Christensen's "Alphabet"

At the outset of reading Inger Christensen’s “Alphabet” is a weird piece, and I’m not sure whether I should classify it as a poem, or a set of prose poems, or what. But, where it starts off sparsely-worded and a little slow, it soon begins to incorporate mythology and religion, ideas more intangible than the blackberries and cicadas of the first three sections. In 9, she writes that Icarus exists: “Icarus wrapped in the melting wax / wings exists, Icarus pale as a corpse / in street clothes… Icarus-children white as lambs / in greylight, indeed they will exist” and begins the next stanza with, “we will exist”. (I feel like it’s a safe assumption we are all mostly familiar with the myth of Daedalus and Icarus.) Amid the biblical references, she keeps returning to this equation: Icarus has and does and will exist, in all tenses, as we do. But then she soon returns to concrete subjects of existence.

The Action of Objects

In Daniel Miller's chapter "Why Clothing is Not Superficial" he looks at clothing from an anthropological perspective rather than a cultural or symbolic perspective. He looks at how the clothing feels and functions rather than the normal views. Specifically when he talks about the sari however there is the very interesting line "how the sari wears the Indian woman" (23). That could be interpreted as how the sari makes an Indian woman or how it impacts moments of her life. In a way the sari takes action, speaks, and influences people and their actions as if it were its own entity. When the pallu of the sari gets stuck in a car door or, horrifically, catches on fire without meaning to it takes action.

Can you think of any such "mute" objects in your life like this? Has an object ever impacted or shaped your life or lifestyle?

The Lady's Dressing Room

I'm curious as to what the overall reaction of women during Swift's time was toward The Lady's Dressing Room. I wonder if the majority of them saw the poem as humorous or if they were scandalized by either having their secrets exposed, or being portrayed as monstrous. What do y'all think Swift's true intention was in writing this piece?

Charles Baudelaire, "A Philosophy of Toys"

Something really struck me during Wednesday's class discussion when we began to discuss Baudelaire's "A Philosophy of Toys." During this conversation, we explored the reasoning behind why it is so commonplace for children to pull their dolls apart. The assumption is that children, at their very core, are trying to see the souls of their dolls. And because they cannot, they experience one of their first ontological disappointments. That is, they are first planted with the seed of the eventual realization that they will not be able to truly read people as adults.

Does anyone sense a flaw in this way of thinking or does it make sense? I cannot help but beg the question: What about children, like me, who never ripped their dolls apart? Do they just skip over that ontological disappointment? Does that mean that, as adults, they will be oblivious to the fact that they cannot always read people?

Could you guys pinpoint the reason why when you all were growing up, you did these kinds of things to your dolls? I'm actually just very curious since I never did this as a child. Do you all feel that Baudelaire's proposal makes sense when superimposing it on your childhood incidents?

Discussion Leader Schedule, round 2

Discussion Leader Schedule

Here is the schedule for round 2, same process as before. Sign up to lead two sessions.

Week 8
Monday:           [____________ - Dolls re: Tiffany, Kleist, Baudelaire, and/or others]
Wednesday:      [____________ - Swift or Melville]

Week 9

Monday:           [ ____________ - Harman, Brown, Ponge, and/or others]

Wednesday:      [____________ - Williams and/or Christensen (poems)]

Week 10

Monday:           [_____________ - Lai and/or Harvey (poems)]

Wednesday:      [____________ - Robertson and/or Bennett] 

Week 11

Monday:           [____________ - Manders (visual art) and Bogost]

Wednesday:     [____________ - VAS: An Opera in Flatland]

Week 12

Monday:          [____________ - VAS: An Opera in Flatland]

Wednesday:    [____________ - VAS: An Opera in Flatland]

Week 14

Monday:          [____________ - Spahr and Bogost]

McTeauge

So far McTeague has proven himself to be a very strange individual. There is a very clear sense that there is something that isn't quite right about him. In this week's reading in particular he has strange, almost inhuman responses to several shocking revelations.  One that stood out clearly for me is when Trina expresses to him that she is scared of him. The description of his response provided by the narrator states "An immense joy seized upon him--- the joy of possession. Trina was his very own now. She lay in the hollow of his arm, helpless and very pretty" (141). This happiness that he feels in response to Trina's submission to him is really bizarre, particularly the way he goes out of his way to express how pretty she looks in this form of submission. Part of me wonders going forward if this feeling that he is this dominant beast of a man compared to her dainty submission is going to play a role when her money from the lottery is eventually needed (which isn't too hard of an assumption to make as readers).
Speaking of the lottery money, the parallel that the book is setting up between Maria and Trina (Gold vs Lottery) is going to help give us a picture of what might have caused Maria to lose all her gold (in the event that you believed that she had it at all.) Already, just based on how Maria has talked about the gold to the Polish man at the pawn shop, Trina is emulating similar behaviors. Rather than spending the money she has, she hordes it (so far as we know.) I think that ultimately this behavior is going to lead to disaster. In class we've briefly touched on the concept of the gold standard, and how it plays into the novel, particularly in regards to the value of paper currency. I think there are three ways that Trina could lose her gold at this juncture. She could end up spending it all, which is a distinct possibility because so far she has been very secretive about the state of her economic affairs, but I suspect that if that were the case there would be signs that would indicate these expenditures (that I haven't noticed, in the event that there already have been outside of the sign for McTeague's parlor). Another possibility is that it could be stolen, but as of yet there has been no indication of that in the novel. The final possibility, that so far I feel that signs are pointing to is a great depression sized plummet in the value of the dollar, resulting in her lottery money being less valuable than regular paper. While at this point it is unclear to me how this economic collapse could occur, I do think that there is a good chance that anxieties over the worth of paper money will be realized at some point later in the novel.

What do you all feel about this?