Agreeing to Disagree

Ahhh, Virginia Woolfe. I am so very fond of her, though I disagree with much of what she says. It is such a pleasure to read her work, with its stabbing sarcasm and clenching dry humor. She is witty and clever and amusing and I am not even certain that she ever knew it, which is really quite the shame. I find that as I am reading A Room of One's Own my lip is permanently placed in slight raise at my amusement with her humor. I wish, at times, to stand up and yell, "You go girl!," and sometimes I glance at my husband, unaware that he is, and think how it would serve him right if I could display just a small bit of her feminist strength. This thought, too, makes me smile. But then... there are three points Woolfe is quite steadfast about, and I am not quite so sure she is justified in them.

The first of which being that a woman must have a room of her own in which to write. Often while writing my own words, I consider how nice it would be to have my own space, far away from husband and kids, where no one is asking "where is my hammer?," or "where is my goldfish and why is it not in its tank?". Where there are no shouts of, "Mo-om! The cat puked on Alex's truck and then he wiped it on my Barbie's hair!" How nice it would be to seclude myself from these things and just immerse myself in my writing... but then, I am reminded that it is these things that influence the creation of my writing. It is these things that periodically bring me back to the reality, away from my wandering thoughts and the world I'm creating within  my head; a world unshared by the people I love until it is placed on page and I allow it to be read. Yes, Virginia, a room of my own would be nice at times, but the loss of the things of reality could prove detrimental to the actual writings supposed to be taking place in those rooms.

Secondly, Woolfe is insistent that to be a successful writer, a woman must have money of her own. It would certainly be nice to have a continuous and plentiful flow of money to pay the bills so that I might not have to worry over it. (Is that not, in fact, why I got married? Ha! Just kidding... some slight humor to stab at the feminist notion there for a moment. We now return to more serious matters.) The truth though is that it is unrealistic, and to suggest such a thing as a necessary requirement to successful writing is discouraging and uncalled for. It is easy, Virginia, to write such a ridiculous notion from your place of privilege; had you not had the financial means that you did, I doubt your view would have been the same.

Finally, and perhaps most controversial for me, is Woolfe's notion of things written in anger. I disagree with her on this in a few ways. First, she implies that truth cannot be told when written in anger. I think she has gotten this wrong. One of the great and unforgiveable traits of writing in anger is that the filter is removed, consideration of other people and other views is disregarded, and the words that are written are true to the very core of the writer. This is, of course, crucial to be read with the understanding that there is no absolute truth; truth is true based on perspective. (Interject philosophical discussion here.) Secondly, it is in anger that our passions for a particular subject are ignited and blaze across a page like a declaration in blood. What the writer depicts on his/her page will be felt as it resonates within the reader, prompting action (particularly useful in political pieces).

Tagore, Ta"bore"

I mean no disrespect to the great literary voices that be, but I cannot take a liking to Tagore. I have tried. I have read, reread, and read again his works as represented in our textbooks and I just cannot have a single attachment to his work. Much of what I struggle with in regards to the poetry of Tagore is his apparent indecision of whether or not to write poetry... or...prose. His writing style feels awkward to me as I I feel like he waivers uncertainly between whether he's writing a poem or stepping over the line into prose. His words are certainly probably mainly poetic, in a sense, but his structure leans strongly to being not.

But then... maybe it is his more relaxed and peaceful approach to things that I do not prefer. Maybe I am drawn to the more compelling passions of the distraught political themes written by the people disturbed by things. Maybe it's the Machiavelli in everyone that I want to see. I tend to be of the thinking that anybody can sit down and write a pretty, flowery, happy piece about...what? I'm really not sure; but it is the job of the writer to write about those things that no one else can or will. Maybe I'm not getting a sense of purpose from Tagore's writing. Maybe I expect too much of writers and poets to convey something that forces me to examine myself and my thoughts and my ideals.  Maybe I just simply don't like his work, and that is ok.

Drawn to Amichai

I am compelled to Amichai's poetry. I find myself drawn to read and reread the words, the lines, the stanzas. Mainly politically themed, Amichai expresses his view of his world through simple words, easily imagined, and painted so directly that I can imagine myself amongst the words of his poems as I am reading them. The intrigue, for me, of Amichai's poems that set him apart from some of the others is that he writes so seemingly effortlessly that each poem can carry with it double meanings: the literal and the abstract. While he writes slightly historically about the everyday sights of war and its aftermath, evoking inside the reader the very same emotions as the subjects of his poems, Amichai still encourages timeless metaphoric readings of his work.

While I am quite fond of all of his poems I have read thus far, my marked favorites are "Of Three and Four in a Room," "Jerusalem," "Tourists," and "Endless Poem" which is not in our textbook. With the exception perhaps of 'Of Three or Four in a Room," Amichai writes with an ardent sense of nationality, pride, and heritage in these other poems, though not arrogantly as can sometimes be the case when writers are recording national historic events.

In "Jerusalem" Amichai refers to his "enemy" and yet he portrays them as the same as himself. The last stanza seems almost to sympathize with the "other" side because of the empathetic relationship they share. They are two sides of the same coin.

"Tourists" draws in me a sense of shame. We discussed this poem rather heavily in class so I do not wish to reverberate that, but I did want to add that part "2" very bluntly and undeniably drives home Amichai's purpose in writing it. The example Amichai gives of the tourists who are pointing, using the man as a point of reference to the historical object, when instead they should be using the historical object as a point of reference to guide their sight to the people, is incredibly moving. Instead of focusing on the shrines and memorials, they should be nothing more than the guide which directs our sight instead to the fellow beings who endured the historical and catastrophic events. Instead of being caught up in learning the history of facts, we should be more compelled to learning sympathy and compassion in a very real sense for the people exploited in the creation of the monuments to history. History occurs only because of the people it impacts.

Tonight I Can Write...about Walking Around

Remix:
Tonight I can write the saddest lines.
It happens I am tired of being a man.
Write, for example, 'The night is shattered,
it happens when I go into the tailor's shops and movies.
The blue stars shiver in the distance
all shrivelled up, impenetrable, like a felt swan. (Oh look; someone else who takes a liking to the swan.)
Tonight I can write the saddest lines.
The smell of barber shops make me sob out loud.

Ah, don't take too much offense to the butchered conglomerated mix of my two favored Neruda poems: "Tonight I Can Write" and "Walking Around." It intrigued me momentarily how the two poems, though they convey completely unrelated themes, coincide so well by line. The "saddest lines", though originally written about love lost (or love never truly had, depending on one's definition of love), could have just as easily been written about the weariness of being human in this life. Of course, again, this is open to perspective.

In "Tonight I Can Write...", Neruda explores the intriguing nature of love. When one considers the lines of his poem, he almost pokes fun at the fleeting and unrealistic expectation of "love". They loved each other. Sometimes. He loved her. Because of her "great still eyes." (Really? *raised eyebrow*) He loves her. That's certain. Well, maybe. And then... well...but, nope. He no longer loves her. But he did, in fact, love "her voice. her bright body. her infinite eyes." (Again with the eyes. At this point I think perhaps even I love her eyes. I'm not sure.) Sometimes. The only certainty throughout it all is that these were "the last verses" that he'd ever write for her. But then...maybe not.

The brilliance of "Walking Around" is a little more concrete. He is quite certain that he is tired of being a man, and as he describes, it is quite understandably so. Similar to Dario's "Sonatina," Neruda is speaking out against the expectations set forth regarding gender and societal roles. Aging before his time, he goes into the usual and typical "old man" gathering places "the tailor's shops and the movies", the same as those before him and the same as those will do long after he's returned to dust and "ash." Walking the same places, smelling the same sounds, doing the same things... He wants to know: where is the shock? Where is the mischief that wakens the boredom? Where is the refreshment that will generate "new"? Where is the relief from the mundane?

I do not know. Maybe I know. Yes, I'm certain I know. Or... not.
All I really know is that "forgotten sets of teeth in a coffee-pot" quite honestly scare the hell outta me.

On Dario's swans...er, I mean poems

Dario, Dario, wherefore art though going with thine swans, Dario...

As I sit, reflecting on the previously examined poetry in hopes that by some divine providence a light from the heavens will open and I will be magically stricken by the image of the poem which I should pursue in my explication essay, it occurs to me that perhaps I should revisit those from the textbook. I begin with Dario. I am quickly reminded that I initially took a liking to his writing; to his beautiful imagery and flowing descriptions; but I am unconvinced of my everlasting draw to his metaphoric connections with swans..

I must first acknowledge, however,  those poems of his which I specifically and quite still find a particular beauty with. I have a profound admiration for "Sonatina". His slashing of the typical hopefulness and ridiculously unrealistic expectations of fairy tale endings is brilliant. Truly, who has ever had the gumption to squash a fairy tale, and in such beautifully descriptive ways. While using the same images a typical fairy tale would use to convey charming, flowery, and happy little lives, Dario instead offers the under side to this tale. The princess is sad; bored of her life of unearned luxury and expectation. She wants to break free. Traditionally, the fairy godmother is the symbol of hope in achieving one's dreams and ambitions (all of which usually revolve around a brave and handsome man), but here, even she promises nothing more than the status quo of "the prince who wins and woos and kisses with "true love"-the expectation; as godmother "hushes" the princess from allowing her thoughts of boredom to breed into something "outside the box."

I am equally impressed with "To Roosevelt," "I Seek a Form," and "Fatality." "Fatality" in particular struck my fancy with its simplistic, yet rounding implication. A tree, which is grounded, stable, unmovable, when personified with these attributes barely perceives anything. People of this kind are not phased by a little trouble coming their way; they can be happy amidst it all. A hard rock, personified, is stubborn, strong, hardened to the tribulations of life and as such is happier because it/he/she feels nothing. The point Dario is making throughout the rest of the poem is that these are the attributes required in order to be happy in light of the realities of this life and eventual death...or perhaps his point is that these are the fatalities.

Both, "Blazon" and "Leda" I find to be bordering the line of pleasure and pain to read. It shouldn't be; they are beautiful words, beautifully crafted into beautiful images of symbolism. Quite honestly though, I tire of the swan. It feels too cliche to me. And let's be real here, swans are overrated as a thing of beauty. Have you ever actually checked out a swan? They're really nothing more than a glorified duck. And to that I say: if it looks like a duck and swims like a duck, it must be a duck. Therefore, Dario's insistent fascination with the swan is an invalid image. And that is the gospel according to Amy. 

Testing...Testing...

This blog is being set up as a course requirement for World Classics. I'm comfortable with this because I always have something to say about most anything and I do get quite excited over literature. While I do not intend for this to count as a fulfillment of one of the ten required blogs, its intent is to break the ice, keep my blog from looking so sparse while it waits for me to cover some material, and to test my capabilities or lack thereof in the operation of this blog site.

In other news, the first day of class went well for me. Aside from my obvious partiality to the English classes, I always appreciate the smaller class sizes. I'm more comfortable participating in class and carrying my fair share in group projects when there's fewer people filling seats. The overall vibe is always more positive in the intimacy of a smaller group and one person's positivity seems more contagious and spreads at a faster rate when there are fewer students to potentially block it. Yes, I think World Classics will be good... as for Religious Persons and Traditions, that is for a whole 'nother blog in itself. *sigh*