either that or Quinn deciding he wants to transform himself into Peter Stilman Jr. HAHA
Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with aggregated posts, Uncategorized
Henry Dark aka Peter Stilman, has all these theories about the tower of babel, fall of men, fall of language that I got really confused about because he doesn’t link (or very vaguely he does) any of them back to how it would actually help with mankind learning the language of god.
When I say we in this blog post, I mean mankind.
The Tower of Babel was mankind’s attempt to reconnect with God, but it failed. Why did it fail? The main difference between the Babylonians and Adam and Eve prior to the fall of men (when men were perfect) is their knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to attribute it as the main cause of the failure of the Tower of Babel. So in order to reverse the fall of men and language, one must first forget all knowledge because the knowledge of good and evil is what separates us from God.
This should be done, according to Peter Stilman, by rebuilding the tower of Babel and retreating into the pitch dark cubicles. By going into solitude, like Jesus who spent 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness where he overcame Satan’s temptations, we will be able to learn God’s language because it would mean that we have gotten rid of the knowledge of good and evil.
Basically, we need to be like Jesus Christ to reverse the fall of language, which subsequently reverses the fall of men.
The author even acknowledges that Quinn is MIA by the end of the book, could he have ascended to heaven like Jesus after learning God’s language? Maybe? maybe not…this is getting a tad far-fetched hahaha, I know this conclusion is highly improbable but it seems interesting so decided to include it hahahah.
Till this day, I am still unsure of his theories and I don’t know if I’m the only one who is finding it hard to understand but this is what I based my essay on hahaha
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with Auster, karasik and mazzucchelli
This is my take on panopticism in the virtual world. If you are on social media, you’ve voluntarily become part of a virtual panopticon. I think it is reasonable to say that Social Media is modeled after Bentham’s panopticon.
Just like the users in the cubicles in panopticons and of social media accounts can be singled out anytime. We’ll never know if you’re watched because that information is (at least on most social media sites) inaccessible to us. Even though this isn’t exactly like the power dynamic talked about in Discipline and punish per se because social media users can be both, but it is still important to note that a similar power dynamic is observed between the watcher (watch-er? I d k) and the watched, in a sense that the former is powerful and latter powerless.
Based on personal, yet if I may say highly probable, assumption, the norm on social media that most users are inclined to conform to is the growth of the number of followers, likes, comments and engagement of this sort…which brings me to the next power dynamic…one I like to call ‘follower-following’, whereby power is measured by the number of followers. These aren’t the only power dynamics on social media, there is another I feel is even more important of which I will expound on further into my blog post.
ANYWAY….
This week’s reading on Discipline and Punish made me think about who is truly powerful when it comes to Social Media. Having been on social media for more than half a decade, and having done two internships in marketing and public relations, I find it hard to convince myself of the idea that Social Media is solely for networking purposes. It is very VERY commercialized. I am nearly 100% sure that most, if not all of us have been exposed to at least one product advertised using influencer marketing.
Bentham’s panopticon facilities surveillance and reform and we see exactly the same model if we dissect the process of social media marketing. Marketers are WATCHING us (the consumers), and then, they try to change us… They watch the way we respond to products, celebrities, global affairs. They see who we follow and find out what interests us. Ultimately they attempt (and most of the time succeed with people weak like me) to ALTER our perception of brands and implement some sort of call-to-action to purchase their products. This is one of the power dynamics on social media that I feel isn’t very obvious but exists. Everyone on social media is powerless and vulnerable when it comes to social media marketing. Influencers have all the followers that I guess to some degree, make them powerful. But nobody is as powerful as the marketers
I’m not sure how coherent this blog post is but it’s kinda my brain dump moment hahaha
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with Discipline and Punish, Foucault
I did my rewrite on Plato and realized how much I’ve changed over the year pretty much since my very first arts one essay and I also realized (too late now) that a little bit of research goes a long way…it’s kinda like having a virtual arts one seminar…pulling in new ideas…but with people online…and from the past century (the articles I used, I only realized after are from the early 1900s??)
In spite of his support for the use of music and stories of good men etc. in the education system mentioned in Book III, I thought that maybe Plato’s, after all, against the arts since he dedicated a whole chapter to it in Book X, on why it should be controlled, and he even goes to the extent of banishing poets.
After doing a bunch of research for my rewrite (trying to find articles that won’t refute my main argument not gonna lie LOL), I found that like me, many find the disparity between his treatment of the arts in Book III and Book X confusing and people try to account for that by concluding that he’d forgotten the argument he had in the beginning. Not that that is completely impossible, but this deduction is unbelievably simple and personally…I couldn’t buy into it. So I googled, strolled through the internet a bit…and found two articles which provided somewhat feasible explanations for the discrepancy and interpretations of Plato’s treatment of the arts.
The first article talks about how there is no need to make sense of the difference because the issues Plato discusses in Book III and Book X are completely different, to begin with. Book III is about imitation in relation to truth while Book X is about the treatment of imitation. The second article talks about how Plato himself has misunderstood the effects of imitative art on our knowledge of reality. Plato is all about knowing the form, physical attributes of the object are more or less insignificant to him. Therefore, there is no call for worry because arts can, in an educative sense, allow us to KNOW the form. Both authors think that it takes time for the readers to decipher but Plato loves the arts.
PLATO LOVES ARTS (one)
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with Plato, Republic
The theme of identity pervades throughout Paul Karasik and David Mazzucchelli’s adaptation of Paul Auster’s City of Glass. From as early as page 7, where he comments on how he “had long ago stopped thinking of himself as real” (Karasik 7) and as Paul Auster the detective stands next to him answering the phone, it seems as if there exists conflict in discerning who David is. The theme of identity is tightly connected to both the motif of clothes the motif of eggs. Crucially, David is completely unclothed when he answers the call – and this is when we see Paul Auster the detective physically present. Yet when the second phone call comes, he is clothed and assumes the role of Auster, emphasized as the previously physical Auster does not appear. Unclothed David is vulnerably himself as his inner identities physically manifest whereas clothed David has to assume the role of his inner identity while harboring any others within. Clothes then, represents the way that David has to pretend to be only part of who he is. Much like clothes create an outer layer, Paul Auster is the outer layer that David uses. Nowhere is this assuming of identities more obvious than in his three encounters with Peter Stillman. He assumes the identities of David Quinn, Henry Dark and Peter Stillman (the son) in these three encounters (66-81). Other instances include his identity as author William Wilson (3), Max Work (8) and possibly scribbly face. In particular, in the phrase “in the triad of selves” (8) seemed to have allusions to the Christian trinity – the God, the son and the holy spirit. This suggested that David was as much individual as he was a constituent part of what makes him David. Being both individual and separate at the same time is a difficult concept, but is echoed throughout the book. In the ending however, David comments on how “Mookie Wilson’s real name was William Wilson… The two William Wilsons cancelled each other out” (Karasik 127) suggesting that this may not be healthy for humans. The fact that his identity as an author is William Wilson too also brings in the theme of language and it’s malleability.
This becomes particularly important at the ending, where he unclothes himself in Stillman’s apartment and a panel shows the tombstone of Max Work, one of David’s inner identities (127). It emphasizes that the ‘cancelling out’ between Mookie Wilson and William Wilson has occured accordingly with Max Work – as Paul Auster the detective faded, so did another connected identity. It seems as if we only have access to this when David is physically exposed – when he has no clothes on. Perhaps this is why in page 26,Virginia Stillman is first pictured clothed, then naked. This visual change and play on motif emphasizes how David is seeing through her, but more importantly, that she is not seeing through him. “At any given moment, it was always both (127)” : Virginia believes that David is Paul Auster the detective throughout the entirety of the text.
The theme of identity is emphasized by the motif of clothing, and David’s balance of identities is perhaps all but an extreme of what many of us go through today – we each have our ‘personalities’ with family, friends and in other social situations that define and change who we are. We may not have to take all of our clothes off, but perhaps Auster, Mazzucchelli or Karasik may want the reader to consider centralizing our personalities so that David’s sort of dissonance in personality won’t happen to all of us too.
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with Auster, karasik and mazzucchelli
Although Vera Louise’s silence of Golden Gray’s biracial identity can be interpreted as an action done out of her love towards him, her decision to remain quiet over his black heritage served as a window to the discrimination black people faced during the twentieth century. By staying silent Vera Louise did not only protect her son from slavery, but she also prevented the possibility of her son from being viewed inferior and being stripped from the rights of the superior race. Moreover, the fact that she remained silent for eighteen years (143) can be interpreted in two ways: it can be seen as her attempt to keep her son hanging on to the illusion that he’s a full-blood Caucasian or it can be viewed as her attempt to convince herself that her son is not biracial, but is rather the superior race. Regardless of the interpretations stated previously, her desire to make Golden Gray’s white half dominate his black half evoked a notion that the Caucasian race was more respected. However, her silence was not the only thing that prevented him from being demoted from his status as a free, Caucasian man; his physical attributes that strongly mimicked European characteristics masked the other half of his race that was considered inferior during his time. By having “a head swollen of fat champagne-colored curls” (148 – 149) and “creamy skin” (168) Golden Gray’s race as a white person overshadowed his black race, thus preventing Vera Louise from abandoning him at the Catholic Foundling Hospital (148). Subsequently, Vera Louise’s action of keeping Golden Gray only because he exhibited Caucasian features further implied the racial inequality during that time; if Golden Gray portrayed black characteristics, his mother would have abandoned him in the hospital for keeping him would put her (and her son) to shame in the eyes of the society she lived in. However, her decision to keep Golden Gray solely because he manifested white features, can be inferred as Morrison’s attempt to provide a window to the racial injustice evident during that time; it revealed the twentieth century belief within her society that Caucasian features were favored greater than the physical characteristics of other ethnicities. Not abandoning her son if he were to display attributes of the subordinate race would make known that she had a relationship with someone of black ethnicity; consequently, that would reduce the respect Vera Louise attained from her position in the society. If she were to keep her son had he been born appearing more black than white, then her action would collide with her society’s distaste of interracial relationships.
Evidence of this social norm was supported by the response Vera Louise’s parents had towards their daughter after their discovery of her affair with Hunter (141). Had her lover been of white descent, the parents would have married her off to him right away regardless of how furious they were of the situation; instead, they exiled her from their home as Hunter was of black descent and interracial marriage was not a commonly accepted idea during that period. By banishing her from their home, it can be inferred that Vera Louise’s action unsettled them for it disrupted the twentieth century social norms they abided by. This unsettledness the parents may have experienced can be interpreted as their unfamiliarity to this new idea of interracial relationships Vera Louise unwillingly introduced to them. Since the idea appeared extremely controversial to them, it challenged the values that had been fixed so firmly in their minds by their society; their daughter’s conduct conflicted with their own ideals for her—for her to remain chaste until a specific time and that she was expected to have a same race relationship—as her incompliance to the social norms blurred the racial inequality that was strongly prominent in her era.
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with jazz, Morrison
When I was reading Sebald’s Austerlitz I was surprised to have noticed an absence of quotation marks. Because of this lack of quotation marks, I felt that the story of Austerlitz the narrator was giving to us lacked validity.
Through evocative language in the narrative structure, Austerlitz’s recollection of his past was brought to a rich imagery, subsequently immersing the reader into a search for a closer connection to him; however, the exemption of quotation marks and the reiteration of his past behind the voice of the narrator throughout the story halted the recovery of Austerlitz’s past being told in his own voice. Despite providing a vast amount of detailed information about himself to the narrator, the absence of quotation marks evident throughout the novel questioned the validity of Austerlitz’s memories being said through his own words; consequently, this uncertainty distanced the reader from fully knowing the protagonist. While the rich imagery of Austerlitz’s memories provided through his storytelling drew us closer to seeing him at a personal level, the lack of quotation marks prevented us from truly knowing him; without the presence of quotation marks surrounding the sentences supposedly spoken by him, the sentences seemed more as if they were the narrator’s interpretations of the protagonist’s depiction of his past. Hence, Austerlitz’s description of his past seemed rather incomplete for the way how Sebald structured the sentences invoked a sense of lacking assurance that the protagonist truly said those statements. As a result, this connotation evoked through Sebald’s style of writing prevented readers from fully understand Austerlitz; without knowledge of whether the words belonging to the protagonist were valid or not, Austerlitz’s past remained lingering beneath the shadows of uncertainty. Moreover, the recollection of his story through the voice of the narrator further crumbled the possibility of the reader coming to fully know the character. By having his past recounted through the narrator, Austerlitz’s voice lost its authenticity, and subsequently the uncertainty of whether the narrator’s portrayal of the protagonist’s past is valid or not becomes further emphasized.
Posted in blogs, lb4-2016 | Tagged with Austerlitz, Sebald
