For this chapter I read Once Upon a Time by Nadine Gordimer to go along with it. I thought this story was very weird but I will try my best to work with it. I'm actually not even positive I read the write thing because I wasn't sure how to access it; I just went to google and tried to find it. I hope this post isn't totaly a waste.
In Once Upon a Time the family has a wife, husband, and son. In Hansel and Gretel I think it is just two orphans that were hated by their stepmom or somebody like that. I don't exactly see how this story relates to H&G but then again I am not too familiar with it. The house in Once Upon a Time could represent the Gingerbread house, because it is what people are attracted to, especially robbers and people in riots. The grandmother being a witch did not exactly make sense, except I can draw that she somewhat is the reason for why the boy got himself tangled in the razor fence; similiar to what the witch in H&G did tangling the children up in the forest and her home. The forest in Once Upon a Time is the suburban life. The husband and wife get lost in the ways of the suburban life and worry to much about their property being safe than their offspring being safe. It is hard to draw all the connections in this story, but I'm sure if I was more familiar with H&G I could. What I was most surprised by is that there was nothing in Once Upon a Time that represented the trail of bread crumbs.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Chapter 7 (and 6ish)
"Connect these dots: garden, serpent, plagues, flood, parting of waters, loaves, fishes, forty days, betrayal, denial, slavery and escape, fatted calves, milk and honey. Ever read a book with all these things in them? Gues what? So have your writers." (Page 47)
In this passage, it is evident what Foster is speaking of: The Bible. This opening paragraph states the whole idea of the chapter that Biblical allusions are not a scarcity in literature, and writers are always using them. Foster believes that these allusions are bound to be in writing as long as so many writers are religious people He does go on to list many writers and their associations to the Bible. In the previous chapter, the topic is different but the approach is the same. Foster makes it known that it is no hidden secret that many if not all famous writers have read Shakespeare, thus making allusions to his work very prevalent in famous works. The main point of both of these chapters is that Shakespeare and the Bible both have their fair share of influence on the world of literature, and if you are in doubt on what your texts is reffering to, you should always think Shakespeare or the Bible first. For me the biblical allusions are easier to spot out because I am more familiar with the bible than I am with any of Shakespeare's stuff, but after reading this chapter I could safely assume Shakepeare influences alot of what I will read this year.
In this passage, it is evident what Foster is speaking of: The Bible. This opening paragraph states the whole idea of the chapter that Biblical allusions are not a scarcity in literature, and writers are always using them. Foster believes that these allusions are bound to be in writing as long as so many writers are religious people He does go on to list many writers and their associations to the Bible. In the previous chapter, the topic is different but the approach is the same. Foster makes it known that it is no hidden secret that many if not all famous writers have read Shakespeare, thus making allusions to his work very prevalent in famous works. The main point of both of these chapters is that Shakespeare and the Bible both have their fair share of influence on the world of literature, and if you are in doubt on what your texts is reffering to, you should always think Shakespeare or the Bible first. For me the biblical allusions are easier to spot out because I am more familiar with the bible than I am with any of Shakespeare's stuff, but after reading this chapter I could safely assume Shakepeare influences alot of what I will read this year.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Chapter 5
"Literature, as the great Canadian critic Northrop Frye observed, grows out of other literature; we should not be surprised to find, then that is also looks like other literature. As you read, it may pay to remember this: there's no such thing as a wholly original work of literature. Once you know that you can go looking for old friends and asking the attendant question: 'now where have I seen her before?'". (Page 29)
This chapter of the book, specifically this passage has been the most interesting so far. I have found my self before pondering about plots of books and movies and realizing, when you pick them apart they are all essentially the same thing. It's hard to grasp this concept though, even after pondering it, and I still have doubt after reading this chapter. But Foster reasserts what others have said, that all literature is really a compilation of everything before hand, and really "there's only one story" (Page 32).This goes back to the first chapter, which it states the components of a quest, and we can safely assume if all literature is really the same story, then all works involve some sort of quest, thus leading me to conclude that all works have the components a quest needs, which means all works are made on the same framework that all other literature is made on. So all stories have a knight, a villian, a grail, ect. which makes them the same story really, just with different details. When I first thought about this I compared The Pearl and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. Both these stories have a character that is overwhelmed in an unfamiliar setting. In The Pearl he is constantly being deceived by the city dwellers while in Curious Incident, Christopher Boone faces troubles dealing with the city bustle and noise. Both characters rise to the occasion, and in turn gain self-knowledge. This is just one example where the two stories are really the same, but the details are what make the books unique, but this can be seem in any two books when compared I am sure.
This chapter of the book, specifically this passage has been the most interesting so far. I have found my self before pondering about plots of books and movies and realizing, when you pick them apart they are all essentially the same thing. It's hard to grasp this concept though, even after pondering it, and I still have doubt after reading this chapter. But Foster reasserts what others have said, that all literature is really a compilation of everything before hand, and really "there's only one story" (Page 32).This goes back to the first chapter, which it states the components of a quest, and we can safely assume if all literature is really the same story, then all works involve some sort of quest, thus leading me to conclude that all works have the components a quest needs, which means all works are made on the same framework that all other literature is made on. So all stories have a knight, a villian, a grail, ect. which makes them the same story really, just with different details. When I first thought about this I compared The Pearl and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. Both these stories have a character that is overwhelmed in an unfamiliar setting. In The Pearl he is constantly being deceived by the city dwellers while in Curious Incident, Christopher Boone faces troubles dealing with the city bustle and noise. Both characters rise to the occasion, and in turn gain self-knowledge. This is just one example where the two stories are really the same, but the details are what make the books unique, but this can be seem in any two books when compared I am sure.
Chapter 3
"But it's also about things other than literal vampirism: selfishness, exploitation, a refusal to respect the autonomy of other people, just for starters. We'll return to this list a bit later on. This Principle also applies to other scary favorites, such as ghosts and doppelgangers (ghost doubles or evil twins). We can take it almost as an act of faith that ghosts are about something besides themselves." (Page 16-17)
In this passage, Foster states his main topic of discussion for this chapter. He claims that in valuable literary works the ghosts and vampires have a deeper purpose than just spooking the readers; but they play a role of exploiting the evils of life, such as "selfishness" and "refusal to respect the autonomy of other people". The ghosts and vampires can exploit weakness and help the main charcter such as in A Christmas Carol, or they can ruin the main character such as in The Scarlet Letter. In The Scarlet Letter there was no actual ghost or vampire, but Roger Chillingworth is as close to one as a man can be do to his monstrous ways. He exploits the weakness that Hester bares and tries to ruin her and her lover, thus making him a vampire because he acts out for his own behalf, also known as selfishness. What Foster is saying is that characters in these books can learn valuable lesson from these evil characters, even though it may seem as if they are a threat to the main character. These vampires and ghosts are generally what end up making the character who they are by the end of the story because they either gained a valuable lesson by something taught to them from the ghost, or because they defeated this vampire and ended the evil it was spreading, thus giving them a sense of self-acomplishment.
In this passage, Foster states his main topic of discussion for this chapter. He claims that in valuable literary works the ghosts and vampires have a deeper purpose than just spooking the readers; but they play a role of exploiting the evils of life, such as "selfishness" and "refusal to respect the autonomy of other people". The ghosts and vampires can exploit weakness and help the main charcter such as in A Christmas Carol, or they can ruin the main character such as in The Scarlet Letter. In The Scarlet Letter there was no actual ghost or vampire, but Roger Chillingworth is as close to one as a man can be do to his monstrous ways. He exploits the weakness that Hester bares and tries to ruin her and her lover, thus making him a vampire because he acts out for his own behalf, also known as selfishness. What Foster is saying is that characters in these books can learn valuable lesson from these evil characters, even though it may seem as if they are a threat to the main character. These vampires and ghosts are generally what end up making the character who they are by the end of the story because they either gained a valuable lesson by something taught to them from the ghost, or because they defeated this vampire and ended the evil it was spreading, thus giving them a sense of self-acomplishment.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Chapter 1
"The real reason for a quest is always self-knowledge. That's why questers are so often young, inexperienced, immature, sheltered. Forty-five-year old men either have self-knowledge or they're never gooing to get it, while your average sixteen-to-seventeen-year-old kid is likely to have a long way to go in the self-knowledge department." (Page 3)
This passage sums up the overall idea Foster is trying to state. Generally when you read book you find that the main character is lacking something which generally they gain towards the end of the book. As the title states "Everything Trip is a Quest" brings attention to readers that even a seemingly trivial task can be of utmost importance towards the well rounding of the main character. This is probably overseen all too often, but even in real life people grow from the small triumphs and defeats they may have faced. I remember when I was a tiger scout and I lost the pinewood derby. That is obviously a minuscule tragedy in retrospect, but I did learn a valuable lesson: It's better to lose on your own hard work than to achieve victory on the work of someone else, such as a dad. It may not seem like much but it is truly a lesson that I still remember and cherish to this day, and Foster is saying that small occurances like this one prove to actually be quests where much is discovered or learned. For me, I was the knight, the trophy was the grail, the winner of the race was the evil knight, the chosen path of making my derby car was the dangerous road, and in this quest there was no princess simply because girls had cooties back then. But my personal experience holds nearly all the components that Foster mentions, which is why I, and most people should be able to relate this chapter directly to their own lives.
The one thing however I did question about this chapter is the last sentence of this quote. If 45 year old did not need self knowledge, or would never aquire it, why would they read books about kids that were gaining self knowledge? I think no matter how old and wise you are, you can always grow ontop of who you already are. Other than this off beat sentence the rest was good.
This passage sums up the overall idea Foster is trying to state. Generally when you read book you find that the main character is lacking something which generally they gain towards the end of the book. As the title states "Everything Trip is a Quest" brings attention to readers that even a seemingly trivial task can be of utmost importance towards the well rounding of the main character. This is probably overseen all too often, but even in real life people grow from the small triumphs and defeats they may have faced. I remember when I was a tiger scout and I lost the pinewood derby. That is obviously a minuscule tragedy in retrospect, but I did learn a valuable lesson: It's better to lose on your own hard work than to achieve victory on the work of someone else, such as a dad. It may not seem like much but it is truly a lesson that I still remember and cherish to this day, and Foster is saying that small occurances like this one prove to actually be quests where much is discovered or learned. For me, I was the knight, the trophy was the grail, the winner of the race was the evil knight, the chosen path of making my derby car was the dangerous road, and in this quest there was no princess simply because girls had cooties back then. But my personal experience holds nearly all the components that Foster mentions, which is why I, and most people should be able to relate this chapter directly to their own lives.
The one thing however I did question about this chapter is the last sentence of this quote. If 45 year old did not need self knowledge, or would never aquire it, why would they read books about kids that were gaining self knowledge? I think no matter how old and wise you are, you can always grow ontop of who you already are. Other than this off beat sentence the rest was good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)