Blog begun for school and continued when I feel like it.

Advertisements

Screen Shot 2017-12-05 at 11.12.59 AM

Le chevalier Calogrenant verse l’eau sur le perron de la fontaine merveilleuse et déclenche la tempête; il se retourne pour affronter le gardien, Esclados le Roux, sorti précipitamment de son château. 1433. Bibliothèque nationale de France.

The world of Yvain is no fairytale landscape: in it, princes die before the giant can be vanquished, the right hand man of the good king champions the wrong person, magic ointments come only in limited quantities, heroes need two-week recovery periods before battles, young damsels get sick and risk failing in their quests, and, though demons may be beaten, their masters are allowed to remain at large. That Yvain’s is not the world of the likes of Erec and Enide is hinted at from the very beginning of the romance, though Yvain is not aware of it himself. Chrétien does not choose the shame and failure of one of Arthur’s knights to serve as the action’s catalyst arbitrarily; rather it is the first (and one of the greatest) indicators of the type of world in which this story will take place. In the world of “The Knight with the Lion,” realism comes to the fore in ways which we haven’t encountered elsewhere in Chrétien de Troyes—particularly existential realisms, not simply the sort presented by the plight of the weavers at Dire Adventure.

In this tale, failure is not an abstract concept, but a real possibility. Death lurks ever-present at the story’s edges and the hero, though he is a force of nature, is not superhuman (as perhaps one might argue Erec is in the context of his tale and his world). Yvain, though, does not initially recognize that his world is not of a kind with Erec’s and that he himself is not superhuman. Yvain, as he listens to Calogrenant’s tale, never considers the implications of the fact that Calogrenant was beaten by Esclados; he only registers the opportunity for an adventure and a flexing of his chivalric muscles in publicly avenging his cousin’s shame. Indeed, Yvain is initially characterized by an unflagging belief in his own prowess and capabilities—his own inability to fail—which goes hand in hand with his misunderstanding of his world. It is this belief—this lack of self-knowledge—which renders Yvain’s failure to keep his word to Laudine such a shock to him, sending him spiraling into self-hatred and madness. Yet it is this very madness which proves the vehicle for the rehabilitation and correction of Yvain’s relation to his world as it retrains him in his interaction with the people around him and allows him to rebuild his sense of self. Read More

vsco_031917-4

Me on the slopes of Helm Crag above Grasmere (taken by Sarah, another girl on the trip)

Last spring break, I begged off Florida 2.0 with the team and jetted off to England instead. And not just any part of England, but the Lake District—a place I’ve wanted to go ever since I can remember. It was a trip through the English Department to study Wordsworth with Professor Engell. We’d be staying in Grasmere and working with the Wordsworth Trust—studying manuscripts, making pilgrimages to the sacred sites of Wordsworthiana (with a few nods to other Lake District literati thrown in), taking walks, reading, writing, and—almost certainly—falling in love.

The trip was far from a sure thing. I applied just after Christmas desperate for the trip to happen, but at that point all we’d received was an email from the department saying that maybe-perhaps this trip Professor Engell would like to do might happen and if it were to actually be approved would any of us like to go? There was no maybe-perhaps about my answer. My application was off a day later with my fingers crossed—both for my acceptance and for the trip to happen.

In the end—of course—it did, but we didn’t know it was all going to actually work out until 3 weeks before we were to leave (it was all a bit harrying for my coach). And those 8 or so days were some of the most magical of my life. I fell absolutely head-over-heels in love with the Lake District often find myself wondering how I could contrive to get myself back there. This post—brimming with photographs of my time there—is long overdue and has only brought on a wave of nostalgia (thoughts of dropping it all and hiding myself away in Grasmere abound). Read More

In no particular order and dating back nearly a year

Jane Eyre 4-1

Peggy Ann Garner as Jane Eyre in the 1943 film adaptation

Very Short Reflections on Jane Eyre

Almost from the first page of Jane Eyre, Charlotte Brontë raises questions of substance and insubstance, fantasy and reality. Indeed, the distinctions which are drawn between Jane and her first antagonist, John Reed, place the issue of substance squarely at the center of the first chapter as the first body described in the book is not the diminutive one of Jane, but the “large and stout” one of John, whose “thick lineaments. . . heavy limbs and large extremities” (8-9) are overwhelming in their corporality, particularly in opposition to the girl whose presence we only really know through her thoughts to this point in the novel. John Reed is not the only antagonist whose physical presence is the basic fact of his existence; when Jane first meets Mr. Brocklehurst, she apprehends him not as a man, but as a solid, physical—even architectural—presence, a “black pillar. . . [a] sable-clad shape standing erect” whose “grim face was like a carved mask, placed above the shaft by way of capital” (24). Mr. Brocklehurst’s physicality is even more dominating than John’s, as in subjugates his animacy in its solidity. Jane is, of course, contrasted with these figures in her diminutive stature, which, even as an adult, lends her a waif-like presence.¹ However, these descriptions of intense corporality highlight a more interesting distinction, not between size, but between presence and absence, by throwing into relief Jane’s liminal self-conception, by which she places herself constantly on the border of fantasy and incorporeality.

The first image we receive of her is not actually of herself, but of her reflection in the red room’s looking-glass, so that her physicality is distanced from herself, unlike the physicality of John Reed which constitutes his entire being. Jane sees herself as a “strange little figure” that has “the effect of a real spirit. . . like one of the tiny phantoms, half fairy, half imp, Bessie’s evening stories represented” (12). In this description of her image in her reflection, Jane blends the real and the unreal, bringing the spirits of lore into the real world, giving them substance in herself. She goes in to say that she feels that she is “like nobody there” (13), an interesting phrasing for though she literally means she is unlike the rest of the family, it also conveys a sense of absence, extending the ghostliness she saw in her reflection to her real being in the world where, indeed, she is often treated as if she were not there. Read More

Subordination, the Other, and the Question of the Self in Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe

Robinson-Crusoe

All illustrations N. C. Wyeth

Alone on his island, Robinson Crusoe spends much of his time in “imagining” and “representing to [him]self” those imaginings. With not much constraint on his time, daydreaming plays a large part in his daily routine, but it also serves the deeper purpose of helping him to adapt to—and escape from—his circumstances. At first these imaginings are quite recognizable for what they are, but as the text progresses, Crusoe’s imaginings increasingly blur with his self-perceptions and definitions, leading to contradictions in his self-representation. Tracking Crusoe’s own ideas of self-definition and his relation to the island as well as the concept of the other, it becomes clear that central to the problem of his shifting self-representation are the issues of power and subordination, which Crusoe, though largely alone, wrestles with, both in his imagination and without.

From the very first, Crusoe’s relation to the island is one of subjugation. Finding no immediate inhabitants of the island, Crusoe sets about subordinating nature, ordering the space around him to his liking. At first, this imposition of order is purely defensive: Crusoe expends much effort in building a wall “so strong, that neither Man or Beast could get into or over it” (44) fortifying him “from all the World” (45). However this fortification is also a means of  staking a claim: Crusoe, in enclosing his bit of earth, marks it as his own, subjugating it to his own purposes. This first fortification is emblematic of the many enclosures by which he orders his life in his twenty-eight years upon the island, all of which he designs to be impregnable and, with time, invisible.¹ And yet, it is not only through these enclosures that Crusoe figures the subjugation of his environment; his feeling of possession extends beyond the confines of his fences. Read More

 “Unvarnished Truth”: The Blurring of Fiction and Reality in Shirley

At the heart of Charlotte Brontë’s Shirley is the means by which a story is told. Though it is not until the last pages that the reader is given any idea of who the narrator is, the narrator is just as much a character in the preceding 480 pages as Caroline or Shirley, constantly passing judgement on the action and the people it involves, and, what’s more, upon her (?) presumed reader. It is through this latter relationship—between the narrator and her reader—that Shirley most often draws attention to itself as an act of storytelling, as the narrator asks the reader to eavesdrop with her or read over a character’s shoulder as he writes, or, more often, accuses her reader of misinterpretation and misjudgment.¹ The first paragraph is scarcely ended when the narrator begins to accuse the reader, shattering the camaraderie established in the opening paragraph’s communal “we” and undercutting the assumptions she assigns to her reader. “If you think,” the second paragraph begins, “that anything like a romance is preparing for you, reader, you never were more mistaken” (3) she warns, replacing the unifying “we” with the accusatory and disintegrating “you,” which she repeats eight times in six sentences. And we, as readers, may squirm, uncomfortable with the judgmental role Brontë has assigned us—aware, suddenly, that our interpretive powers are not trusted; that while we are invited in, privileged to knowledge unknown even to characters themselves, we are also held apart as outsiders likely to misjudge and misunderstand. Thus storytelling in Shirley is not merely a collaborative exercise, but one born of conflict and confrontation—not just between the narrator and her imagined reader (and author and real reader), but as that second paragraph makes clear, between fiction and reality.  Read More

Screen Shot 2017-11-12 at 10.07.36 AM

Park La Brea, Corbusier, and Planning the City of the Future

Park La Brea, the largest housing project west of the Mississippi, is one of a great many  high-density housing projects built across the country in the first half of the twentieth century. Located west of downtown Los Angeles, the complex is an assembly of low garden-apartments and thirteen story towers, the latter of which make it something of an anomaly in the low-rise environment of Los Angeles. It and its fellows were the product of half a century of thought regarding the state of the city and the question of how to define its future. The schemes  which birthed it—from Ebenezer Howard’s garden city to Le Corbusier’s City of To-morrow— have been roundly and often justifiably criticized since their inception and even more vociferously from the 50’s onward, when the tracts and projects which had been built in their name began to decline. However, Park La Brea stands out as an instance of one of these projects which did not decline and, furthermore, shows no signs of doing so. Rather, Park La Brea has, in its now more than 75 year history, enjoyed unprecedented success, remaining attractive to Angeleno home buyers (there is always a list to get in) and succeeding in creating a diverse and vibrant community, despite all odds. As such, Park La Brea, anomalous though it may seem, seems to offer something of a vindication of so-often criticized utopian designs of early twentieth century planners, perhaps indicating that at their cores, those utopian plans were not so far off-base. Read More