The University of British Columbia
UBC - A Place of Mind
The University of British Columbia Vancouver campus
Arts One Open
  • About
    • People
  • Themes
    • Repetition Compulsion
    • Remake/Remodel
    • Explorations and Encounters
    • Monster in the Mirror
    • Dangerous Questions
    • Borderlines
    • Hopes and Fears
  • Lectures and Podcasts
    • Lectures
    • Podcasts
  • Texts
  • Blog posts
    • Seeing & Knowing LB1 (2015/16)
    • Seeing & Knowing LB3 (2015/16)
    • Seeing & Knowing LB4 (2015/16)
    • Repetition Compulsion LB1 (2014/15)
    • Repetition Compulsion LB4 (2014/15)
    • Repetition Compulsion LB5 (2014/15)
    • Remake/Remodel LB3 (2013/14)
    • Remake/Remodel LB4 (2013/14)
    • Remake/Remodel LB5 (2013/14)
    • Monster in the Mirror LB1 (2012/13)
    • Monster in the Mirror LB2 (2012/13)
    • Public
    • All
  • Twitter
  • Welcome to Arts One Open

    Arts One Open is an open, online extension to the University of British Columbia’s Arts One program that enables anyone to join this voyage of discovery and critical analysis. We provide recordings and other material from lectures given in Vancouver by some of UBC’s most experienced teachers.

Recent posts

Here are the most recent posts to the site, including blog posts by students and instructors in Arts One. Click on the titles to go to the original posts if you want to comment.

Are we real-life Gustls?

I think Gustl is very relatable. I, too, often have internal monologues. When I was a little girl, as the only child in the family, I was always kind of lonely. I would talk to my toys but as I grew older, I realised that that is actually very very strange. So I brought those conversations back into my head. It still seems rather abnormal, but technically it is just me thinking out loud, in my head, having internal monologues like Gustl. Internal monologues are nothing foreign to me.

On so many levels do I find Gustl relatable. I do agree that he has some attitude problems but that being said, I find it hard to deny how much of me I see in him. In fact, I think most of us are like Gustl. We are similar not in our personalities per se but the way we handle crisis.

Let us imagine that a son accompanies his mother on a grocery store run on behalf of his father who is still busy working. Imagine the son sitting in the passenger seat next to his mom who is driving. A reckless drunk driver crashes into the right side of the car where he is at. The first response his mother might most likely give will be to blame herself. And once she realizes that she had technically, nothing to do with the accident, she starts blaming other people like her husband, for example. I think we would all agree that this scenario is very much possible. I also think that it is similar to Gustl’s situation.

The baker points a knife at Gustl. Gustl uses his own abilities to rationalize something that did not even arise because of him. Therefore, when he starts to realize that he can do nothing to rectify the problem, he starts to put the blame on other people. This may seem selfish of him, but I think that it is a normal human response.

Overall, I find that Gustl deserves our sympathy. He is an Individual brainwashed by the norms of the environment he was in. But besides that, we do see that even with his ranks and everything, he is still very much like a regular human being.

 

 

 

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Schnitzler

Was Nathanael really just imagining things?

Reading the sandman, I pondered a lot about whether the account given by Nathanael about the sandman was real. I wondered a lot about whether those scenes of ‘memory’ were pieced together by his subconscious out of fear. As human, I think most of us would agree that we sometimes create our own versions of reality. We recall places we think we have been when we actually haven’t, or people in our lives that probably did not even exist. This phenomenon is what is termed Confabulation. According to Google, Confabulation is a ‘disturbance of memory’, when our sub-conscious fabricates memories. Basically, in short, we imagine things.

Confabulation is also known in a more contemporary sense as the Mandela effect. It was coined when a bunch of people misremembered the death of Nelson Mandela. They had, for some uncanny reason, a common memory of the Mandela’s death in the 1980s. (He died in 2013)

In lecture, we learned that our brains constantly strive to make sense of the things we see. This is why the technique of negative spaces in design works. Contrary to what our brains tell us, the picture below is not actually a picture of a cow. It is simply a picture of a few random shapes. What our brain does is make use of the space around these random shapes and conclude an image of a cow. (Taking a closer look, I am no longer seeing random shapes. How tricky, I now see a dog, rabbit, cat, and two other animals that I cannot make sense of)

(I can’t upload the image here due to copyright reasons, but you may check it out here)

As you can see, we are always seeking to rationalize what we see. Nathanael attempts to make sense of his father’s death and does not succeed. His father’s death clearly left an irreparable damage on him. His desire to identify the culprit of his father’s death was brought upon by his desire to put closure to it. Confabulation comes perfectly into place, a negative memory of sandman that justifies his accusation of the sandman. The sandman was made the scapegoat to his irrationalities. Therefore, I am rather skeptical about Nathanael’s account of the sandman because I think there is a possibility that Nathanael is falsely accusing poor sandman.

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Hoffmann

Why Rousseau has to rethink his argument.

In my essay, I disagreed with Rousseau. I found that his opinions were not valid nor well justified, and overall too thin to persuade me that the savage man was, in fact, happier than us, civil men. I felt that it was irrelevant for him to compare the savage man to the civil man especially because of the several very important external forces that delegitimize his claim.

The savage man, is to him, happy because he has fewer needs. Us, on the other hand, are unhappier than the savage man because we have more needs. To be fair in the comparison, we have to ensure that the only thing differing between the savage man and the civil man would be the number of needs. But life is never ideal. There are a lot of things, besides the number of needs,  that we need to look at when we analyze Rousseau’s hypothesis—how easily can these needs be fulfilled, the environmental forces that affect our perception of ‘needs’, how educated we are, how technologically developed we are, how we define needs and most importantly, how we define happiness. I found it difficult to comprehend this concept because I find that happiness is not constituted plainly by the number of needs. Further, I find that most ‘needs’ that we think we need, are not true needs, just ‘wants’ that our brain convinces us we need.  So technically, it is unjustified to compare the savage man, one with true needs, to us, civil man, with artificial needs.

Rousseau is arguing on the fact that needs have a direct correlation with happiness. In my essay, I talked a lot about how the term ‘needs’ should be broken down to prove that Rousseau was in fact, comparing an apple to an orange.  Today, I shall once again, attempt to rebut his hypothesis

Assuming I only had one need in addition to breathing, eating and sleeping, which is a good-looking husband. Technically, I would have the same amount of needs as a savage man (I swapped out sex for a good-looking husband). However, will finding a good-looking husband really make me happy? (no.)

There are many things in the civil life that make me almost completely certain that the civil man is happier than the savage man. The one that stood out to me most would be, human interaction. There are a lot of ways we can go about explaining why human interaction makes us happy but a recent scientific study reported that the more people we interact with, the happier we are, or at least we feel we are. This is so because it creates a sense of belonging in the community and the acknowledgment we get from other members of our community makes us happy. This is key because savage man does not get the human interaction we can get. They barely cross paths with the same person twice because of how scarcely spread out they are.

All in all, I am still, till this day, unconvinced by Rousseau and this blog posts is to supplement my essay in shaping my argument.

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Rousseau

What do you think of Meng Zi’s mom?

Meng Zi’s mother is, to many,  ‘Mother of the era (of Mengzi’s time)’ because of her dedication as a mother. She knew that the environment would be one of the most important factors to  Meng Zi’s growth and organized three major moves until she, along with Meng Zi, finally settled in a place she felt was best for his learning. It was impressive because even though most people are aware of the importance of the environment in a child’s upbringing, not many actually do anything about it. In addition, she was a single mother and she had hence, double the load.

Children learn through mimicking and therefore, most parents are careful not to behave in age-inappropriate ways. They do their best to exercise good manners and treat people the way they want their children to treat others, so as to groom one who is thought of as ‘well brought up’, and likable.  

Many of us have high expectations of the environments and social circles we wish to raise our children in. I have heard many stories about parents going to extremes just to make sure they give their children the best homes, best schools, best social circles. Parents who want their daughters to be ballerinas, send them for ballet lessons. Others who want their children to be musicians send them for Piano, Violin, Saxophone, Drum lessons.  Some who wish for their children to become doctors organize weekly excursion trips to the different science museums to build their exposure in the science field. (The one I found most fascinating was about non-Christian parents sending their children to English churches because bible study, apparently, improves English.) I have heard just about any and every possible case of such extremity under the sun.

Even though I am not a parent, nor am I great at parenting, I do think that these parents are missing out on the essence of educating the young ones.  Children should be nurtured according to their passions and interests they were gifted with. Only then will their gifts be brought true justice and will the child truly enjoy learning. But all of a sudden, the hopes and dreams these parents have of their children claim precedence over and suppress their interests and hobbies. 

In the past, going to school and doing well at it would mean that you are en route a career as an official or like Meng Zi, an educator. But what if Meng Zi wanted to be a butcher, an actor, a technician? I am conflicted by my contradicting perspectives of this story. I do see the importance of the environment of a child’s upbringing and I respect well-prepared parents for their investments but I feel that Meng Zi’s mother is encouraging domineering parents and unhealthy parenting.

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Mengzi

My name is Nicole Ng

Hi everyone,

My name is Nicole and this is my introductory post! I did this before but for some unknown reason, I can’t seem to access the old site that I created. So this is my new website!

Here are a few fun facts about me: I am a UBC student in the Arts faculty. A big fan of acting, singing, dancing, content creation even though I don’t have much experience in any of these except for the last. I am from Singapore. My Chinese name is literally my English name. I am the only child in my family. That’s about as interesting as I can get.

I came into Uni thinking of majoring in Poli Sci but POLI 110 changed my mind. I am now looking at majoring in another one of my loves, History! Actually, it’s a funny story why I now have my mind set on History. I was reading old diary entries, and I came across an entry I wrote while I was in Japan earlier this year. Turns out I had a ball of a time at one of the museums I visited and had documented my enthusiasm in that entry. I came to an epiphany: ooooh my passion does lie in History.

I have also been (a lot) more interested in humanities than in Math and Sciene and I do better in humanities. I enjoy discussions, not contributing to them per se, but listening to what other people have to say. I enjoy collecting insights but not really giving my own. I would perhaps enjoy it if I was good at doing so, but I am not. I hope that Arts one can force me out of my comfort zone, make my brain a little bit more active, and build my confidence in countering arguments.

Arts One has been really really awesome so far! I get to learn and connect with so many like-minded ones. My seminar, tutorial mates, and Professor Christina have created a very safe space for me to share my thoughts on things, regardless of how controversial.

Thank you for accepting me into this Programme!!

 

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with

Reading the beginning & end of Lt. Gustl

front cover of early edition of Schnitzler's "Lieutenant Gustl"

Cover of first edition of Schnitzler’s “Lieutenant Gustl”, public domain on Wikimedia Commons.

 

In Arts One this week we discussed two German short stories:

Heinrich von Kleist’s “The Earthquake in Chile” (I just discovered that there’s a 1970s film version)

Arthur Schnitzler’s “Lieutenant Gustl” (the translation linked to here is different than the one we read; this is the one we read, and the one I’m citing below)

We focused on Gustl yesterdy in class, and my brain and emotions just weren’t working as well yesterday as they usually do (last day of class issues? who knows), and I didn’t get to do some close reading of the beginning & end of the story as I had planned to do. So I thought I’d write a bit about that here on the blog.

Beginning

I noticed that one can get a great deal just from the very first page (first three paragraphs) of the story.

Impatience & concern with time

noun_517277_ccThe first thing we get from Gustl’s internal monologue is: “How long is this going to last, anyhow?” (107). We did discuss in class that a similar sort of sentiment is expressed on p. 141, when he asks himself, “How long will I keep sitting here?” (referring to sitting on the bench in the Prater). Right away we get a sense of his concerns about time, and even his impatience. He is at a concert at the beginning, and doesn’t seem to be enjoying himself and is impatient to leave.

There are many other references to his impatience in the text, including in the second paragraph of the story, which starts with him saying to himself: “Well, then, patience, patience! Even oratorios come to an end” (107). The most obvious example of his impatience is when he gets into the altercation with the baker. He is clearly being impatient trying to get his coat on the bottom of p. 117, and then the baker says to him, “Patience, patience!” (119). The baker also tells Gustl, “You’re not going to miss anything!” Gustl says something similar to himself, later, when he’s out wandering on the street: “slower, slower, Gustl, you aren’t missing out on anything, you have nothing left to do–nothing, absolutely nothing left!” (133). He also asks at one point “Why am I dashing along like this? None of my trouble is running away …'” (125). There are more examples of places that show him being impatient, but these are enough for now.

“I must look at my watch” is the second sentence of the story (107) (compare to the same statement on 143, when he wakes up in the park and wonders what time it is). He is frequently wondering what time it is in the story, along with being impatient. In the first paragraph he notes that it is “Only a quarter to ten?” (107). He hears the clock strike 11 after he leaves the theatre (125), thinks it must be past midnight in the park (141), wakes up at 3 in the park (145), hears a clock strike 3:30 when he’s walking back from the park (147), and notes that it’s 5:45am when he is getting close to his coffeehouse (157). He also decides to set himself the time of 7am to shoot himself and then later thinks, well, he could put it off another hour or so.

I asked in class: what should we make of his concern with time and his impatience? What might be the significance of these in the context of the story? He might be impatient at the concert because he is bored and wants to get out of there. But he also finds himself rushing when he’s out on the street. There might be something going on here in terms of him rushing ever forward only to be heading to his own death–so some kind of irony? I also wondered if it might signify that he is spending so much time looking outward, worrying about how he looks in the eyes of others, going to the places he is supposed to go in order to be seen, that he doesn’t slow down and self-reflect. But I don’t feel really strongly about that interpretation.

I think I still don’t have a good sense of the significance of his impatience.

 

Being out of place

Back to the first paragraph: after noting that he wants to look at his watch, Gustl says “probably not polite as such a serious concert” (107). This starts to bring up an idea that maybe Gustl doesn’t belong in the particular milieu. He doesn’t really know for sure how to act. We can see this also later in the paragraph when he wonders what kind of song it is and has to look at the program: “Yes, that is: oratorio. I thought it was a Mass.” I remember hearing last year when we discussed this book that Gustl is being presented as if he doesn’t really belong in this space. He doesn’t have the right knowledge to really understand this cultural event. He was given a ticket; he didn’t really choose to go because he wanted to attend this kind of concert. He even tells himself in the third paragraph of the story: “By the way, they sing very nicely. It’s very edifying–I’m sure!,” suggesting that he doesn’t really know if it’s edifying but figures it must be. Still, he doesn’t really get how it is so, if it is.

Gustl feeling out of place continues in the story, after the altercation with the baker. Gustl can’t believe what the baker did–he keeps asking whether or not it really happened, and as it is happening he can’t understand what the baker says (119)–because it doesn’t fit with his understand of social relations in his culture. Bakers just don’t do that, and then when it happened Gustl had no ritual to fall back on, no clear way to deal with the situation. When he goes out into the street he is figuratively lost, wondering where to go and what to do: “Where have I got to? What am I doing out on the street? –Yes, but where should I head?” (123). He wanders aimlessly, not really knowing where he is going until he just finds himself in certain places unexpectedly. At one point he even notes that he is sitting on a bench in the Prater “homeless” (143).

 

Worrying about what others thinkman with large eye watching over him

In the third sentence of the story Gustl worries whether someone will see him looking at his watch: “But who’s to see it? If someone sees it, then he’s paying just as little attention as I am, and I don’t have to bother on his account” (107). He’s concerned how he looks to others and what they think of him, but if others are doing the “wrong” things too by not watching the concert and looking at him, then he doesn’t need to worry about them. We get a great deal of evidence of Gustl being concerned what others do and will think of him throughout the story; I don’t need to enumerate them here as they’re quite easy to find!

 

Social manners, ritual, honour

In the second paragraph of the story, Gustl talks about how he got the ticket to the concert from Kopetsky, and since he is bored he thinks he should have given the ticket to someone else who would have enjoyed it more. “But then Kopetsky would have been insulted” (107). Here is an example of social manners he feels he needs to hold up–he is concerned about social roles and expectations. That’s also the reason why he doesn’t want others to see him looking at his watch, looking bored, at the concert–he worries that that isn’t appropriate in this social situation.

At the end of the third paragraph of the story, Gustl’s thoughts take on a tone of foreshadowing: “Yes, the day after tomorrow I may be dead and cold! Oh, nonsense, I don’t believe that myself!” (107). He is ostensibly talking about the duel with the doctor scheduled for the next day, but it could also foreshadow his plans later in the story to kill himself. Then the last two sentences of the third paragraph refers to the duel directly: “Just wait, Doctor, you’re going to lose your taste for making such remarks! I’m going to slice off the tip of your nose …” (107). So here we’re introduced to the social ritual of the duel.

These things are significant because the social manners and rituals that Gustl is used to are broken in when he gets into a scuffle with the baker. Before this, the story is setting Gustl up as someone who plays by the social rules, at least outwardly (while inwardly, as we discussed, he thinks all kinds of things that may or may not fit into the social rules and practices at the time). When the baker doesn’t play along, Gustl is left without a playbook, not knowing what to do.

 

Ending

I also find the very end interesting to read closely, along with the beginning. I’m just looking at the last paragraph here.

Time and being out of place

Gustl is back to paying careful attention to time. He schedules out the rest of his day: “In a quarter of an hour I’ll go over to the barracks and get a cold rubdown from Johann …  half past seven is rifle drill, and half past nine is formation” (163). He then refers to the duel at 4 that day. He now has plans again, he can schedule his day, he knows what he is doing and where he is going, as compared to being lost and out of place the night before.

By the time the story ends he is back in “his” coffeehouse, with the waiter he knows, and he comes back to himself and his plans for his life. He is full of confidence, whereas earlier he had started to wonder where he was, where he was going, and doubting himself (147, 151). By the end he says he’s going to insist that Steffi make herself available to him that evening, and he is certain he is going to win in his duel against the doctor–whereas earlier he was a little unsure (he thinks he might die in the duel (107, 127) and states that he is “unqualified to give satisfaction” in the duel because of what happened with the baker (125)).

So one might say that he starts the story in a place where he’s somewhat out of place (the concert) and then feels lost & homeless in the streets, but finally comes “home” to his coffee house by the end and feels more confident. He’s back in his usual military life with its usual time-table. Everything make sense again to him.

picture of an arrow going around in the circle and coming back to where it startedAnd as we discussed in class, he hasn’t changed much, if at all, by the end. His life goes back to the same things: Steffi, the duel with the doctor. Gustl even says on the last page that “No one knows a thing, and nothing has happened!” (163). The first part is true, but not the second–something has happened, and Gustl earlier suggests that it should matter even if no one else knows. But now that no one else knows or can know, for Gustl it’s as if nothing even happened at all. He has completely left it behind, and the event has left no mark on his life.

 

I don’t often do close readings of portions of texts, but I always find it valuable when I do, so I want to make sure to do more of these in class in the future!

 

 

 

 

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Schnitzler

The Conundrum Brought on by the Last Line

“Then Don Fernando and Dona Elvira adopted the little stranger as their own son; and when Don Fernando compared Felipe to Juan and thought of how he had acquired both, her felt almost as if he should rejoice.” (33)

The first part of the last line is self-explanatory as it can be easily discovered that Don Fernando and Dona Elvira adopt Felipe after his parents have died and their own child has met his premature end. It’s the second half of the last line that seems to bring about debate. Don Fernando compares the two boys, Felipe and Juan, and ponders how they both came into his life. Juan was Don Fernando’s biological son with his wife Dona Elvira who was murdered my Master Pedrillo in a mob of people and Felipe is the son of Jeronimo Rugera and Josefa Asteron. Both boys were entrusted to Don Fernando to keep them safe and sadly he only succeeded protecting one. Since he’d lost his own son quite tragically and Felipe had lost his parents, perhaps he thought that two would be kindred spirits who could find comfort in one another. Perhaps he thought the hole in his heart due to the loss of his own child could be filled by Felipe and for that reason, he should rejoice as at a time of loss he gained a son and an orphan gained another family who would care for him.

Posted in blogs, lb1-2015 | Tagged with Kleist

The Sandman – Hoffmann

Through the reading of The Sandman by Hoffmann, I found the link between the symbol of eyes and Nathanael’s mentality being affected by the character created from his mind, Coppelius. I believe the eyes can be seen as a symbol for one’s clarity of vision and mind, as Nathanael often loses sight/vision as he gets closer towards the imagined figure of Coppelius the Sandman.

The eyes of the characters in the story reflect a lot about their personality, as demonstrated through the characters Coppelius and Clara. Coppelius’s eyes are described as “two greenish cat’s eyes” which illustrates the beast-like and wild aspect of Coppelius’s personality since he is the figure who haunts and torments Nathanael’s eyes. On the other hand, Clara’s eyes are described as the “Ruysdael lake, in which were reflected the pure azure of the cloudless sky, the tract of forest and flowers, and the whole variegated and merry life of the opulent landscape”. The clarity in Clara’s eyes can be seen as the logic and reason which is lacking in the eyes of the protagonist Nathanael, thus making it significant when Nathanael choose to blindly follow the eyes of Olimpia. When Nathanael saw himself in the eyes of Olimpia and rejected Clara, it can be interpreted as how Nathanael submits to the madness of Coppelius and rejects all from the logic and reason that he had. Also, the difference between the eyes of Clara and Olimpia can be a metaphor of how Nathanael transitions between reality and the world created from his twisted hatred of Coppelius. When Nathanael mentions “the circle of fire” he tends to lose sight of reality and plunge into the darkness of Coppelius. Clara’s eyes being symbolic of reason and logic plays a key role in bringing sense into the visions and eyes of Nathanael, thus keeping him from being consumed by the shadow of Coppelius the Sandman.

The unknown that he had feared was just a part of him that he tried so hard to reject, but in the end, Nathanael ultimately became the Sandman that he had feared so much as a child. Coppelius can be seen as an alternate personality that Nathanael had and slowly consumed him as he failed to see reason and accept his own false reality.

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Hoffmann

Nathaniel the metal menace – an automaton in human clothing?

 

In Hoffmann’s 1816 “The Sandman”, the main protagonist Nathaniel falls in love with Olimpia – an automaton created by university professor Spallanzani and Coppelius-double Coppola. How did Nathaniel not find out earlier?

Had robot technology advanced so far in 1816 that an automaton became indistinguishable from humans?

Was Nathaniel just blinded by his humongous ego?

Or perhaps was Nathaniel attracted to an automaton because he is one too?

 

During his childhood, Nathaniel gets caught trying to find out who the Sandman is in his father’s room. As a result, Coppelius “ripped me [Nathaniel] open” and “unscrewed my hands and feet” (Hoffmann 47). The evocative imagery used to describe what happens to Nathaniel is often labeled a confabulation. This blog post will instead take an alternative perspective and explore the possibility that Nathaniel was killed in this incident, and Nathaniel’s father revived him as an automaton.

Nathaniel’s father is described to have been working with or for Coppelius for a long time – there are multiple instances of the ‘sandman’ coming to visit. Presumably, Coppelius and Nathaniel’s father created automatons during this period of time. Nathaniel describes “human faces… visible all around” after Coppelius was seen hammering lumps. Moreover, the act of creating automaton seems to be either taboo or looked down upon – Coppelius and Nathaniel’s father take great care in hiding this from the family. The children are sent to bed immediately upon the arrival of Coppelius and the stove is disguised as a wall closet.

It could be conceivable then that Nathaniel is then killed or badly injured for seeing Coppelius and his father in the act of creating automatons. Nathaniel’s father, in an act of desperation, revived or healed Nathaniel by giving him automaton parts. Why? Perhaps because going to a hospital would not only raise questions within the household but also with the government. Nathaniel wakes up when “A gentle, warm breath” passes over his face and “awoke as if from the sleep of death” (Hoffmann 47). The “warm breath” is paralleled by the breath of life that God breathes into man in Genesis. Furthermore the simile used in “as if from the sleep of death” may be suggestive of his death as a complete human. Importantly, Nathaniel is stuck in bed for “several weeks” (Hoffmann 48) because of a fever. Although much has changed over the last two hundred years, a 2015 article from WebMD states that in most cases a fever “goes away on its own in 3 days” and other sources state that most extreme fevers last 1-2 weeks. Instead, perhaps the several weeks was put into Nathaniel getting automaton parts.

Why does Nathaniel fear Coppelius so irrationally? One possible explanation is that Coppelius was direct responsible for murdering Nathaniel’s father, possibly because he revived Nathaniel as an automaton. Nathaniel’s heavy preoccupation with his creator Coppelius may be grounded in his fear of disassembly. It would then make sense that Nathaniel falls in love with another automaton – Olimpia – and doesn’t see the emptiness or “lifelessness” that his colleagues see in Olimpia. Nathaniel claims that he was rendered color-blind because of his childhood experience. However, the faulty eyes may be a result of his father’s desperate attempt to give his son eyes without the help of Coppelius – the one seen with eyes the most.

Lastly, at the very end Nathaniel attacks Clara whilst muttering recurring phrases in a robot-like way. With his father and thus his creator dead for so long, it wouldn’t been a surprise that the automaton portions of his body malfunctioned.

 

 

 

 

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Hoffmann

The Lieutenant Cannot Have A Good Time—Not With That Attitude

I’m pretty sure most of the people in our seminar agree that the protagonist of Lieutenant Gustl is terrible dude in general—he’s sexist, anti-Semitic, and frankly just plain rude. It’s as if he’s got some kind of superiority complex masking an inferiority complex, all masked by unnecessary aggression, especially if you note top of page 119 where he had that fateful encounter with the baker. As readers we can see this drama queen’s train of thoughts go from bad to worse to terrible in a matter of sentences (or ellipses, I suppose) and feel a sense of pity, or even annoyance (though I myself was snorting immaturely whenever he started saying “I came here to have a good time…” from the very first page because I thought that the next part of the meme “And I’m honestly feeling so attacked right now” fit very well into the story. Maybe someone can use this as their working title for their essay this week). However, I personally can’t believe that it wasn’t purposeful, that the author didn’t specifically write the soldier’s interior monologue to show his rather nasty mindset, especially considering how obvious of an anti-Semite the protagonist is when in fact Schnitzler himself was Jewish. It’s also pretty interesting that this is the first stream-of-consciousness narration (specifically designed to show a character’s various feelings and thought process) in German fiction, and that the narrator is a soldier who spends the whole night up contemplating suicide simply because he did not fight a baker for his honour. If we piece all these little tidbits together I’m sure we can come to the conclusion that this is a work satirizing the army’s bizarre priorities, and their obsessive need to follow their code of honour.

I’d love to read an essay on this, so if anyone’s thinking of this topic, let me know!

Posted in blogs, lb4-2015 | Tagged with Schnitzler

Page 11 of 144« First«...910111213...203040...»Last »

Search

Achebe Antigone Apocalypse Now Austen Beauvoir Blake C20th Conrad Discourse on Inequality Eliot Fanon Film Foucault Freud gender Gilman graphic novel Hacking Heart of Darkness history Hobbes Kafka Leviathan literature Moore Nietzsche philosophy Plato poetry Republic Rousseau Shakespeare Shelley Sophocles The Second Sex The Tempest Things Fall Apart Trouillot Uncategorized Wordsworth

Tweets about "#artsone"
Faculty of Arts
Vancouver Campus
East Mall
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z1
Website artsone-open.arts.ubc.ca
Email artsoneopen@gmail.com
Find us on
    
Back to top
The University of British Columbia
  • Emergency Procedures |
  • Terms of Use |
  • Copyright |
  • Accessibility