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.
Friday, April 13, 2012
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)