Dan!

Prompt XIV

2002-12-18T17:58:07Z

I feel that the connection between Lover's Discourse and The Lover are not that different from the connections that have been made in regard to previous texts that we have read. Similar to Werther, Barthes read The Lover and incorporated specific examples from the text into his book. Recall that there is a section in Lover's Discourse describing the bow that Werther receives from Lotte and what it means. The only difference that I can see is that this book is more open in regard to the theme of physical desire. While other books may have done a different job in expressing what the true theme is, bodily desire is clearly illustrated through out The Lover, which in my opinion is the only significant difference.

Prompt XIII

2002-12-18T17:51:49Z

"For Duras as for Barthes, the body is not a mode of self-identity: the body is a figure of madness, not self-possession. It is not an essence or nature, but a reverse of an essence or nature; it is a name for that which provokes crisis in the realm of representation by producing irreducible difference. And what it denotes most of all, in Duras as in Barthes, is desire. (Hill 30)"

The point that Duras is making in this quotation is that we are not in control of our body, rather our body is in control of us. Our body is capable of making us do crazy things, things that seem irrational or even mad. Why do we do such things? Because of desire. When a person desires another person physically, the person does crazy things in order to obtain what he/she desires.
The problem with all this is that like previously mentioned, irrational actions come from desire. Our desire for physical needs is sometimes so great that we do things that we often times regret, such as sleep with a person who we do not truly care for, but simply desire. When our body desires sex, it is difficult to say no. Even though we may not truly care for a person, except in a physical sense, mistakes have been made because of desire.

Connection Between Lover's Discourse and Bonjour Tristesse

2002-11-24T23:36:33Z

In the novel Bonjour Tristesse, Cyril often tells Cecile that he loves her, and it is certain that he means it. But when Cecile tells him “I love you“ back, does she mean it? In my opinion, no she does not mean it. She doesn’t love him, the only thing she loves is to have sex with him. That is the basis of their relationship. Cecile is comforted by him physically, not emotionally. “I love you has no usages. Like a child’s word, it enters into no social constraint; it can be a sublime, solemn, trivial word, it can be an erotic, pornographic word. It is a socially irresponsible word.”
The connection here is that Cecile uses the infamous phrase as a weapon in order to obtain what she wants, a break up between her father and Anne. If she wouldn’t tell Cyril that she loves him, he most probably would not have gone along with her plan to break up her father’s relationship by making him jealous of Cyril’s and Elsa’s counterfeit relationship. The way that Cecile uses this phrase fits in perfectly with Barthe’s description. She uses it similarly to how a child would use a word, only to please the recipient, not thinking of what kind of consequences could occur or how irresponsible the action maybe. She clearly is not aware of how powerful the statement could be if targeted at the right person, and if she does know how much power it harnesses, she clearly does not care who she hurts in order to get what she wants, a very immature attitude.

XI Movies based on Novels

2002-11-21T22:46:28Z

In my opinion the movie Bonjour Tristesse was very accurate to its novel counterpart. The only differences between the two were minor ones. An example of this is that in the movie, Cecile’s boyfriend’s name is Philippe, while in the novel, his name is Cyril. This blemish places little to none impact on the plot of the story, and thus does keeps the movie accurate with the book. Another example is how in the novel, when Anne catches Ramón cheating on her, Cecile was lounging around in a lawn chair and saw Anne running out of the woods crying. In the movie, Cecile followed Anne through the woods and watched her catch Ramón cheating. The rest of the scene was exact through both stories. Since these details are so minor and don’t change the overall outcome of the novel, I feel that the movie does a great job of staying on the same page as the novel. In comparison to other movies we’ve watched based on novels, such as Madame Bovary, this movie is a much better counterpart of its novel. The reason why is because in the movie Madame Bovary, not only minor details were changed, but also major events, which had an influence on the entire story, thus causing major differences between the two.

Immoralist with Barthes

2002-11-07T20:15:08Z

For this prompt, I am going to discuss Barthe's chapter on Objects with the many boys in which Michel has a "connection" with in the Immoralist. The boys serve as objects, objects of love in the eyes of Michel. Although they are not physical objects, I think that the role that the children play in the immoralist are similar to the role that Lotte's ribbon plays in Werther.
Similar to how Werther is obssessed with the ribbon and everything it means, Michel is obssessed as well as intrigued with the boys. Barthes says "My gaze passes through things without acknowledging their seduction." In the immoralist, Michel would fixate on the arabian boys, as if nothing else existed, fixating on the child and nothing else. An example of this was how Michel would stare at the shoulder of the one child when his shirt slid down a small amount to reveal the body part. He would fixate on the shoulder, as if it was a world of its own and nothing else existed.

Why Genet is such a difficult read...

2002-11-07T20:05:45Z

There are more than a few reasons why I find this reading challenging. The first and most obvious one is that there is a lack of structure. Not only is the time frame obscured, with Genet skipping back and forth through different time periods of experiences, but in addition, his thoughts are sporadic, jumping back and forth. In addition I think the context of the novel makes it a difficult read. The fact that the book is built around homosexuality, makes it more difficult for people to understand as well as relate to it.

MB vs. Lover's Discourse

2002-10-15T19:55:25Z

I think that the section on "jealousy" in Lover's Discourse ties in with how Charles’s Bovary is feeling. His wife, throughout the novel, has a couple of affairs and does not do the best job of keeping it in secrecy, but Charlie’s is so infatuated and love struck that he ignores the signs, suppresses his true feelings, and tries to be a supportive husband. This just shows you the power that love has. Even though the subject, Charles, has been hurt constantly by Emma, he still cares greatly for her and tries to do everything in his power to make her happy.
Deep down inside, Charles must feel jealous. He loves his wife so much, yet she feels nothing for him. She cheats on him, takes advantage of him, and basically screws his life over. Because of her, Charles goes bankrupt, loses his Doctoral position in the town, and has no choice but to leave town and attempt to start over elsewhere. Charles knows that Emma cheated on him, knows that it was with Rudolph and Leon, yet forgives her even though she doesn’t ask for forgiveness. My personal opinion is that if Charles would have let his emotions out, he would've ended up in a much better position then the one that he ended up in.

SYW vs. Lover's Discourse

2002-10-15T19:37:03Z

The quote from Lover's Discourse: "I am engulfed, I succumb.." sums up the feelings Werther has towards Lotte. She has full control over Werther and frequently plays with his mind by giving him little signs of affection throughout the novel. Werther is completely obsessed with Lotte, thinks regularly about her and she is always the center of attention in the letters that he writes to his friend. You can tell how utterly engulfed he is with her by how he spends countless hours dwelling on the slightest details of the encounters which he shares with her.

Madame Bovary Casting Stuff

2002-09-26T15:48:39Z

I would like to start off by saying that this will not be a wordy blog, but instead a more direct and to the point one.

Characters/(Actor or Actress who should play them)

Charles Bovary=Russel Crowe
In my mind, Russel Crowe lacks a personality thus making himself a very dull and unemotional person. This matches the description of Charles Bovary perfectly.

Emma Bovary=Kate Hudson
The reason behind this is because I think Kate Hudson will do a good job of playing both parts of Emma, the plain country girl, as well as be able to look all fancy during the Ball scenes and such.

Charles' Mother=Glen Close
I think that Glen Close could do a job of being an obsessive and possessive old hag who tries to live not only her own life, but also the life of her son.

I think that the main challenge to creating this movie would be the fact that the description of Emma is very vague. Therefore, no matter what, the movie will always be partial, because it will always be made from the view point of the director. In my opinion that is the only challenge if it is a challenge at all. I think that the vagueness of the novel allows hollywood to make a movie on this story over and over again, since there is a possibility for so many different view points.

Comparison of Werther to Pop Culture

2002-09-13T19:13:00Z

There is a song called “3rd and Long”, performed by one of my favorite bands, New Found Glory, which I think is relevant to this story. The lyrics are as follows: “pick up the pieces that I’ve left behind I woke up today feeling older and never so much better i know i talk in circles i never wanted to avoid your conversation you see yourself in my eyes another day has passed us by the more time i spend, the less i see of you I’ll never take it back your voice is like an angel guiding over every move i make i'll never want it back the direction that you've gave me nothing can replace what I’ve gained time grabs me by the shoulders no one knows how it feels to move over i know I’m still far from you and it feels like i'm still far from home my name is a disappointment i only disappoint myself if only i could hold this moment kept away from everyone else.”
I feel like this song is a modern summary of the novel The Sorrows of Young Werther. Although there are many minor differences between the two, I think in the main, the two have much in common. For example look at the portion of the song that goes as follows: “you see yourself in my eyes another day has passed us by the more time I spend, the less I see of you.” I can’t help but to obtain a mental image of Werther and Lotte in my head when I read those lyrics, gazing into each others eyes, yet knowing that there is no potential in the time that they spend together, as if it is going to waste. Of course I make those statements relying on the fact that Lotte feels the same way about Werther as he feels about her. The lyrics: “No one knows how it feels to move over, I know im still far from you and it feels like I’m still far from home” is a summarization of Werther’s situation. He has been pushed aside by the reappearance of Albert, Lotte’s fiancé, even though that event was inevitable it still shocked and wounded him. Additionally, after the appearance of Albert, Werther struggles to find a place in the world that he is comfortable in, a place that he can call home. He spends his time moving from place to place, never satisfied with his life, even when he ends back near Lotte.
The chorus of the song seems to be a general statement about how Werther feels: “My name is a disappointment, I only disappoint myself.” He is disappointed with his life, with the decisions that he made, and he knows that there is no one to blame but himself since he did nothing at all to change the situation.

Comparison of Symposim with A Lover's Discourse

2002-09-09T21:56:23Z

Barthes’ section on "Union" echoes several similarities from the speech made by Aristophanes’ in the Symposium. I am referring to the speech made by Aristophanes on how now, mankind is only half of what they once were. "The sole and simple pleasure" (Aristotle) is a quote from A Lover's Discourse which ties in perfectly with Aristophanes’ story.
Throughout his story, Aristophanes discusses how long ago mankind was twice of what we now are. He discusses how we were a hermaphrodite with four legs, four arms, two heads, and a circular torso and how it was a much more blissful of a time. However, mankind attempted to reach heaven, and therefore, the Gods frowned on them and split the beings into two separate halves. Aristophanes points out how the Gods did not destroy the beings, solely because otherwise there would be no one to perform sacrifices for the Gods. Aristophanes then discusses how from then on, the goal of life was to be able to find your missing half, in order to become one again, and achieve ultimate nirvana. Barthes’ discusses this fusion of two into one several times. For example, under article two, he states: "En sa moytie, ma moytie je recolle" which is translated to her half, I rejoin my own half. In fact, Barthes’ uses the story from Plato's Symposium regarding the hermaphrodites who were split apart as a reference during his discussion of union.
The similarities between Barthes’ section on “Union” and Aristophanes’ speech are unquestionable. The main argument that I can make for the relevance between the two is that Barthes’ uses Aristophanes’ famous speech as one of the points in his discussion of union. Also, other points such as the quote from Aristotle prove that there is a connection between the two subjects.