After reading excerpts from Freud’s ‘The Dream Work’ of 1916, I couldn’t help to think about the relationship between the writer and its reader. The writer/artist produces a work, and the readers/audience makes sense of it. The question is: where do we fit in Freud? Does Freud allow or help us (the audience) make sense of the message put forward by the author/artist? Through interpretation, can we truly seek to translate the symbols put forward in front of out eyes, where in the end all we see is the truth about the author/artist?
In any case Freud has a lot to do with literature and literary theory. For the most part, whenever anyone thinks of the word psychology, they begin to ponder about Freud. A great example that demonstrates the significance of Freud (psychology) in literary theory is our own very class and assignments. The professor asks us to do a Marxist reading of a short story, or a novel. ‘Read A, and B like a Feminist would’. It is a great task, and it encourages an individual to really get into the psyche of that person. How are we supposed to do that? What is really left of that person(s) (Marx, Cixous…)? Oh yeah, it makes great sense now. We should study the work they left behind. The solution to the assignment would entail a heavy reading of all the works produced by some famous author/artist, and only then can we truly read another work from a different perspective. – (one can write a dissertation about this…).
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Freud and literature
From the reading, I've learned that the latent dream reflects our wish and desire, and they're projected onto manifest dream. Therefore, trying to make a connect manifest dream to latent dream would be interpreting the dream. Freud notes that most of the time, what's manifested in dreams may not seem related to the latent dream thoughts at all:
"just so does the dream-work succeed in expressing some of the contect of the latent dream-thoughts by peculiarities in the form of the manifest dream - by its clarity or obscurity, by its division into several pieces, and so on" (I think he calls this "dream distortion")
Also, Freud defines the work of interpretation as follows:
"The work which proceeds in the contrary direction, which endeavours to arrive at the latent dream from the manifest one"
To me, this really sounds like what we did in class when we were reading Waiting, (or when we read novels in general) like why did magistrate do this and do that? Trying to find out the motive of a character's actions, I find it very similar to dream interpretation. It is so in the sense that sometimes the motive is very clear, and sometimes it's not, so we need to investigate.
"just so does the dream-work succeed in expressing some of the contect of the latent dream-thoughts by peculiarities in the form of the manifest dream - by its clarity or obscurity, by its division into several pieces, and so on" (I think he calls this "dream distortion")
Also, Freud defines the work of interpretation as follows:
"The work which proceeds in the contrary direction, which endeavours to arrive at the latent dream from the manifest one"
To me, this really sounds like what we did in class when we were reading Waiting, (or when we read novels in general) like why did magistrate do this and do that? Trying to find out the motive of a character's actions, I find it very similar to dream interpretation. It is so in the sense that sometimes the motive is very clear, and sometimes it's not, so we need to investigate.
Freudian Concepts? In My Literature?
There is one excerpt from the Sigmund Freud reading that provided some food for thought: "The achievements of condensation can be quite extraordinary. It is sometimes possible by its help to combine two different latent trains of thought into one manifest dream, so that one can arrive at what appears to be a sufficient interpretation of a dream and yet doing so can fail to notice a possible 'over-interpretation'." With this in mind, I think of several works of literature that fall in perfectly with this notion that Freud presents in this passage; the notion that literary characters can create two different images of themselves and portray them accordingly throughout the story, creating the ultimate reality of that one character within the story.
I feel that this idea of "two trains of thought arriving at one manifest dream" is prevalent not only to the relationship between fictional characters within a story, but to the relationship between the reader and the writer that is developed through the power of imagery. The writer develops an image of their very own, based upon their own reality even if that particular story to be is a complete fantasy piece. The writer then takes these images and transcribes them to the written word, which is then read by another party and said party develops their own image of the vision that the writer initially had. This image could be completely different amongst the writer and the reader.
This seems like the idea that Freud tried to express in his work. Two ideas, no matter how similar or different they could be, could combine to create a reality.
I feel that this idea of "two trains of thought arriving at one manifest dream" is prevalent not only to the relationship between fictional characters within a story, but to the relationship between the reader and the writer that is developed through the power of imagery. The writer develops an image of their very own, based upon their own reality even if that particular story to be is a complete fantasy piece. The writer then takes these images and transcribes them to the written word, which is then read by another party and said party develops their own image of the vision that the writer initially had. This image could be completely different amongst the writer and the reader.
This seems like the idea that Freud tried to express in his work. Two ideas, no matter how similar or different they could be, could combine to create a reality.
Freud
“The material offered to the dream-work consists of thoughts- a few of which may be objectionable and unacceptable, but which are correctly constructed and expressed. The dream-work puts these thoughts into another form, and it is a strange and incomprehensible fact that in making this translation (this rendering, as it were, into another script or language) these methods of merging or combining are brought into use. After all, a translation normally endeavors to preserve the distinctions made in the text and particularly to keep things that are similar separate. The dream-work, quite the contrary, tries to condense two different thoughts by seeking out (like a joke) an ambiguous word in which the two thoughts may come together” (pg 26).
Freud, in general, was more interested in the sub-conscious and unconscious state of mind. He attempted to search for the true meaning that lies behind an individual’s deepest thoughts and beliefs. Dreams occur in our unconscious state of mind, hence there must be a deeper interpretation to them. An individual can interpret a dream in numerous ways and yet all of them can be “correctly constructed and expressed”. An individual is granted the right to interpret a dream according to their wishes and beliefs. They can also relate their dreams to other unrelated aspects.
In reading literature, although in a conscious state of mind, we are granted the same rights. We, as readers, can interpret most literary works according to our beliefs and ideologies. We are also granted the privilege to combine and condense “two different thoughts”. This task has been accomplished through out the course of our class. For example, we have related Marx’s readings and “Sara Cole” to feminist writers. At first glance, these literary works did not illustrate similarity but once dwelled into they demonstrated common thoughts and ideas. Additionally, we used ambiguous terms, such as feminism and Marxism, to draw correlations between them.
Freud, in general, was more interested in the sub-conscious and unconscious state of mind. He attempted to search for the true meaning that lies behind an individual’s deepest thoughts and beliefs. Dreams occur in our unconscious state of mind, hence there must be a deeper interpretation to them. An individual can interpret a dream in numerous ways and yet all of them can be “correctly constructed and expressed”. An individual is granted the right to interpret a dream according to their wishes and beliefs. They can also relate their dreams to other unrelated aspects.
In reading literature, although in a conscious state of mind, we are granted the same rights. We, as readers, can interpret most literary works according to our beliefs and ideologies. We are also granted the privilege to combine and condense “two different thoughts”. This task has been accomplished through out the course of our class. For example, we have related Marx’s readings and “Sara Cole” to feminist writers. At first glance, these literary works did not illustrate similarity but once dwelled into they demonstrated common thoughts and ideas. Additionally, we used ambiguous terms, such as feminism and Marxism, to draw correlations between them.
Watch your language
I too, found Freud's statement about the mind being unable to create anything on its own very compelling. He states "The 'creative' imagination, indeed, is quite incapable of inventing anything; it can only combine components that are strange to one another. But the remarkable thing about the procedure of the dream-work lies in what follows. The material offered to the dream-work consists of thoughts-a few of which may be objectionable and unacceptable, but which are correctly constructed and expressed. The dream-work puts these thoughts into another form, and it is a strange and incomprehensible fact that in making this translation (this rendering, as it were, into another script or language) these methods of merging or combining are brought into use." Freud believes that the use of language, the choice of words used is a reflection of the writer in that it is also an "account of representation", and about what isn't written down, but is being read. I think the saying is "reading between the lines". Theorist Edward Said had also discussed language and its effectual use. He points out the inability of language to accurately represent reality. “In any instance of at least written language, there is no such thing as a delivered presence, but a represence, or a representation.” (Orientalism 21), (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/ba990922.htm Freud also believed that the development of language played an important role in the inference, "intonation", physicality of the spoken word, and with writing, an accompaniment such as a picture to get the story across to someone.
On Freud
In our class discussions we spoke often about contributing to genres. One part of the Freud reading struck me as particularly useful when considering genre theory. Freud writes: “The ‘creative’ imagination, indeed, is quite incapable of inventing anything; it can only combine components that are strange to one another.”
It is useful to consider this phrase in terms of the creation, or as Freud would claim “combination”, of fiction. It seems to me that in terms of fiction Freud might contend that the entirety of fiction has already been written and it is the practice of “new” writers to do nothing more than combine or manipulate elements of past works and massage them into a contemporary format, thus creating a “new” but entirely un-original prose.
The question that this leads me to is the same paradox, the same which came first; the chicken or the egg, question that we’ve followed since the beginning discussions on genre theory. If one was to claim that every new thing is just a sum of previous parts, a conglomerate of some ancient original then, by design, they are admitting to the establishment of some “original” thing at some point. Before we can contribute to the genre it must be established and defined. In order for an original to be imitated it must first be created or introduced. If Freud is accurate in his claim that imagination cannot invent anything then how was the “original” form conceived of in the first place? Then my curiosity forces me to wonder if we understand the original creative process is it possible to ever get back there and create something truly new. Or by investigating the original and attempting to redo it, are we merely falling prey to imitation once again?
-Okay, I’ve given myself a headache, I’ll see you in class.
It is useful to consider this phrase in terms of the creation, or as Freud would claim “combination”, of fiction. It seems to me that in terms of fiction Freud might contend that the entirety of fiction has already been written and it is the practice of “new” writers to do nothing more than combine or manipulate elements of past works and massage them into a contemporary format, thus creating a “new” but entirely un-original prose.
The question that this leads me to is the same paradox, the same which came first; the chicken or the egg, question that we’ve followed since the beginning discussions on genre theory. If one was to claim that every new thing is just a sum of previous parts, a conglomerate of some ancient original then, by design, they are admitting to the establishment of some “original” thing at some point. Before we can contribute to the genre it must be established and defined. In order for an original to be imitated it must first be created or introduced. If Freud is accurate in his claim that imagination cannot invent anything then how was the “original” form conceived of in the first place? Then my curiosity forces me to wonder if we understand the original creative process is it possible to ever get back there and create something truly new. Or by investigating the original and attempting to redo it, are we merely falling prey to imitation once again?
-Okay, I’ve given myself a headache, I’ll see you in class.
11.26
Freud's all about reading into the meaning behind dreams and stuff like that (or at least that's what I've gleaned from the reading, I know close to nothing about Freud otherwise), so would learning his techniques not be useful in picking out the hidden meanings and subtle nuances within the very works we've already read? Be showing us what to look for and what those things mean, Freudian (<-is that a word? yeah, right?) techniques would be extremely useful in the study of not just literature, but literary theory. Now that we've learned WHAT these theorists are looking for, Freud can help us figure out WHY that is, and WHAT it means. Or, at least, that's the theory.
Besides, even if we were to completely ignore the work we've done so far (unlikely), Freud would be very useful in analyzing the authors of the next few pieces we work on. It is because fiction is so like a dream, both within our control and just barely beyond it. What somebody writes (as opposed to what may have been said in previous classes) DOES have some basis in how they think, or what they believe, or what they've been through. Cut back to the beginning of the term, with the car chases. If we read a story with a very realistic and believable car chase Freud, or rather, somebody with Freudian ideas, would conclude that the author has had some experience with car chases. I know that this methodology is flawed, at best. Just look at A Million Little Pieces, the author didn't go through that, but god damn it if it's not believable.
I thought this passage, about the difference between latent and manifest dreams, was relevant to my interests:
Besides, even if we were to completely ignore the work we've done so far (unlikely), Freud would be very useful in analyzing the authors of the next few pieces we work on. It is because fiction is so like a dream, both within our control and just barely beyond it. What somebody writes (as opposed to what may have been said in previous classes) DOES have some basis in how they think, or what they believe, or what they've been through. Cut back to the beginning of the term, with the car chases. If we read a story with a very realistic and believable car chase Freud, or rather, somebody with Freudian ideas, would conclude that the author has had some experience with car chases. I know that this methodology is flawed, at best. Just look at A Million Little Pieces, the author didn't go through that, but god damn it if it's not believable.
I thought this passage, about the difference between latent and manifest dreams, was relevant to my interests:
"Among the most surprising findings is the way in which the dream-work treats contraries that occur in the latent dream. We know already [...] that conformities in the latent material are replaced by condensations in the manifest dream. Well, contraries are treated in the same way as conformities, and there is a special preference for expressing them by the same manifest element. Thus an element in the manifest dream which is capable of having a contrary may equally well be expressing either itself or its contrary or both together: only the sense can decide which translation is to be chosen."
Feminism, Colonialism, now this? Oh My!
After everything we have learned up to this point I am left to wonder why were were given this specific reading. However after what we did this past Tuesday with the Shakesphere the reading makes some sense. Sigmund Freud's "Dream Work" exerpt was difficult to pick though but after looking it over over the break I decided to do the following paragraph:
When asked what this specific paragraph may have to do with the idea of literature and Freud I had to really sit down with this. First I decided to examine the word condensation. Condensation is defined as, when something ie: a thought or something physical is made smaller or summed up. The other definition of condensation I recall based on my on my outside knowledge is what occur es when a room is too hot and the inside walls sweat. However keeping in mind the idea of condensation according to Freud he defines this as "a manifest dream that has smaller content than the latent one" Latent dreams already exist but have not yet been realized.Tying Frueds thinking in with what we did on Tuesday, could this be saying that the fathers visit to Hamlet or Hamlet's mother committing suicide was forshadowed, based on what we learned so far? I think Freud's Ideas concerning literature and the general idea of Dream-works is correct to some extent but not completely. I usually wouldn't agree with his thories but this one actually holds up in the discussion. He also mentions that condensed dreams cannot be changed into the reverse I disagree with this. Not to be entirely off topic here, but generally speaking about dreams, what's to say that just because you have a small idea or dream it cant become something bigger. Yes it is true that bigger dremas can become small over time because of distraction or loss of interest but this doesnt make them any less important. Going back to the idea of condensation, in terms of literature this idea can be compared to the novel and the short story. One is obviously longer than the other so you are going to have more time to say more and develoup more, whereas short stories force you to flush out your ideas and characters early. Freud's Idea of dream-work leads back to this. Condensation and expanding of dreams even if it is done on purpose or unconsciously still means that the person involved has to on some level acknolege what they want or desire eventually.
The first achivement of the dream-work is condensation By that way we understand the fact that the manifest dream has a smaller content than the latent one, and is thus an abbreviated translation of it. Condensation can be on occasion be absent; as a rule it is present, and very often is enormous. It is never changed into the reverse; that is to say, we never find that the manifest dream is greater in extent or content than the latent one. Condensation is brought about (1) by the total omission of certain latent elements (2)by only a fragment of some complexes in the latent dream passing over into the manifest one and(3) By latent elements which have something in common being combined and fused into a single unity in the manifest dream
When asked what this specific paragraph may have to do with the idea of literature and Freud I had to really sit down with this. First I decided to examine the word condensation. Condensation is defined as, when something ie: a thought or something physical is made smaller or summed up. The other definition of condensation I recall based on my on my outside knowledge is what occur es when a room is too hot and the inside walls sweat. However keeping in mind the idea of condensation according to Freud he defines this as "a manifest dream that has smaller content than the latent one" Latent dreams already exist but have not yet been realized.Tying Frueds thinking in with what we did on Tuesday, could this be saying that the fathers visit to Hamlet or Hamlet's mother committing suicide was forshadowed, based on what we learned so far? I think Freud's Ideas concerning literature and the general idea of Dream-works is correct to some extent but not completely. I usually wouldn't agree with his thories but this one actually holds up in the discussion. He also mentions that condensed dreams cannot be changed into the reverse I disagree with this. Not to be entirely off topic here, but generally speaking about dreams, what's to say that just because you have a small idea or dream it cant become something bigger. Yes it is true that bigger dremas can become small over time because of distraction or loss of interest but this doesnt make them any less important. Going back to the idea of condensation, in terms of literature this idea can be compared to the novel and the short story. One is obviously longer than the other so you are going to have more time to say more and develoup more, whereas short stories force you to flush out your ideas and characters early. Freud's Idea of dream-work leads back to this. Condensation and expanding of dreams even if it is done on purpose or unconsciously still means that the person involved has to on some level acknolege what they want or desire eventually.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
11/21
For Monday, read the excerpt from Sigmund Freud's Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis in Modern Literary Theory, and the relevant pages in the introduction to that section, if you haven't done so already.
For the response, please try to use the text (quote it) to try to take a stab at what relevance this (or Freud generally, if you know anything about him) might have to the reading of literature.
Have a fine Thanksgiving.
For the response, please try to use the text (quote it) to try to take a stab at what relevance this (or Freud generally, if you know anything about him) might have to the reading of literature.
Have a fine Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
11/14
As I was leaving class, Adam said I had him a little worried, suggesting that a fiction writer should be responsible for what she or he writes, the positions that she or he inhabits. Let me be clear: I don't think she or he should be, not even a little. At the same time, I worry that an author who doesn't treat their work as a matter of consequence (even to the extent of worrying about real world consequences of their work: intifada, exile) is an author who hasn't fully engaged with the problem of writing, in this case defined as the problem of trying to understand others.
And as a final note on the writing/reading question, there is ample evidence throughout this book and Coetzee's work generally that the critical movement outside of the self doesn't happen through reading, but writing. And not just writing anything, but writing fiction in particular. This is a position with which, I hope is clear, I fully concur.
For Monday: No reading, no blog. Just an exemplary paper (for those of you who missed class, I've extended the deadline for the paper to class on Monday, November 19th). We're running out of time for revision this term, so let's attempt perfection.
And as a final note on the writing/reading question, there is ample evidence throughout this book and Coetzee's work generally that the critical movement outside of the self doesn't happen through reading, but writing. And not just writing anything, but writing fiction in particular. This is a position with which, I hope is clear, I fully concur.
For Monday: No reading, no blog. Just an exemplary paper (for those of you who missed class, I've extended the deadline for the paper to class on Monday, November 19th). We're running out of time for revision this term, so let's attempt perfection.
Self centered magistrate
"And to restore some of the goodwill that previously existed, I am undertaking a brief visit to the Barbarians"(pg.57) I think that this helps exclaim why the magistrate helped the barbarian girl back to the mountains. I do not think that he wanted to be a part of the Third Bureau and he did not want to be anything like Colonel Joll. I think he also may have slightly regretted what he did to the barbarian girl because he was totally taking advantage of her by washing her and using her body to satisfy his whims.
I also think that he did not accomplish anything at all throughout the whole book. All he kept saying is hoe he wanted to die alone and happy in his own bed, so then why did he concern himself with things that were beyond his control. He was kidding himself the entire time. He was not able to restore anything to the barbarians and ended up hurting himself in the end! I think he is a selfish and self centered person!
I also think that he did not accomplish anything at all throughout the whole book. All he kept saying is hoe he wanted to die alone and happy in his own bed, so then why did he concern himself with things that were beyond his control. He was kidding himself the entire time. He was not able to restore anything to the barbarians and ended up hurting himself in the end! I think he is a selfish and self centered person!
Selfish actions, Selfish man but so far a good read
When we had started working on this book, you mentioned that regardless of anything we may get out of it the book is centered around a man and his penis of sexual needs/wants. At first I didn't think that would be completely true, but even with other things going on as I read everything goes back to that, It may not be done by the character himself but there are alot of undertones and instances in the novel that can be considered sexual I understand that we were told to focus on one particular passage in order to prove our answer but I think that my answer goes beyond a passage. Also I feel like the barbarian girl symbolizes perhaps more civilized people coming to some how modernize supposed savages. Though I agree the magistrate did what he did for love, what kind of love is that? Even though he does come to care about her as the book progresses from what I understand, he still seems distant and withdrawn from his actions. This can be seen in "Dreamless spells are like death to me, or enchantment blank and outside time" This first starts on (pg 28) when he washes her feet. He's obviously in some way turned on my this and as she later "yields to everything" he does to her cited (pg 30) He also notes that he himself found on (p 33)
From the beginning my desire has not been to enter her, my desire has not taken on that direction, that directness lodging my dry old mans member in that hot-blooded-sheath makes me think of acid in milk ashes in honey, chalk in bread. When I look at her body I find it hard to believe that once upon a time I imagined the human for as a flower radiating out from a kernel in the loins.(pg 33) Hr objectifies her here but at the same time he tries to remember another time when he knew her as less civilized. He tries to make it seem like she has been made into a better person because she is staying with him but he has tainted her in the process. To say that the magistrate's actions were out of love would mean that they weren't for the sake of the barbarian woman but himself, even if he does seem like he is doing things to help her out as I said earlier it all reverts back to him, as a negative when he dies I felt like his actions have come to fruition. He may see the error of his ways too late but this does not stop the inevitable. The reason I said that the barbarian girl represented savages being modernized is because as a country according to history American's have always tried to force other places or people in the world to emulate them. Even if this does ruin the overall culture as a whole or the people themselves, it all doesn't seem to matter as long as who they are attempting to fix/colonize resemble them in the end in some form of fashion
Magistrates true intentions....
There are many things the Magistrate did that can be confusing in coming up with a central idea, although he got to live moments of torture, pain, agony, discrimination, all the events that occured before his eyes when he was at power and didn't do much to help. I think that one of the main reasons the magistrate do what he did is as an act of abuse in his power. First of all what he did was be part of an injustice army which for them was an empire, ll he did was follow the law, he practiced it, adored it as something valuable, and gave orders as if he was also the law, all coming to the same idea that he was just a puppet manipulated by the injustice of his empire.
The magistrate as forming part of the empire he believed was full of justice, but later realized it was all a mistake. He would see the injustices committed by the torturers, specially to the barbarian girl, how they broke her ankles, and almost blind her completely. Although, to me the magistrate didn't completely will pitty for the girl, he did help her by taking her into his house, off te streets as a beggar, he cleaned her, oiled her, massaged her, but all for the same purpose to see and use her as a sexual desire. It can be explained by him saying, "From the moment my steps paused and I stood before her at the barracks gate she must have felt a miasma of deceit closing about her: envy, pitty, cruelty all masquerading as desire." (132) I think this is one main reason to explain what the magistrate did, by seeing the fragile girl alone and suffering in the streets, he took her in his house helped her but for his own interests. Another reason may be that he felt guilty of all the injustices that where being done by the bureau, by tutoring the slaves, and discriminating the barbarians, as comparing them to animals of them being savages. The magistrate was part of this empire, therefore he wanted to make a difference in helping the barbarians, he accomplished it by taking the girl back to her people, therefore for him he was different from the other real savages who where the people who committed injustices. In the end, the magistrate accomplished a kind of rebirth for a new empire, where afier he experienced all the pain, torture, and discrimination he saw the barbarians where given in his time of power, he also lived by it and by his suffering he valued his life and that of others. Consequently, after all his sufferings the magistrate would live to the moment where the old empire left and all was started to come alive again, there was new crops, new life for the people, a new beggining, a new empire for the future.
The magistrate as forming part of the empire he believed was full of justice, but later realized it was all a mistake. He would see the injustices committed by the torturers, specially to the barbarian girl, how they broke her ankles, and almost blind her completely. Although, to me the magistrate didn't completely will pitty for the girl, he did help her by taking her into his house, off te streets as a beggar, he cleaned her, oiled her, massaged her, but all for the same purpose to see and use her as a sexual desire. It can be explained by him saying, "From the moment my steps paused and I stood before her at the barracks gate she must have felt a miasma of deceit closing about her: envy, pitty, cruelty all masquerading as desire." (132) I think this is one main reason to explain what the magistrate did, by seeing the fragile girl alone and suffering in the streets, he took her in his house helped her but for his own interests. Another reason may be that he felt guilty of all the injustices that where being done by the bureau, by tutoring the slaves, and discriminating the barbarians, as comparing them to animals of them being savages. The magistrate was part of this empire, therefore he wanted to make a difference in helping the barbarians, he accomplished it by taking the girl back to her people, therefore for him he was different from the other real savages who where the people who committed injustices. In the end, the magistrate accomplished a kind of rebirth for a new empire, where afier he experienced all the pain, torture, and discrimination he saw the barbarians where given in his time of power, he also lived by it and by his suffering he valued his life and that of others. Consequently, after all his sufferings the magistrate would live to the moment where the old empire left and all was started to come alive again, there was new crops, new life for the people, a new beggining, a new empire for the future.
The Magistrate is a selfish old man.
"I hope that when we return them to their homes along the river they will have many far-fetched stories to tell their neighbours. I hope that the history of their captivity enters their legends, passed down from grandfather to grandson. But I hope too that memories of the town, with its easy life and its exotic foods, are not strong enough to lure then back. I do not want a race of beggars on my hands." (Page 19)
The magistrate proves in this passage, and does so repeatedly for the remainder of the book, that we is acting in his own (and the town's purely by association) self interest. In this quote, he is showing his desire that the town becomes the stuff of fisherfolk legend, and surely him with it as its administrator, so to speak. He wants the glory to be recorded, but just that. That he why he so vehemently ejects the notions of keeping prisoners and torturing them. He sees it as a glaring blemish in this charming hamlet's history. It surely becomes quite more than just a blemish as the book goes on, quite more like a horrendous infection that sweeps through the town, destroying all it was and all it could be. The magistrate does not want this. It is not for the love of the township, it is love of himself, his desire for an easy last few years. He is more selfish even than Joll, who at least puts the empire before himself. The magistrate could care less about the empire, all he cares about it his retirement.
The magistrate proves in this passage, and does so repeatedly for the remainder of the book, that we is acting in his own (and the town's purely by association) self interest. In this quote, he is showing his desire that the town becomes the stuff of fisherfolk legend, and surely him with it as its administrator, so to speak. He wants the glory to be recorded, but just that. That he why he so vehemently ejects the notions of keeping prisoners and torturing them. He sees it as a glaring blemish in this charming hamlet's history. It surely becomes quite more than just a blemish as the book goes on, quite more like a horrendous infection that sweeps through the town, destroying all it was and all it could be. The magistrate does not want this. It is not for the love of the township, it is love of himself, his desire for an easy last few years. He is more selfish even than Joll, who at least puts the empire before himself. The magistrate could care less about the empire, all he cares about it his retirement.
11.14.07
After reading the book and understanding what the Magistrate purpose was throughout the story, I think he did what he did for more than one reason. The first reason he says is "To repair some of the damage wrought by the forays of the Third Bureau." The second reason being, "And to restore some of the goodwill that previously existed, I am undertaking a brief visit to the Barbarians"(pg.57). The third reason being and the most obvious is a feeling of love and gratitude towards the barbarian woman. I feel he went on this excursion to show the girl and the other barbarians that his life wasn't going to be dictated by the colonel and that he wasn't scared of the barbarians. I think he also went to show the barbarians that even though he works for the Colonel and that there goal is to capture the barbarians that he wasn't like them he was different and didn't want to do any harm to them. As he stated before he went, "To repair some of the damage wrought by the forays of the third bureau", he didn't go there to justify what the colonel and his people did. He went there to show them that he wasn't like them he didn't agree what they did and explain to them he was different. I think he uses the Barbarian girl to show the other barbarians that he can be trusted by bringing her back to them. Showing them he risks his life to save one of there own, and probably thinking to himself this would beneficial to him in case the barbarians would strike or in case he needed them in a time of trouble. Even though his feelings were true towards the Barbarian girl I think they both were using each other. For him to have a reason to leave and pursue the barbarians and raise his stock as an overall good guy. For her it was her ticket out she knew he would be her only chance to get free and find her way back to the barbarians.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The magistrate’s actions seem to be driven by different purposes at different points. He acts out of love, for instance, when he escorts the blind nomad girl through the desert and into the arms of her kin. His crying out in protest to the flogging of the prisoners was out of outrage at the savagery of his own people. Mostly though, I get the feeling that he wants to disassociate himself with the Empire. He’s seen what it has to offer with the oppression, torture and death (“You are depraving these people!” he exclaims), and he wants no part of it. He hates the position his superior put him in. He hates that he is unable to fight back at first because of the laws restricting him. “We live in a world of laws” he tries convincing himself earlier in his career as a magistrate though he knows that, when the empire’s concerned, the law is not as orderly as first apparent. As the years go by, he cannot lie to himself any longer, and, upon meeting Joll, a product of the Empire, he realizes that things cannot continue as is. Joll is the embodiment of what the Empire stands for and he knows that, if the Empire had its way, he would have turned out as twisted as that man. He does not want to become Joll. That is something he wants to avoid above all else. Joll is his opposite, his reflection in a twisted mirror. He sees in Joll’s actions the evils the Empire would eventually force him to perform upon the peaceful people and he knows he must cut all ties to it.
I honestly cannot say that the Magistrate accomplishes anything and as to why he does the things he does; I don’t even think he knows why he did them. As we talked about in class he pretty much stumbles into every situation either totally oblivious to the consequences of any of his actions or he is simply naïve enough to believe that nothing will happen to him. This is not to say however that the man I stupid. I think the flaw in his character lies in recognition in worldly matters. There is one progression or accomplishment that he has made however. Early on in the book he talked to the girl about grim, very melancholy subjects. He even goes as far to say that he talks to her about his self resentment. As we come to the end and he is beaten, starved, bruised, broken (in more than one way) and humiliated he no doesn’t talk much about how this resentment toward himself. I can certainly see that clearing this personal obstacle could be some sort of accomplishment but does this end really justify the means in which he obtained it? There is a chilling line that he lip syncs to Joll “The crime that is latent in us we must inflict on ourselves.” I think this is where the Magistrate is summed up. To understand you must be wronged, and true understanding is when you do it for yourself. I believe that even though he might be oblivious he is doing it in the interests of bettering himself. To call that self-serving however, I leave that for Adam to decide.
The magistrates reasons for doing what he did, is he came to the realization that 1). He, himself has realized the lack of justice in his ability to plead his case. 2). the punishment of the Barbarians was not justified. The magistrate has realized that he will not receive a fair trial, or the ability to explain his actions, he has critiqued “Civilization” and its ability to maintain and promote justice. The colonel has his perceived assumptions of the magistrates’ dealings and therefore finds the magistrates truths to be false.
The Magistrate then goes on to question whether crushing the Barbarians feet was justice. “Justice: once the word is uttered, where will it all ends? Easier to shout No! Easier to be beaten and made a martyr. Easier to lay my head on the chopping block than to defend the cause of justice for the Barbarians” (p.106)
The Magistrate sees justice for those that have the whole world against them as pointless, the “civilized” ones have their idea of a fair punishment for an unknown crime, and despite what this old man has said they will stick too it.
The Magistrate was not successful in his ranting; the Barbarians were still whooped senselessly by the Mob. Whether or not the Nomads were guilty of any crime was not discussed, nor was awareness raised. The settlers seemed not to be disturbed in any way by the actions that had occurred, they seemed elated that some form of twisted “JUSTICE” was served at their hands.
The Magistrate then goes on to question whether crushing the Barbarians feet was justice. “Justice: once the word is uttered, where will it all ends? Easier to shout No! Easier to be beaten and made a martyr. Easier to lay my head on the chopping block than to defend the cause of justice for the Barbarians” (p.106)
The Magistrate sees justice for those that have the whole world against them as pointless, the “civilized” ones have their idea of a fair punishment for an unknown crime, and despite what this old man has said they will stick too it.
The Magistrate was not successful in his ranting; the Barbarians were still whooped senselessly by the Mob. Whether or not the Nomads were guilty of any crime was not discussed, nor was awareness raised. The settlers seemed not to be disturbed in any way by the actions that had occurred, they seemed elated that some form of twisted “JUSTICE” was served at their hands.
The Magistrate and his confusing actions...
Although I have finished reading the novel, I still find the Magistrate's actions to be confusing. I have several opinions about him and what he has done throughout the book, but it seems to be impossible to precisely pinpoint any reasons.
That being said, on the third to last paragraph on page 71, we can read about the Magistrate's encounter with the barbarians as he is giving the girl the option to return to the Empire with him or go back with her people: " 'Tell them what you like. Only, now that I have brought you back, as far as I can, I wish to ask you very clearly to return to the town with me. Of your own choice.' I grip her arm. 'Do you understand me? That is what I want.' " My interpretation of this is that the Magistrate felt it to be his responsibility to return the girl to her people because he had already made it his responsibility to take care of her whilst at the Empire; he bathed her, healed her wounds, provided her with shelter, clothing, food, etc. However, in the end, he grew so fond of her company that he found it difficult to actually have to say bye to her, which is why he made it clear to the girl that he honestly wanted her to return to the Empire with him. We obvioiusly learn that the girl did not feel the same as he did because she decided to abandon him and proceed with the barbarians.
That being said, on the third to last paragraph on page 71, we can read about the Magistrate's encounter with the barbarians as he is giving the girl the option to return to the Empire with him or go back with her people: " 'Tell them what you like. Only, now that I have brought you back, as far as I can, I wish to ask you very clearly to return to the town with me. Of your own choice.' I grip her arm. 'Do you understand me? That is what I want.' " My interpretation of this is that the Magistrate felt it to be his responsibility to return the girl to her people because he had already made it his responsibility to take care of her whilst at the Empire; he bathed her, healed her wounds, provided her with shelter, clothing, food, etc. However, in the end, he grew so fond of her company that he found it difficult to actually have to say bye to her, which is why he made it clear to the girl that he honestly wanted her to return to the Empire with him. We obvioiusly learn that the girl did not feel the same as he did because she decided to abandon him and proceed with the barbarians.
Silly Magistrate, Empirical Opposition Is For Barbarians
"Amazed I stare at this elaborate utterance as it winds its way out of me. Am I mad enough to intend a provocation?" (Coetzee 116)
Prior to this passage, The Magistrate questions the torturer as to how he can devote himself to torturing people. The response that he receives is indeed a provocation as he seemingly knows how the torturers would respond, despite his inquisition. This leads me to believe that The Magistrate might actually be "mad enough to intend a provocation". One has to take into account that he is an elderly man who has been serving the very empire that brands him as an enemy for his entire life. As he draws closer to death, he might begin to wonder if his service to the empire is for a greater good or a greater injustice. While it isn't explicitly revealed in the text, it seems as if The Magistrate would not be one for the use of torture and execution to bring justice to those who have done the empire wrong.
It seems as if he was surprised at his actions and the reactions that they caused, though one could attribute that to his seemingly naive nature. However, I do believe that while he may be surprised at the actions of the empire (though he really shouldn't be), he does have a hidden motive behind his actions as his last living action could be to make change within the world, or at the very least, open people to the idea that the empire is slaughtering an entire group of people for being what they are and nothing more. The Magistrate may be reckless and careless in his actions, but his potential intentions could stretch years beyond his lifespan.
It seems as if he was surprised at his actions and the reactions that they caused, though one could attribute that to his seemingly naive nature. However, I do believe that while he may be surprised at the actions of the empire (though he really shouldn't be), he does have a hidden motive behind his actions as his last living action could be to make change within the world, or at the very least, open people to the idea that the empire is slaughtering an entire group of people for being what they are and nothing more. The Magistrate may be reckless and careless in his actions, but his potential intentions could stretch years beyond his lifespan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)