Sorry Angela Carter, I just couldn't convince myself that I enjoyed your novel. I just didn't.
I'm not sure I know why. It's packed full of analysable literary stuff, and is nice and straight-forward to read. All good right? Seemingly not.
Was it just too feminine for my tastes? I'm in no way anti-feminism. The Magic Toyshop is largely a feminist book with a female protagonist, but am I really so prejudice that this should put me off? I liked The Hunger Games, and that had a female protagonist. Although, that was less about gender-roles, and more about a strong, independent female character. Furthermore, the character Finn in The Magic Toyshop goes through more character development than Melanie and is very likeable. Why couldn't I get interested?
Perhaps I'll never know.
Again, sorry Angela Carter. I'm sure you're a good righter and all that, but I just couldn't get you.
I didn't like the semi-Freudian psycho-analytic feminists either. Sigh.
31 January 2013
Philosophy: My Spectrum/Continuum Theory
An uncontroversial theory of mine that many agree with but I thought was worth spelling out clearly.
Academics often use the phrase continuum. I use it interchangeably with spectrum.
Much of the world is made up of spectra. Most categories are arbitrary human distinction where there are scales of change with no definitive categories between similar things
The obvious example is colour. This is a scientific example that shows that there is no point at which you go from blue to yellow. You have to go through green. Before that you have to go through turquoise etc.
The same is true of more than you might think
Academics often use the phrase continuum. I use it interchangeably with spectrum.
Much of the world is made up of spectra. Most categories are arbitrary human distinction where there are scales of change with no definitive categories between similar things
The obvious example is colour. This is a scientific example that shows that there is no point at which you go from blue to yellow. You have to go through green. Before that you have to go through turquoise etc.
The same is true of more than you might think
For example:
- The development from a foetus to a person. There is no definitive moment where a foetus becomes a person: it is a gradual process. Perhaps the true spectrum here is non-person to person with foetus, child, comatose person and normal adult etc all a points on this scale, with many factors contributing
- The difference between philosophy and science.
Phil. - Ethics - Aesthetics - Free will - Conscience - 0 - Neurosci. - Cosmology - Quantum phy. - Science
- The difference between a religion and a cult.
- The difference between heroism and cowardice
Phil. - Ethics - Aesthetics - Free will - Conscience - 0 - Neurosci. - Cosmology - Quantum phy. - Science
- The difference between a religion and a cult.
- The difference between heroism and cowardice
- The difference between healthy and sick.
If you apply this to morality, which I believe we must, there are some serious repercussions.
Since morality derives from the maximisation of human flourishing, moral and immoral actions are just different points on a spectrum of morality (the scale being net well-being). There isn't a clear split between good deeds and sin. The religious stance that divides sin and good deeds with harsh lines with no crossover is non-maintainable.
Unless, they say that sins are deeds which have negative well-being and moral action are deeds on the positive end of the spectrum. However, this is not how the religious mind works. Because evil is specified by what God says (coveting your neighbour's goods is put on the same level as murder, along with keeping the Sabbath), then there is split that is not consequential. The religious stance is a Venn diagram with no cross-over area. However, in my world-view, these sins all have different degrees of wickedness, occupying different points on the scale.
There is therefore a point at which the categories can be separated (0 on the scale) but not everything in each category is therefore the same. There are degrees of morality.
You could say the same of the healthy/sick distinction. The scale is net healthiness, with negative and positive aspects being weighed up. A person can be healthy in many ways, but they shift onto the negative end of the spectrum because of a disease that has symptoms bad enough to make net healthiness negative. But not everyone that is unhealthy has the same amount of unhealthiness.
The point is, think of spectra wherever they apply and there may be consequences necessary to think about. It is necessary to consider what decides where things go on the scale. For example, when trying to work out what is a religion and what is a cult, first we must decide what goes on the scale. Here they may be lots of factors and the model becomes complex (size of the group, practises, methods of recruitment, absurdity of belief etc). It is then important to notice that actually no group can be asserted as either cult or religion. They are just at different points on a scale with cult at one end and religion at the other.
You will never find something that goes right on the end of a scale so that it is entirely one thing and not the other. Everything is useful and harmful. Every discipline in philosophy or science has aspects of both. If these things are subject to a scale, they cannot be all the way at one end.
If you apply this to morality, which I believe we must, there are some serious repercussions.
Since morality derives from the maximisation of human flourishing, moral and immoral actions are just different points on a spectrum of morality (the scale being net well-being). There isn't a clear split between good deeds and sin. The religious stance that divides sin and good deeds with harsh lines with no crossover is non-maintainable.
Unless, they say that sins are deeds which have negative well-being and moral action are deeds on the positive end of the spectrum. However, this is not how the religious mind works. Because evil is specified by what God says (coveting your neighbour's goods is put on the same level as murder, along with keeping the Sabbath), then there is split that is not consequential. The religious stance is a Venn diagram with no cross-over area. However, in my world-view, these sins all have different degrees of wickedness, occupying different points on the scale.
There is therefore a point at which the categories can be separated (0 on the scale) but not everything in each category is therefore the same. There are degrees of morality.
You could say the same of the healthy/sick distinction. The scale is net healthiness, with negative and positive aspects being weighed up. A person can be healthy in many ways, but they shift onto the negative end of the spectrum because of a disease that has symptoms bad enough to make net healthiness negative. But not everyone that is unhealthy has the same amount of unhealthiness.
The point is, think of spectra wherever they apply and there may be consequences necessary to think about. It is necessary to consider what decides where things go on the scale. For example, when trying to work out what is a religion and what is a cult, first we must decide what goes on the scale. Here they may be lots of factors and the model becomes complex (size of the group, practises, methods of recruitment, absurdity of belief etc). It is then important to notice that actually no group can be asserted as either cult or religion. They are just at different points on a scale with cult at one end and religion at the other.
You will never find something that goes right on the end of a scale so that it is entirely one thing and not the other. Everything is useful and harmful. Every discipline in philosophy or science has aspects of both. If these things are subject to a scale, they cannot be all the way at one end.
Freedom - quick thought
In studying my module Ideas of Freedom, this thought occurred to me in regards to the nature of freedom
Freedom is not just being able to do what you want: it is about having options available to you.
Even if the one option open to you is what you desire, that is not freedom. That is akin to a benevolent dictatorship
It is important that we are free to behave irrationally, immorally and even against our own will, even though we never would follow those paths.
E.g.
You want chocolate ice cream
You are force fed chocolate ice cream
= not free
You want chocolate ice cream
There is a choice between chocolate and vanilla
You eat the chocolate
= free
Note:
To read:
'Freedom' Tim Grey - 2 chap. online
Addition:
We are now studying Free Will, and it seems that everything we do has a cause. However, this seems fine to me, as long as the cause comes from ourselves. Perhaps determinism is true, but the type of freedom we need for our lives to have meaning is not incompatible with this. The importance of options is even more important, because we are freer to pursue whatever desires we please.
Freedom is not just being able to do what you want: it is about having options available to you.
Even if the one option open to you is what you desire, that is not freedom. That is akin to a benevolent dictatorship
It is important that we are free to behave irrationally, immorally and even against our own will, even though we never would follow those paths.
E.g.
You want chocolate ice cream
You are force fed chocolate ice cream
= not free
You want chocolate ice cream
There is a choice between chocolate and vanilla
You eat the chocolate
= free
Note:
To read:
'Freedom' Tim Grey - 2 chap. online
Addition:
We are now studying Free Will, and it seems that everything we do has a cause. However, this seems fine to me, as long as the cause comes from ourselves. Perhaps determinism is true, but the type of freedom we need for our lives to have meaning is not incompatible with this. The importance of options is even more important, because we are freer to pursue whatever desires we please.
06 September 2012
Jack London - A Collection of Stories
Downloaded a free collection of stories written by Jack London onto my Kindle. I discovered him through White Fang, which quickly became one of my favourite novels. He is a fantastic writer, with a traditional but highly skilled story-telling gift, able to write about natural environments with particular beauty.
This collection featured an essay on human nature and the paradox between its obsession with war and murder and the rapid population growth; auto-biographical stories about his early life as a sailor, including a ghost encounter; and a short play.
Encouraged me to look up and get two more of his books, which I may take a while to get round to reading, because university is starting soon, and I have much else I need to read.
05 September 2012
Evelyn Waugh revisited - 'Brideshead Revisited'
It has been quite a while since I read an Evelyn Waugh novel. By the end of the novel, I had realised why he is probably my favourite author. I decided to read the novel of his that everyone has read and I neglected: Brideshead Revisited.
There was a section around the second quartile where I was struggling to tune into the characters and not a lot of plot was happening, however, towards the end, I was lapping up Waugh's style and becoming invested in these characters.
It explores Charles Ryder's relationships with the Marchmains, particularly Sebastian. There is a homosexual subtext not made at all explicit in their strong friendship. Sebastian deteriorates into alcoholism, while Charles becomes more and more successful, thus making them grow apart. His complex relationship with Julia replaces Sebastian. "'You loved him, didn't you?' 'Oh yes. He was the forerunner.'"
Interesting exploration of religion's role in society and family, culminating in a deathbed conversion.
Almost always, when referencing his first wife, Celia, he says "my wife...".
I am usually casually amused when reading Evelyn Waugh, but every now and again, I fully laugh out loud. One such moment came in the section:
"Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said, 'It's going to rain,' would that be bound to happen?' 'Oh, yes Father'. 'But supposing it didn't' He thought a moment and said, 'I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it."
Maybe I enjoy the criticism of religion too much.
The life of Evelyn Waugh was one of slow conversion to conservatism and fast conversion to Catholicism. When reading his novels, it is useful to know whether it was written pre or post conversion to Catholicism (Brideshead being the latter). You can see the internal religious conflict in his writing. Priests - as shown above - are usually fools and hypocrites. Charles Ryder appears to be Waugh pre-conversion, with the end of the novel becoming incredibly passionate about miracles and death-bed conversions.
Brilliant section on page 170 where it describes Julia' perfect man. Fantastic use of language and humour. "I was not her man."The life of Evelyn Waugh was one of slow conversion to conservatism and fast conversion to Catholicism. When reading his novels, it is useful to know whether it was written pre or post conversion to Catholicism (Brideshead being the latter). You can see the internal religious conflict in his writing. Priests - as shown above - are usually fools and hypocrites. Charles Ryder appears to be Waugh pre-conversion, with the end of the novel becoming incredibly passionate about miracles and death-bed conversions.
A wonderful read that made me both laugh and cry (the former: literally, the latter: nearly literally).
Sebastian Faulks 'On Fiction'
A very interesting exploration of some of the greatest characters in literature. Able to give me further insights into some of my favourites, as well as introduce me to some I haven't read yet.
There were, of course, characters I felt were missing, but this would be inevitable.
(Faulks wanted to name the book Novel People)
I thought I would get down some of the most interesting sections for future reference, with page numbers for further detail.
P.11 -
Faulks claims that in the novel, there is no such thing as the 'hero' any more. It now simply means protagonist, and these always seem to be flawed, dark, or just incredibly un-heroic.
Says that the villain is also a little out of place in the novel on P. 285
Sherlock Holmes
P.55 - Conan Doyle essentially invented the crime story, with perhaps the precursor of Edgar Allen Poe's C. Auguste Dupin, in The Murders in the Rue Morgue.
P.59 - Too much of Conan Doyle's writing delivered in dialogue and speech? Certainly it seems a departure from traditional styles, but seems to work, in its own way.
P.62 - Holmes and Freud coinciding.
Winston Smith, 1984
P.72 to 78 (and chapter opening) - Winston is clearly not a hero, but performs a very simple deed of remarkable bravery. Everyman hero. A man who still has a small spark of hope, in a world where there is no hope, as he eventually realises, when the state wins.
P.91 -
Jim Dixon, Lucky Jim, Kingsley Amis vs. Martin Amis, The Rachel Papers, John Self
Father had a more simplistic, traditional writing style, whereas the son was "a writer whose every sentence seemed pressurised by the tensions of its improbable juxtapositions."
P.92 - Fantastic section of language style analysis of Martin Amis's work.
Jeeves
Various humourous sections speculating about Jeeves' life, or quoting brilliant passages of Wodehouse
P.241 - Jeeves usually absent for a large middle part of the stories
Bond
Mainly explores the character of Bond by describing how he went about writing his own Bond novel. Tried to write with 80% of Fleming's style so that it was not a parody or pastiche.
P 268 - Fleming's reasons for specifying brand names. Keeps an otherwise fantastical story grounded in reality.
Fagin
P.303 - Only Dickens' second novel, and because of periodical publishing, was able to influence his first novel!
P.304 - Dickens' obsession with describing Fagin as The Jew is most probably not anti-semitic, but a result of a strong image of the character in his mind. Debateable.
P.307 - Juxtaposition between kindliness and cruelty
Steerpike, The Gormenghast Trilogy
P.327 - Interesting comparison between Tolkein and Peake
Jack Merridew, The Lord of the Flies
P.349 (and throughout chapter) - The idea of this novel as a parable, describing what people are like, rather than what this individual group of people are like. The characters are not given too much back-story or psychological motivation, because they are meant to represent everyone. They could be replaced by another group and would behave in the same way.
Other potentially useful books:
Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D-Urbervilles
D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover
>>The style of lover is compared and contrasted in the 4 books above
Jane Austen, Emma
Charles Dickens, Great Expectations
Wilkie Collins, The Woman in White
And all the others, of course
There were, of course, characters I felt were missing, but this would be inevitable.
(Faulks wanted to name the book Novel People)
I thought I would get down some of the most interesting sections for future reference, with page numbers for further detail.
P.11 -
Faulks claims that in the novel, there is no such thing as the 'hero' any more. It now simply means protagonist, and these always seem to be flawed, dark, or just incredibly un-heroic.
Says that the villain is also a little out of place in the novel on P. 285
Sherlock Holmes
P.55 - Conan Doyle essentially invented the crime story, with perhaps the precursor of Edgar Allen Poe's C. Auguste Dupin, in The Murders in the Rue Morgue.
P.59 - Too much of Conan Doyle's writing delivered in dialogue and speech? Certainly it seems a departure from traditional styles, but seems to work, in its own way.
P.62 - Holmes and Freud coinciding.
Winston Smith, 1984
P.72 to 78 (and chapter opening) - Winston is clearly not a hero, but performs a very simple deed of remarkable bravery. Everyman hero. A man who still has a small spark of hope, in a world where there is no hope, as he eventually realises, when the state wins.
P.91 -
Jim Dixon, Lucky Jim, Kingsley Amis vs. Martin Amis, The Rachel Papers, John Self
Father had a more simplistic, traditional writing style, whereas the son was "a writer whose every sentence seemed pressurised by the tensions of its improbable juxtapositions."
P.92 - Fantastic section of language style analysis of Martin Amis's work.
Jeeves
Various humourous sections speculating about Jeeves' life, or quoting brilliant passages of Wodehouse
P.241 - Jeeves usually absent for a large middle part of the stories
Bond
Mainly explores the character of Bond by describing how he went about writing his own Bond novel. Tried to write with 80% of Fleming's style so that it was not a parody or pastiche.
P 268 - Fleming's reasons for specifying brand names. Keeps an otherwise fantastical story grounded in reality.
Fagin
P.303 - Only Dickens' second novel, and because of periodical publishing, was able to influence his first novel!
P.304 - Dickens' obsession with describing Fagin as The Jew is most probably not anti-semitic, but a result of a strong image of the character in his mind. Debateable.
P.307 - Juxtaposition between kindliness and cruelty
Steerpike, The Gormenghast Trilogy
P.327 - Interesting comparison between Tolkein and Peake
Jack Merridew, The Lord of the Flies
P.349 (and throughout chapter) - The idea of this novel as a parable, describing what people are like, rather than what this individual group of people are like. The characters are not given too much back-story or psychological motivation, because they are meant to represent everyone. They could be replaced by another group and would behave in the same way.
Other potentially useful books:
Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D-Urbervilles
D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover
>>The style of lover is compared and contrasted in the 4 books above
Jane Austen, Emma
Charles Dickens, Great Expectations
Wilkie Collins, The Woman in White
And all the others, of course
27 August 2012
A defence of the comic book hero
Since its birth, the comic book as a genre has been disregarded as kids' stuff. However, for a long time, there have been very important pieces of literature that happen to take the form of the comic or graphic novel. E.g. Watchmen, Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns, Arkham Asylum, The Killing Joke, The Sandman series and Maus. These novels feature some of the most in depth exploration of philosophy, human psychology and morality I have ever read. Watchmen asks the ultimate question of morality: do you kill millions to save billions?
It is a genre that combines art and language. Beautiful language and stunning artwork. Arkham Asylum is stunningly beautiful. The first thing you notice about it is the aesthetic quality of every page. And at the same time it is able to tell a fantastic story and explore characters in astonishing psychological detail. What's not to like?
A lot has been written about this. The case has been made, if not won. I have, however, a more specific defence of this genre.
I was very down-heartened when reading Sebastian Faulks' book On Fiction. In his discussion of heroes, he stated that the true hero has all but disappeared from literature, and has been gone a long time. The word hero now only means protagonist, and they rarely feature heroic qualities. The character who observes injustice and strives to defeat it is all but gone from our culture. The Lord of the Rings is likely the latest true work of literature that features valiant heroes, and simple folk doing decent things (that I can think of). Personally, I feel that there are two areas where the true hero persists to this day: child/teen novels and comic books.
The child/teen novel is very important in conveying ideas of heroism into young people, and can sometimes include great storytelling (Harry Potter, The Hunger Games). However, they rarely have a nuanced exploration of the topic. It is also true that many comic books only offer this primitive presentation of the hero. The bad guy robs a bank and the hero stops him.
There is, however, a breed of comic book that is able to explore the hero properly: adult graphic novels that still feature true heroism.
Yes, these are often anti-heroes with darker aspects to them, but that is what it is to explore a real character in a real world:
What would it take for somebody to really go out and fight crime or save the world? For Bruce Wayne, it took the trauma of his parents' murder. He is a broken man, and yet he is one of the most moral characters in all of fiction - one who never kills and always seeks justice. Rorschach is very clearly mentally ill - and yet he shows uncompromising determination that evil is punished.
But often, graphic novels do not feature dark heroes. As a DC fan I will only mention Superman (the ultimate archetypal 'hero'), Wonder Woman (an icon of feminine empowerment) and Green Lantern (protector of the galaxy, striving for justice). These characters seek 'the good' and show definitive examples of virtuous lives that make a difference. The graphic novel is now the only place where a grown-up can explore true heroes and do-gooders, which is why I feel it is a very important genre to maintain.
There's a TV show called Luther that, at least in the second series, did something very important. It glorified the hero and debased the villain. Now, this is not to say that the 'hero', John Luther, is not a dark, psychological tormented individual - he is. However, he always strives to do good, and obey the law. He becomes someone unwilling to do solve problems outside of the methods of the police, despite killing an enemy in the very first episode. Most importantly, though, the show presents the psychopaths and killers as pathetic failures. The danger of a character like the Joker is that people start to idolise the villain, as we have seen in the James Holmes Aurora shooting, in a screening of The Dark Knight Rises. Luther presents its villains as pathetic wimps desperately trying to seek attention, that ultimately fail. All villains should fail - just like Iago, the greatest villain of them all. Joker fails repeatedly, but somehow always seems to have the last laugh, which is what makes him appealing as a character, but a dangerous villain, in more ways than one.
Batman is the ultimate character for exploring profound questions, where the answer is heroism. It features a man with no superpowers (unlike may of his allies), living a life more worthy than virtually any other could be. It asks the most deep moral questions.
However, the character of The Joker allows it to also explore the boundaries between sanity and insanity. The Killing Joke: "All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy" - for the Joker it did, but for Commissioner Gordon, it didn't. Thus asking the question: Is Bruce Wayne sane or insane? Did his bad day drive him to insanity, or turn him into a hero. The answer, of course, is both.
Heroes are necessary, and fiction should be the optimal place for virtue, morality and heroism to be explored, in order to inspire people. The graphic novel seems to be the only option if we want an interesting exploration of the hero.
It is a genre that combines art and language. Beautiful language and stunning artwork. Arkham Asylum is stunningly beautiful. The first thing you notice about it is the aesthetic quality of every page. And at the same time it is able to tell a fantastic story and explore characters in astonishing psychological detail. What's not to like?
A lot has been written about this. The case has been made, if not won. I have, however, a more specific defence of this genre.
I was very down-heartened when reading Sebastian Faulks' book On Fiction. In his discussion of heroes, he stated that the true hero has all but disappeared from literature, and has been gone a long time. The word hero now only means protagonist, and they rarely feature heroic qualities. The character who observes injustice and strives to defeat it is all but gone from our culture. The Lord of the Rings is likely the latest true work of literature that features valiant heroes, and simple folk doing decent things (that I can think of). Personally, I feel that there are two areas where the true hero persists to this day: child/teen novels and comic books.
The child/teen novel is very important in conveying ideas of heroism into young people, and can sometimes include great storytelling (Harry Potter, The Hunger Games). However, they rarely have a nuanced exploration of the topic. It is also true that many comic books only offer this primitive presentation of the hero. The bad guy robs a bank and the hero stops him.
There is, however, a breed of comic book that is able to explore the hero properly: adult graphic novels that still feature true heroism.
Yes, these are often anti-heroes with darker aspects to them, but that is what it is to explore a real character in a real world:
What would it take for somebody to really go out and fight crime or save the world? For Bruce Wayne, it took the trauma of his parents' murder. He is a broken man, and yet he is one of the most moral characters in all of fiction - one who never kills and always seeks justice. Rorschach is very clearly mentally ill - and yet he shows uncompromising determination that evil is punished.
But often, graphic novels do not feature dark heroes. As a DC fan I will only mention Superman (the ultimate archetypal 'hero'), Wonder Woman (an icon of feminine empowerment) and Green Lantern (protector of the galaxy, striving for justice). These characters seek 'the good' and show definitive examples of virtuous lives that make a difference. The graphic novel is now the only place where a grown-up can explore true heroes and do-gooders, which is why I feel it is a very important genre to maintain.
There's a TV show called Luther that, at least in the second series, did something very important. It glorified the hero and debased the villain. Now, this is not to say that the 'hero', John Luther, is not a dark, psychological tormented individual - he is. However, he always strives to do good, and obey the law. He becomes someone unwilling to do solve problems outside of the methods of the police, despite killing an enemy in the very first episode. Most importantly, though, the show presents the psychopaths and killers as pathetic failures. The danger of a character like the Joker is that people start to idolise the villain, as we have seen in the James Holmes Aurora shooting, in a screening of The Dark Knight Rises. Luther presents its villains as pathetic wimps desperately trying to seek attention, that ultimately fail. All villains should fail - just like Iago, the greatest villain of them all. Joker fails repeatedly, but somehow always seems to have the last laugh, which is what makes him appealing as a character, but a dangerous villain, in more ways than one.
Batman is the ultimate character for exploring profound questions, where the answer is heroism. It features a man with no superpowers (unlike may of his allies), living a life more worthy than virtually any other could be. It asks the most deep moral questions.
However, the character of The Joker allows it to also explore the boundaries between sanity and insanity. The Killing Joke: "All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy" - for the Joker it did, but for Commissioner Gordon, it didn't. Thus asking the question: Is Bruce Wayne sane or insane? Did his bad day drive him to insanity, or turn him into a hero. The answer, of course, is both.
Heroes are necessary, and fiction should be the optimal place for virtue, morality and heroism to be explored, in order to inspire people. The graphic novel seems to be the only option if we want an interesting exploration of the hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)