I enjoyed this class. The novels we read were good reads and really fun to talk about during class. A lot of the literature I've read in my English classes this year I would never dream to tackle on my own but with a class full of different perspectives, reading stuff like Libra or Mumbo Jumbo doesn't seem nearly as daunting.
As compared with last semester, I think some of the books we read were a little harder to talk about right of the bat. Sometimes I felt like I didn't have enough to say about the books this semester then suddenly, half way through the book, once I was finally oriented, I would have too many things to say in class discussion. I like being able to draw upon last semester's literature in relation to this semester's because it was helpful in gaining a better understanding of what authors were doing with certain characters. Also, at the beginning of this semester I was disappointed to learn that there would be no pastiches, which I enjoyed last semester, but the semester project definitely made up for that loss of fictional composition. This semester's project was much more challenging than last semester's but it was really interesting and I found myself really enjoying the writing.
Although initially the readings about postmodernism seemed pretty dry, I appreciated doing them because it made me feel like I was learning something new in English class while I usually feel like I'm practicing old skills in English. They also provided proper context for what we were going to be doing all semester.
I think my favorite book was Kindred and my least favorite was the first couple chapters of Mumbo Jumbo or the first like ten chapters of Libra. The latter two were the most difficult books this semester in my opinion. I thought I was going to want to die the whole time I was reading Mumbo Jumbo but I surprised myself, got oriented, and started really liking the Reed's relaxed writing style. I think that my response paper for Mumbo Jumbo was my best one.
Looking back at the class and thinking about what I'm taking away from it, I think the examination between history and fiction has not changed my opinions of either but it has given me a new perspective on how one should study both. My story really helped me see that. For me, new perspectives are extremely valuable. I think learning is based on looking at things in different ways and so listening to someone who has a different idea than yourself is just as valuable as learning a new skill.
This was a great class. Thanks! I look forward to next year.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Assorted thoughtsn on Libra
I want to get some of my general thoughts and observations about Libra out in this blog post since there will be no response paper on the novel. Here it goes:
On page 198, Lee, speaking about Francis Gary Powers, considers the fact that, "once you did something notorious, they tagged you with an extra name, a middle name that was ordinarily never used." He says that it makes a name sound historic. Later in the novel, when Lee has become the murderous Lee Harvey Oswald, he feels that the middle name makes his name seem funny and fake and made up. I think that he is feeling a sort of dissociation with the deed and thus a dissociation with the name. I think the significance of his observations about adding the middle name go back to the central theme of this class because a person's everyday name is who they are whereas their complete name is the character that history creates for them. The extra names almost seem to account for discrepancies between the historical record and fact. It's sort like with horses or dogs in shows, their registered official name is what goes down in record books and their call name is only known by those who were close to the animal.
The fact that Lee "likes the idea that whores are profound" further attests to his tendency to over romanticize life. It seems akin to the idea that he sees himself being an integral part of history.
The quotation on page 261 about why Beryl Parmenter cuts out certain newspaper articles really struck me. Some atrocities are listed and the reason she saves the clippings is "because these are the things that tell us how we live." I think it's striking because it's true but you have to think about why it's true. These are the things that are going in newspapers and everyone will know. The majority of the population doesn't bother itself with the daily life news of other people but what is in the newspaper shows what is "important" and the newspaper is what is going to make something go down in history.
The fact that Lee insists on keeping Marina isolated through a language barrier is interesting to me. I haven't quite come up with a reason that suits me. It reminds me of Rezia and Septimus from Mrs. Dalloway. The most obvious reason I could think of for why he didn't want to teach her English is to keep his beating her quiet. I don't know about this theory. I think a better idea is that he is trying to keep her inside of his Russian-Alek life and out of his Lee Harvey Oswald- lone gunman life. He gets really angry when he believes she's becoming too American.
Also about Lee and Marina: Their relationship reminds me of Rufus and Dana from Kindred too because they have an abusive, dysfunctional relationship but they need each other. Lee even admits to needing Marina although he hates it and she speaks very little English and needs him to get around and for income. I think Lee's disgust with his attachment to Marina has to do with the fact that she ruins his lone gunman persona and gives him something to be attached to. Lee uses aliases to try to distance himself from his life with Marina.
The realization of intensely planned events, such as the attempted assassination of General Walker and ultimately the JFK assassination, is really well portrayed by DeLillo. First of all, DeLillo emphasizes the fact that the planners don't have control over every detail which makes his plot seem more realistic. I also like the description on page 277 before Lee shoots at Walker when DeLillo writes, "what a sense of destiny he had, locked in the miniature room, creating a design, a network of connections. It was a second existence, the private world floating out to three dimensions." It must be crazy to see a manufactured series of events slowly take place in real life.
It's interesting that all of Lee's shots seem not to do their job. He shoots himself to avoid transfer and fails. He fails to kill General Walker. Finally, he fails to kill JFK (although this was probably his best shot). His incompetence throughout the book helps to connect the man with the rifle in the window to the goofy soldier with a harebrained scheme.
And last but not least: I still don't know what "Wayne felt sweet and light as Jesus on a moonbeam," means.
On page 198, Lee, speaking about Francis Gary Powers, considers the fact that, "once you did something notorious, they tagged you with an extra name, a middle name that was ordinarily never used." He says that it makes a name sound historic. Later in the novel, when Lee has become the murderous Lee Harvey Oswald, he feels that the middle name makes his name seem funny and fake and made up. I think that he is feeling a sort of dissociation with the deed and thus a dissociation with the name. I think the significance of his observations about adding the middle name go back to the central theme of this class because a person's everyday name is who they are whereas their complete name is the character that history creates for them. The extra names almost seem to account for discrepancies between the historical record and fact. It's sort like with horses or dogs in shows, their registered official name is what goes down in record books and their call name is only known by those who were close to the animal.
The fact that Lee "likes the idea that whores are profound" further attests to his tendency to over romanticize life. It seems akin to the idea that he sees himself being an integral part of history.
The quotation on page 261 about why Beryl Parmenter cuts out certain newspaper articles really struck me. Some atrocities are listed and the reason she saves the clippings is "because these are the things that tell us how we live." I think it's striking because it's true but you have to think about why it's true. These are the things that are going in newspapers and everyone will know. The majority of the population doesn't bother itself with the daily life news of other people but what is in the newspaper shows what is "important" and the newspaper is what is going to make something go down in history.
The fact that Lee insists on keeping Marina isolated through a language barrier is interesting to me. I haven't quite come up with a reason that suits me. It reminds me of Rezia and Septimus from Mrs. Dalloway. The most obvious reason I could think of for why he didn't want to teach her English is to keep his beating her quiet. I don't know about this theory. I think a better idea is that he is trying to keep her inside of his Russian-Alek life and out of his Lee Harvey Oswald- lone gunman life. He gets really angry when he believes she's becoming too American.
Also about Lee and Marina: Their relationship reminds me of Rufus and Dana from Kindred too because they have an abusive, dysfunctional relationship but they need each other. Lee even admits to needing Marina although he hates it and she speaks very little English and needs him to get around and for income. I think Lee's disgust with his attachment to Marina has to do with the fact that she ruins his lone gunman persona and gives him something to be attached to. Lee uses aliases to try to distance himself from his life with Marina.
The realization of intensely planned events, such as the attempted assassination of General Walker and ultimately the JFK assassination, is really well portrayed by DeLillo. First of all, DeLillo emphasizes the fact that the planners don't have control over every detail which makes his plot seem more realistic. I also like the description on page 277 before Lee shoots at Walker when DeLillo writes, "what a sense of destiny he had, locked in the miniature room, creating a design, a network of connections. It was a second existence, the private world floating out to three dimensions." It must be crazy to see a manufactured series of events slowly take place in real life.
It's interesting that all of Lee's shots seem not to do their job. He shoots himself to avoid transfer and fails. He fails to kill General Walker. Finally, he fails to kill JFK (although this was probably his best shot). His incompetence throughout the book helps to connect the man with the rifle in the window to the goofy soldier with a harebrained scheme.
And last but not least: I still don't know what "Wayne felt sweet and light as Jesus on a moonbeam," means.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Writing Historical Fiction
I thought that the project was really difficult. It was really hard for me to come up with the initial idea. I think the hardest part was trying to decide how I was going to start finding a time period to deal with. After I had my first idea (the one I used) things got easier. (Just a note: Once I had already turned in my proposal I also considered writing about the Soweto Uprising and Hector Pieterson during the end of Apartheid in South Africa or the Tsavo Man eating lions. I may pursue one of these as a blog post....)
OK, so at this point I had my topic and had to figure out how I was going to proceed with the execution of the story (LOL punny). I thought narrative style would be a simple place to start but I soon found that there were just too many choices. I could see my story taking shape in so many different ways. It was surprisingly overwhelming. I started and stopped and drafted and redrafted until I finally had a tone I liked. My story actually had three possible starting chapters and it wasn't until the night before the draft was due that I could commit to one. I am not a decisive person and my indecisiveness led to way more wasted time than I had bargained for. My ending was pretty set in stone. I just wasn't sure how I was going to come to it.
I think it was also a little frustrating in the beginning when I was just blindly researching because I didn't have a clue what I was looking for yet. When I got into my topic more I knew the kind of things I needed but at first I had no agenda. I like to organize my time very carefully because I don't have that much free time to waste but it was hard to to make a schedule for this project. My initial plan was also shattered when I discovered that much of the information I knew about my topic was blatantly falsified to turn Henry Morant into a hero. The legit research I turned up actually created a much more nuanced story so it's ok.
I also found myself a little uncomfortable with writing history. I feel like it's easy to push things too far in historical fiction, especially for an inexperienced fiction writer, like myself, and because these people really existed and really struggled and died I was uncomfortable putting words in their mouths and thoughts in their heads. (Even though SO MANY people have already lied about what happened....) I stayed very close to historical truth, even about Morant's wife becoming a cannibal. I added Michael though so I could have a character to work with in the aftermath of the trial and as a symbol. Also, I didn't feel odd putting words in his mouth because he's mine and there is no danger in disrespecting the historical record. I did feel bad, however, when I (SPOILER ALERT) killed Michael at the end. Inexplicably bad, in fact. But, no matter.
So, anyways, I thought this was a hard project, although I did enjoy it and didn't dread working on it. I like writing fiction and I think we don't get enough opportunity to in school to write fiction. I think by writing fiction one learns how to use language connotation more effectively. It's just a different style and helps you see writing in a different way, which encourages growth as an author.
OK, so at this point I had my topic and had to figure out how I was going to proceed with the execution of the story (LOL punny). I thought narrative style would be a simple place to start but I soon found that there were just too many choices. I could see my story taking shape in so many different ways. It was surprisingly overwhelming. I started and stopped and drafted and redrafted until I finally had a tone I liked. My story actually had three possible starting chapters and it wasn't until the night before the draft was due that I could commit to one. I am not a decisive person and my indecisiveness led to way more wasted time than I had bargained for. My ending was pretty set in stone. I just wasn't sure how I was going to come to it.
I think it was also a little frustrating in the beginning when I was just blindly researching because I didn't have a clue what I was looking for yet. When I got into my topic more I knew the kind of things I needed but at first I had no agenda. I like to organize my time very carefully because I don't have that much free time to waste but it was hard to to make a schedule for this project. My initial plan was also shattered when I discovered that much of the information I knew about my topic was blatantly falsified to turn Henry Morant into a hero. The legit research I turned up actually created a much more nuanced story so it's ok.
I also found myself a little uncomfortable with writing history. I feel like it's easy to push things too far in historical fiction, especially for an inexperienced fiction writer, like myself, and because these people really existed and really struggled and died I was uncomfortable putting words in their mouths and thoughts in their heads. (Even though SO MANY people have already lied about what happened....) I stayed very close to historical truth, even about Morant's wife becoming a cannibal. I added Michael though so I could have a character to work with in the aftermath of the trial and as a symbol. Also, I didn't feel odd putting words in his mouth because he's mine and there is no danger in disrespecting the historical record. I did feel bad, however, when I (SPOILER ALERT) killed Michael at the end. Inexplicably bad, in fact. But, no matter.
So, anyways, I thought this was a hard project, although I did enjoy it and didn't dread working on it. I like writing fiction and I think we don't get enough opportunity to in school to write fiction. I think by writing fiction one learns how to use language connotation more effectively. It's just a different style and helps you see writing in a different way, which encourages growth as an author.
Brief Discussion of Identity in Libra
I think that this blog post may leak over into becoming a few posts. If we were going to have a response paper I'd probably write about something like this but choose a more specific focus. On the blog I can just riff.
A good place to start when talking about identity is names. Many of the characters in Libra have aliases and false names. One reason for this could be an attempt to dissociate with what they do in their jobs and differentiate that from their home lives. This desire for dissociation and differentiation probably stems from a desire to protect their loved ones and their family lives. The CIA guys that do a bunch of high level intelligence work and then go home to their families and they don't want to lose that. They want that life to be a part of them too.
Which brings me to my next idea, lifestyle and its affect on a person's sense of identity. Each name sort of corresponds to a life, thus the people in the book employ different aliases at different times depending on what they need to do. Lee has one hitch in his transformation from one guy to another, he has his wife and his children. I would speculate that he hates needing and loving her is because it frustrates him that she forces him to keep that familial side of him and he can't completely disappear into the world of lives he created for himself. He doesn't want to have connections, yet, Marina keeps him connected. I also think that this association between her and his emotional side is the reason he beats her. He beats her out of frustration and ultimately, to try and beat down the side of him that she represents.
Appearance too has an affect on identity and how someone is perceived. For example, David Ferrie makes himself have a striking appearance and he quickly becomes recognizable to the reader as "the guy with no hair" or the "kinda creepy looking one." He owns his disease and consciously makes an effort to make his appearance part of his identity. Lee too exhibits many changes in appearance. When we looked at pictures of him in class, I was commenting to someone about how he looked different in every picture. I think it's Marina or maybe his mother at the end that notes how different he looks in jail.
This wishy-washy changing identity stuff is the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of. Theorists take these small discrepancies in identity, particularly in Lee, and make the leap to suggesting that there were multiple "Lee"s . Double, triple, or seemingly infinite layers of life set the foundations for a good thriller.
A good place to start when talking about identity is names. Many of the characters in Libra have aliases and false names. One reason for this could be an attempt to dissociate with what they do in their jobs and differentiate that from their home lives. This desire for dissociation and differentiation probably stems from a desire to protect their loved ones and their family lives. The CIA guys that do a bunch of high level intelligence work and then go home to their families and they don't want to lose that. They want that life to be a part of them too.
Which brings me to my next idea, lifestyle and its affect on a person's sense of identity. Each name sort of corresponds to a life, thus the people in the book employ different aliases at different times depending on what they need to do. Lee has one hitch in his transformation from one guy to another, he has his wife and his children. I would speculate that he hates needing and loving her is because it frustrates him that she forces him to keep that familial side of him and he can't completely disappear into the world of lives he created for himself. He doesn't want to have connections, yet, Marina keeps him connected. I also think that this association between her and his emotional side is the reason he beats her. He beats her out of frustration and ultimately, to try and beat down the side of him that she represents.
Appearance too has an affect on identity and how someone is perceived. For example, David Ferrie makes himself have a striking appearance and he quickly becomes recognizable to the reader as "the guy with no hair" or the "kinda creepy looking one." He owns his disease and consciously makes an effort to make his appearance part of his identity. Lee too exhibits many changes in appearance. When we looked at pictures of him in class, I was commenting to someone about how he looked different in every picture. I think it's Marina or maybe his mother at the end that notes how different he looks in jail.
This wishy-washy changing identity stuff is the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of. Theorists take these small discrepancies in identity, particularly in Lee, and make the leap to suggesting that there were multiple "Lee"s . Double, triple, or seemingly infinite layers of life set the foundations for a good thriller.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Miscellaneous Closing Thoughts on "Kindred"
Metaphor of the Limb: So one of the panel presentations brought up the idea that there was significance in Dana losing specifically her arm. I was thinking about the construct of slavery in relation to limbs but what seemed more significant was limbs in relation to a family tree. When Dana kills her ancestor Rufus, she breaks a limb of her family tree and she loses a limb herself. Along these lines, I was thinking about how the fact that they are related means that he is a part of her and with his death she loses that part of her. Though this is not usually not literal, it is for Dana.
Another explanation is that she loses part of herself in the era she visits. A few ideas: She literally loses time in her life because she spends months in the past. The physical manifestation is her lost arm, a relatively small portion of the body but a really important part... She loses an emotional part of herself because of the wildly twisted relationships she forms on the plantation and the emotional hardships. Again, a physical manifestation in the form of an arm... It shows Rufus' control over her physical body... Alice, Dana's metaphorical physical half, dies and anyways Dana is leaving her behind for good so Dana loses a physical part of her body with the loss of Alice... Dana spent enough time there that she created a life for herself and when she leaves that life for good she loses a part of herself...
How/who can judge other cultures?: Some of the panel presentations asked for judgements on Rufus' actions. This made me start thinking about how we judge other cultures. Is it legit to judge other cultures based on today's cultural standard? We want to think that we are uber moral or whatever but in Rufus's time, by what his surroundings taught him, he was just as moral. Just a weird thought I guess.
Another explanation is that she loses part of herself in the era she visits. A few ideas: She literally loses time in her life because she spends months in the past. The physical manifestation is her lost arm, a relatively small portion of the body but a really important part... She loses an emotional part of herself because of the wildly twisted relationships she forms on the plantation and the emotional hardships. Again, a physical manifestation in the form of an arm... It shows Rufus' control over her physical body... Alice, Dana's metaphorical physical half, dies and anyways Dana is leaving her behind for good so Dana loses a physical part of her body with the loss of Alice... Dana spent enough time there that she created a life for herself and when she leaves that life for good she loses a part of herself...
How/who can judge other cultures?: Some of the panel presentations asked for judgements on Rufus' actions. This made me start thinking about how we judge other cultures. Is it legit to judge other cultures based on today's cultural standard? We want to think that we are uber moral or whatever but in Rufus's time, by what his surroundings taught him, he was just as moral. Just a weird thought I guess.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
(a bit about) The Control dynamic in "Kindred": Physical vs Emotional/Spiritual
I am using this post to just get my ideas out on a really big idea from the book: the power dynamic in slave culture that is portrayed in Octavia Bulter's Kindred. Butler seeks to deepen and expand on the traditionally taught power dynamic of slave culture, all powerful slaveholder and completely helpless slave, and expand this simplistic model of power distribution into a dynamic rather than a one sided thing. Butler's claim seems to be that the distinction between power over physical things and freewill/religious freedom is extremely important in slave culture. Throughout the book, especially through the interactions between Dana, Alice and Rufus, Butler explores the limits to the extreme power of a slaveholder.
I started considering this concept when Rufus tells Dana to burn history book that she brought. Rufus goes in his usual cycle of approaches he uses to get people to obey him. Dana burns the book and the map but in the end she says she can get along without it and Rufus can't take the knowledge she has already away from her. He can only take the book.
The epitome of the power dynamic analysis in Kindred is the relationships between Dana, Alice, and Rufus. As mentioned in some of the panel presentations, Rufus sees Alice and Dana as two halves of the same woman thus leading the reader to the realization that this is a very interesting perspective. In regards to power and control, Alice and Dana can be seen as two halves of one person. Alice is the physical half, property of Rufus and totally used by him. Dana, on the other hand, represents the freer emotional/spiritual half. Rufus never actually bought Dana, even though she appears under his control. She, the emotional half, has a greater deal of freedom than Alice, the physical. Still, she is not completely free. She is tied to Rufus but not owned by him.
This explains the difference in his relations with both halves. With Alice, he is very physical which is what he knows works with physical property. His relationship with Dana is less physical because that seems not to work. The comparison is beating the body versus beating an emotion. One works and one does not. Also the fact that Dana is more educated than he is helps make her less material and more untouchable. Oh, and the fact that she just poofs away sometimes. With this comparison in mind, maybe the dynamic is between familiar and unfamiliar or controllable and un-controllable...
I think it is significant that Dana, Alice and Rufus all recognize that Rufus's power can't truly affect Alice emotionally. Limited power is what sets Rufus off and causes him to lash out.
Alice's suicide shows the difference between the physical and emotional/spiritual sides of herself. When Alice kills herself, Rufus is left with the body he bought but he can no longer have the other half. This also gets into the whole power dynamic of choices for slaves.
Choices for slaves often had no desirable options but still, any choice represents a degree of freedom. The ultimate choice was suicide. Dana tried it and Alice succeeded. Dana also tries to make commands from Rufus seem like choices she makes and she eventually learns to lie to preserve some ounce of freedom.
Well, I feel as if I've lost my focus and I have lots of other work to do so I'm leaving this topic for now and may revisit it in my paper or another post.
I started considering this concept when Rufus tells Dana to burn history book that she brought. Rufus goes in his usual cycle of approaches he uses to get people to obey him. Dana burns the book and the map but in the end she says she can get along without it and Rufus can't take the knowledge she has already away from her. He can only take the book.
The epitome of the power dynamic analysis in Kindred is the relationships between Dana, Alice, and Rufus. As mentioned in some of the panel presentations, Rufus sees Alice and Dana as two halves of the same woman thus leading the reader to the realization that this is a very interesting perspective. In regards to power and control, Alice and Dana can be seen as two halves of one person. Alice is the physical half, property of Rufus and totally used by him. Dana, on the other hand, represents the freer emotional/spiritual half. Rufus never actually bought Dana, even though she appears under his control. She, the emotional half, has a greater deal of freedom than Alice, the physical. Still, she is not completely free. She is tied to Rufus but not owned by him.
This explains the difference in his relations with both halves. With Alice, he is very physical which is what he knows works with physical property. His relationship with Dana is less physical because that seems not to work. The comparison is beating the body versus beating an emotion. One works and one does not. Also the fact that Dana is more educated than he is helps make her less material and more untouchable. Oh, and the fact that she just poofs away sometimes. With this comparison in mind, maybe the dynamic is between familiar and unfamiliar or controllable and un-controllable...
I think it is significant that Dana, Alice and Rufus all recognize that Rufus's power can't truly affect Alice emotionally. Limited power is what sets Rufus off and causes him to lash out.
Alice's suicide shows the difference between the physical and emotional/spiritual sides of herself. When Alice kills herself, Rufus is left with the body he bought but he can no longer have the other half. This also gets into the whole power dynamic of choices for slaves.
Choices for slaves often had no desirable options but still, any choice represents a degree of freedom. The ultimate choice was suicide. Dana tried it and Alice succeeded. Dana also tries to make commands from Rufus seem like choices she makes and she eventually learns to lie to preserve some ounce of freedom.
Well, I feel as if I've lost my focus and I have lots of other work to do so I'm leaving this topic for now and may revisit it in my paper or another post.
Kabuki theatre and Trafalmadorian novels
This will be brief but I think it is still a relevant interesting comparison:
Some brief background info:
So, Shozo Sato is a really famous Japanese playwright, director, and artist. He worked at the U of I for many years until his retirement. He now lives on Hawaii. He was one of the people that brought kabuki to America and adapted it to make it more appealing to the new audience. This weekend he did a kabuki version of Lady Macbeth in the Studio Theater at Krannert Center. It was his last show.
A quick lesson on Japanese theatre for those of you who are unfamiliar. Kabuki theater derives its name from the verb kabuku meaning "to be out of the ordinary". Unlike "normal", American theatre, the focus of kabuki is not the plot line but rather the overall beauty of each scene. The actors have completely painted faces and dramatic attire. Extreme choreographing is also an important aspect of the art form. Every movement on stage is carefully planned and practiced, from each step to gesture to blink. The intonation of the voice is also manipulated creating the slow, singsong voices of typical actors. A koken is a person hooded and robed in black that manipulates the props during a scene in the full view of the audience. Also a percussionist sits on stage throughout the play opening and closing scenes using his or her wooden blocks. The end result of the kabuki show is a sensory experience, not a mental diversion by escaping into another world.
The comparison:
Kabuki theatre is comparable to the Tralfalmadorian novels in Slaughterhouse-Five and Shozo Sato's role in kabuki theatre is similar to Kurt Vonnegut's role in relation to Tralfalmadorian fiction.
Although the kabuki in the USA often has a plot line and identifiable characters, traditional kabuki is almost devoid of plot. The thinking is that is diverts attention from the overall beauty. Tralfalmadorian fiction is similar. It takes scenes that are completely random and compiles them into one piece that shows a picture of life that is beautiful. Both art forms are sensory experiences as well.
That was about the extent of my comparison until I realized how similar Shozo Sato and Kurt Vonnegut are in relation to their art forms. Both authors take a foreign art form and bring it to America. In the case of kabuki, the art form is too different and the American public is unreceptive. Sato then got the idea to take Western literature, mostly Shakespeare, and transpose it into the kabuki style to give the US something they could understand as a medium of translation for something unfamiliar. Thus, Sato produced plays in the style of kabuki much as Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five is "in the style of" a piece of Tralfalmadorian fiction because Earthlings would be unable to read like the Tralfalmadorians. It is interesting to see how similar the things they added seem to be. Both authors added plot because the new audience feels that the sheer beauty of the original work isn't enough. Both authors draw from familiar sources (Vonnegut from WWII and Sato from Shakespeare) and provide a new look at it, exploring different facets of the known concept. The things like koken and the percussionist are similar to when Vonnegut acknowledges that Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel too. Finally, the overall aim of both works is not scene to scene coherency or plot tension but rather the big picture and its beauty.
It's really interesting when you can see these similarities because at least to me, it deepens the significance of themes or plot devices. Seeing a writing technique applied once is just a taste, you get the general idea. When you see it again, you notice different aspects and your understanding deepens. I don't know if this is totally lame but it's like those bars at Great Harvest that have like loads of different things in them. When you first take a bite you notice like chocolate and then as you eat more you taste more things. I think it's cool.
Some brief background info:
So, Shozo Sato is a really famous Japanese playwright, director, and artist. He worked at the U of I for many years until his retirement. He now lives on Hawaii. He was one of the people that brought kabuki to America and adapted it to make it more appealing to the new audience. This weekend he did a kabuki version of Lady Macbeth in the Studio Theater at Krannert Center. It was his last show.
A quick lesson on Japanese theatre for those of you who are unfamiliar. Kabuki theater derives its name from the verb kabuku meaning "to be out of the ordinary". Unlike "normal", American theatre, the focus of kabuki is not the plot line but rather the overall beauty of each scene. The actors have completely painted faces and dramatic attire. Extreme choreographing is also an important aspect of the art form. Every movement on stage is carefully planned and practiced, from each step to gesture to blink. The intonation of the voice is also manipulated creating the slow, singsong voices of typical actors. A koken is a person hooded and robed in black that manipulates the props during a scene in the full view of the audience. Also a percussionist sits on stage throughout the play opening and closing scenes using his or her wooden blocks. The end result of the kabuki show is a sensory experience, not a mental diversion by escaping into another world.
The comparison:
Kabuki theatre is comparable to the Tralfalmadorian novels in Slaughterhouse-Five and Shozo Sato's role in kabuki theatre is similar to Kurt Vonnegut's role in relation to Tralfalmadorian fiction.
Although the kabuki in the USA often has a plot line and identifiable characters, traditional kabuki is almost devoid of plot. The thinking is that is diverts attention from the overall beauty. Tralfalmadorian fiction is similar. It takes scenes that are completely random and compiles them into one piece that shows a picture of life that is beautiful. Both art forms are sensory experiences as well.
That was about the extent of my comparison until I realized how similar Shozo Sato and Kurt Vonnegut are in relation to their art forms. Both authors take a foreign art form and bring it to America. In the case of kabuki, the art form is too different and the American public is unreceptive. Sato then got the idea to take Western literature, mostly Shakespeare, and transpose it into the kabuki style to give the US something they could understand as a medium of translation for something unfamiliar. Thus, Sato produced plays in the style of kabuki much as Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five is "in the style of" a piece of Tralfalmadorian fiction because Earthlings would be unable to read like the Tralfalmadorians. It is interesting to see how similar the things they added seem to be. Both authors added plot because the new audience feels that the sheer beauty of the original work isn't enough. Both authors draw from familiar sources (Vonnegut from WWII and Sato from Shakespeare) and provide a new look at it, exploring different facets of the known concept. The things like koken and the percussionist are similar to when Vonnegut acknowledges that Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel too. Finally, the overall aim of both works is not scene to scene coherency or plot tension but rather the big picture and its beauty.
It's really interesting when you can see these similarities because at least to me, it deepens the significance of themes or plot devices. Seeing a writing technique applied once is just a taste, you get the general idea. When you see it again, you notice different aspects and your understanding deepens. I don't know if this is totally lame but it's like those bars at Great Harvest that have like loads of different things in them. When you first take a bite you notice like chocolate and then as you eat more you taste more things. I think it's cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)