As today's class was kind of a multitude of things, I'm going to have a cornucopia of responses. Bear with me through this.
First...to close up "Small Things": I see Roy's activism coming through in her text. Some activists are like that though. Characters (and people) are able to be flat or die in the name of the cause. I don't remember who said this, but for some, the end justifies the means. Meaning that, simple as Roy's idealistic message is, its power to purge a story to a simple core demands respect. Also, Roy's message needed to be shared. One would think that if people understood that "isms" are bad, then we wouldnt' have any "isms". That also is not the case. Therefore, putting a face to a problem, making it approachable and meaningful for people is a worthy purpose.
We also touched on Magical Realism today. Is Garcia Marquez's book magical realism? I don't know quite yet. I will, however, respond as such. One of the tenants of magical realism (as proposed in class today) is to have an orientation or attachement to history. However, Garcia Marquez has not given one concrete time in all of this book. Yet, it isn't completely fantasty. If I may be so bold, I would like to propose a different perspective. I think all fantasy texts are rooted in realism of some sort. I'm not a big fantasy reader or anything, but in order to have an impact on a reader, there needs to be some form of connection to real life and a world that people understand. Hence, the emotional story lines, the problems and journeys that we often see in literature. However, real life also has some fantastic moments, ones that can't be explained by the marvels of modern science and such. My life has been filled with serendipitious moments that I am unable to explain. Furthermore, these discoveries are at times prompted by fantastic moments and feelings of calm that I am unable to explain. This leads me to the follwoing conclusion:
Perhaps realism isn't the best mirror of life but instead magical realism is. (oh dear...my idealist is coming out loud and proud...) Life has too many unexplained phenomenons to be accurately covered under the term "real life". Those who can't see the magic in the world around them just need to take off their "woe is me" sunglasses and look around them. Magical realism validates all of those wonder-filled moments that realism refuses to acknowledge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It was Machiavelli who said "The end justifies the means," although myriad others have said it as well. It's a concept that needs to be handled delicately, however. For instance, such a proposition may serve as the basis for exploiting or objectifying people for the sake of research and the "greater good." It's a utilitarian argument, I'd say, and I don't think it's ethical to sacrifice any one person or group for the supposed greater good of all.
I'll weigh in on Michelle's response to Roy. My feeling is that something is sacrificed when a writer constructs a character according to political dictates and/or "universal" archetypes (whatever those are) and, in so doing, ignores the character's "particular" identity. This is where I think both Rushdie in Haroun and Roy fall flat. Both books have characters that embody political viewpoints, resulting in work that's, to me at least, a bit heavy-handed and didactic. Murakami and Gabo, on the other hand, are able to discuss politics, deconstruct identity, and create memorable characters without falling into heavy-handed allegory and symbolism.
Have either of you ever seen the most unexpected Will Ferrell movie ever, STRANGER THAN FICTION? This is the movie that I thought of when I was writing the response that I did. Roy seems to believe her message to be more important than her characters. Her message does get across, however, it is reached at the expense of her characterization.
In STRANGER THAN FICTION, Ferrell's character is actually living the life of a character in a famous author's most recent book. This author always kills her characters off and when Ferrell reaches her to plead with her to save his life, the author is forced to take into consideration her characters' realities for the first time.
This brings a deeper question to light for us. Why do we read literature? Is it an aestethic reading that drives us or is it to learn something? Answering that question will be what decides whether Roy is in the wrong or not for sacrificing her characterization in favor of her message.
Thanks for the comments guys!
Post a Comment