1. I’d say that most of it still rings true. I do most of my reading online. It’s also somehwat sad that I mentioned that Gears of War book since even as I’m tryping this I haven’t bothered to finish it yet. I have no idea why. It’s a wonderful book and I have no excuse not to read it. Anyway I don’t think studying the novel has done much to influence the way I read.

2. I’d say the entire Lighthouse book was my moment of reading difficulty partially because I didn’t like it that much. Virginia Woolfe’s writing was not that interesting to me and I wasn’t attracted to her story or her characters. I expect a text to have some sort of hook, something interesting about it to pull me in as a reader. That book lacked that hook and I was wholly disinterested with it. The chracters and the story bored me. Not to mention that her writing style was dry.

Writer

1. For the paper I’m currently in the process of going through the research and figuring out how I want to present what I’ve found in the paper. I’m feeling rather overwhelmed by the amount of work I have to do in this class and all of my other classes, though I guess that’s irrelevant to this question. In terms of the paper I’m trying to figure out how to fit what I want to say without saying too much or not enough.

2. An epiphany eh? That sounds too much like Nester. Anyway, I’ve had a few songs remind me some aspects of certain texts that I tried to add an interpretation for. My interpretation of the “Terminal Zeus” game in The Keep was decent as was my entire post on Gender Identity from Myra. I guess most of this was either prior knowledge or just general interpretation of the words on the page.

Thinker

1. My ideal of a deep understanding of the text to me is when I get exactly what is going, whyit’s going on and what notions or ideals are driving the events. The veil is lifted over whatever was hidden before and in the new light one can finally see the answer.

2. “The novel is one of the greatest revolutionary cultural forms of human history.” As a genre, the novel was one of the first major ways of telling a story other than the spoken word. (Find my own quote).

Assignment #1 – (1/14/09)
Comments on Madame Bovary Characters – (1/20/09)
What was the point of Berthe? – (2/12/09)
Madame Bovary: Out Like A Rockstar – (2/12/09)
Some Notes on “Time Passes” – (2/16/09)
Ending of To the Lighthouse – (2/16/09)
Post Listing Practice – (2/16/09)
Scholarly Article – (3/2/09)
Discussion Questions – (3/2/09)
Some Notes on Myra (And Buck too!) -(3/2/09)
The Rape Scene – (3/4/09)
Gender Subjectivity – (rape scene companion post, 3/4/09)
Myra Breckinridge the Movie – (3/4/09)
He Doesn’t Even Have a Gun! – (3/17/09)
Swimming Through the Ashes at the Bottom of the World – (3/22/09)
Some Thoughts on Race – (3/24/09)
Terminal Zeus – (3/31/09)
The Symbol of the Keep – (4/6/09)
This could all end in tragedy… not really – (4/8/09)

Comments:

(Not sure if I got them all since the comment tracker only goes back to about a month ago.)

Myra Breckinridge by kmrougills923
Wow… by jpilch86
I am very confused… by jpilch86
“Whenever I hear the word ’smegma’, I become physically ill” by jpilch86
Myra is Powerful, Myra is Woman by sjordan740
Myra Accomplished Her Goal… Or Did She? by sjordan740
Intersting by silentwriter 1222
Trying to contain the laughter by silentwriter1222
Let it go ten years have passed… by silentwriter1222
Assignment 1: Robbed of Meaning – The Work at the Center of To The Lighthouse by elphingirl
Gender is Questionable… by elphingirl
Myra, Myra, Myra.. what is going on in that head of yours? by elphingirl
Ray and Danny what a tangled web. Post # 20 by threesmallapples
Myra Breckinridge by kmills923
Holly and the Imagination Pool by ju1522
A story within a story… by silentwriter1222
The Race War in Native Speaker  by sjordan740
The Castle…- The Keep pg 1-82 by elphingirl
John Kwang’s Campaign – Native Speaker pg 130-276 by elphingirl
Henry and Lelia by eth76
Daddy Issues by ju1522
A Native Speaker’s Stream of Conciousness by jpilch86

I have no idea why song quotes keep coming into my head when certain things happen in a novel but the do!   That one was by Atreyu from their song “Untitled Finale”.  Anyway, I thought of that song when Danny got shot in the head.  Like seriously?  That was completely random and done in such a way that there was little emotion attached to the event.  I didn’t care at all that Danny died.  It was like he was killed in passing.

It kinda reminded me of how Charles died in Madame Bovary in a way.  I didn’t care about his death either and Danny was slightly more characterized than Charles was.   I wonder what the author had in mind with Danny’s death and how it came off as insignificant…  I’m curious if that feeling as intentional or not.

Also the weirdness of the ending still confuses me.  So Ray is Mick and his crime is killing Danny and Ray is telling us his story through Danny… and then there’s Holly.  I thought the whole bit about her being a recovering drug addict was somewhat lame just because of the fact that it is an overused chracter trait in a lot of media today.  I thought Egan could have done something slightly more original although it fit in the whole prison and confinement theme.

A drug addict would be confined to her own addiction, stuck in a body and a mind that is all too confused or hurting.  In that confinement, she would also be alone since she is stuck in herself so to speak.

Even with that I think Egan could have been a bit more original.  What does everyone else think about that and Danny’s death?

Anyway on the Keep itself…  I found an item in it particularly interesting when the possessions (weapons) of the Baroness were being described.  That item was her Greek Fire.  I had forgotten what it was when it was first mentioned but remembered after a while.  Greek Fire if I recall was originated by the Byzantine Empire and they got the idea from the mideval period.  The fire itself supposedly cannot be put out by normal means.  Using water to attempt to extinguish this blaze will only intensify it.  An “everlasting blaze” if you will.

To me this fire is a perfect symbol to go along with the Keep and the Baroness considering the fact that they are both something that cannot be changed by any outside force other than time.  I found it amusing (perhaps intentional of the author) that Greek Fire was one of the weapons she had in her Keep.  It can outlast even the elements so a theme of untouchablity can be seen here.

I think all of this might mean something.  Perhaps with all of these examples of certain things being the same and outlasting is saying that unless you make an effort to change, it simply won’t happen.  In Danny’s case, he seems stuck in a set pattern of behavior.  He’s dependant (perhaps overly) on technology and uses that as a connection to a superficial world.  I’m thinking if he doesn’t make an effort to change his behavior he’s going to end up getting drunk and having sex with a corpse… wait, nevermind… he did that already.  Regardless I think all of this is telling Danny that those who remain set in their own ways will forever remain in isolation (like the Baroness in her untouchable Keep).

I was more interested in the name of the game specifically so I guess I’ll break it down!

So Zeus, we all know who he is but in case someone doesn’t here’s some info:  Zeus is the Greek God of the sky and of thunder.  Not only that but he is the undeniable King of the Gods, ruling on high on Mt. Olympus.

That part isn’t confusing as far as the game goes.  They pretend to use Zeus to fight all sorts of made up enemies using whatever power the minds of Howard and Danny can come up with.  It’s a unique little game but the use of Zeus as their main protagonist in it didn’t confuse me at all.  I imagine the two were interested in the stories of Greek mythology when they were kids.  I know I was.  It was a topic of wonder to a small mind so it’s of no surprise to me that this entity was chosen.

What I was confused on is the use f the word “Terminal” in their game but after some thought on it I think I figured out what was meant.

Terminal here, has nothing to do with technology or a place to meet a means of travel, no, I think it means an end.  Used with Zeus it describes that fact that he is the ultime power in their game, the end to whatever they are facing.  It makes sense to me being that Zeus is King of the Gods and his power would be absolute.  He is the means to the end if you will.

Anyway, that’s my analysis on it.

On page 152 there was a quote from Kwang that I found striking.  “Yes, let us think differently today.  The problem is our acceptance of what we loathe and fear in ourselves.  Not in the other, not in the person standing next to you, not in the one living outside in your street,  not in the one who drives your bus…”  It seems to accurately address alot of what is felt when it comes to race relations.  Setting aside the different races you get just the human being, which is what really needs to be examined.

Breaking that quote down Kwang seems to be saying that we can’t accept another person, no matter how different or similar they are to us, until we can grow to accept ourselves.  There is always something we hate about ourselves even if it’s something seldomly admitted.  What we hate we tend to notice more and we start to see that in other people, in other races even.  We pick those things out, give them labels.  Those labels grow to become commong stereotypes and those sterotypes become definitions for a certain kind of people.  And there we’ve gone, from hating outselves to hating others.

We cannot accept others unless we grow to accept ourselves and that’s what makes humans such difficult creatures.  We find it hard to see beyond our own flaws so we pick flaws out in other people.  It’s easier to make a negative comment about someone or something than it is to make a positive comment.  As an example, take a moment to think of any stereotype for any race, then try and think of something good to say.  Which one comes easier?  Which one does the mind jump to first?  The positive or the negative?

I may have picked that apart too much but I think that may be the point Kwang was getting at with that quote.  Racism starts witht he individual, not the race.

It was descrbed as being “at the bottom of the world”.  That particular description raised a few questions for in regards to why that was used.  I think putting Mitt at the bottom of the world did a few things.  It put him out of touch with anyone that could save him.  It set him apart from the other children and made him seem alone as he suffocated under their weight.

Since this book seems to be a commentary on a lot of things, including race, I wonder if that description had some relation to racism.  Those at the bottom of the world must carry the burden of everyone else and I wonder if the author was referring to immigrants, specifically asians (since there are a mass number of them in relation to other foreign populations) doing the work for the supposed “dominant races” like whites.  It’s just pure speculation of course but I wonder if there’s any truth to it.

I’m also kinda of curious, even after talking about his death in class, how his parents didn’t notice that Mitt was being crushed on the bottom of said dogpile.  I assume they were at the event given the description Henry presented to the reader so I’m curious how they failed to realize their sson was dying?  It might have just been something overlooked for a plot device on the part of the author but that seems too careless in my opinion.

Henry I’m afraid is not that kind of spy.  He’s an information mercenary.  His job is to get up close and personal with the people he’s assigned to and get all sorts of information on them for whatever the client wishes.  He is a spy of sorts but not in the traditonal sense.  Actually the only relation he has to a traditional master of espionage is the fact that he and those he works with are masters of manipulation and use that tactic to get the required information.

If knowledge is power then Henry must be king right?

He could be, the poor guy, but he seems to be trouble mentally and his job certainly isn’t helping.  I have a few questions that I’m curious if they will indeed get answered later on in the book.

1. Even though Henry’s job doesn’t entitle him to carry a weapon but he’s still treading on water he shouldn’t.  People kill for information and I wonder if at some point his job is going to come back to bite him?

2. Henry comes off as a relatively closed off person with a lot of trouble expressing himself and now after his wife has left him (with that list no less) I wonder if that’s going to get harder for Henry or if he’s going to find a way to come to terms with the issues he’s facing?

3. Speaking of the list… I know we talked about it in class some but I wonder if that list is going to grow to bring him some mental trouble as the novel goes on?  I wonder if it’s an element that’s going to be reoccuring or if it’s just a one time thing.

IMDB Page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066115/

Some quick info:

Apparently when the film first came out it was rated X by the MPAA in 1970.  In 1978 20th Century Fox submitted a cut version that recieved an R rating.  Both are apparently availible on DVD.  Myra Breckinridge is apparently deemed “one of the worst films of all time” and scores 25% on rottentomatoes.com.  Vidal calls the film an “awful joke”.

I has youtube links!

I found a terrible clip of the rape scene on youtube.  It’s not graphic but it’s hilariously bad and I think it’s worthy of being shared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmU4bJ6Tv9Q

And of course the movie trailer, which is also terrible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6BM-myPqY

Gender subjectivity.  What is it?

Subjectivity: “refers to a subject’s perspective or opinion, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unjustified personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and justified belief. In philosophy, the term is often contrasted with objectivity.” (Source: Wikipedia)

So gender subjectivity, based on that definition and the article is what outside forces shape the definition of what exactly is gender.  For example: what does society see when defining a certain gender?  Females wearing make-up, dresses, long hair, etc.  Gender subjectivity is any social stigma attached to either being male or female and has nothing to do with genetics in my mind.

On that note I bring up gender identity, which is the self-affiliation a person makes with being of a certain gender.  It is what a person feels they fit into as far as gender and again as nothing to do with genetics.  They may be genetically male but feel they should be female or vise versa.

As far as Myra goes, she switches…  I know Vidal does this to explore the roles of both genders and change the way the sexes work in the traditional sense.  I thought it was interesting how the article talked about Renee Richards and how she switched from being a man, to a woman, to a man and finally ended with being a woman again.  I wish the article talked a little bit more about Myra.  It refers to the film but only briefly and I felt the author would have been better suited talking about the book and the Myra/Myron gender flip flop.

The bit in the article about gender reassignment surgery was interesting since it provided some insight from people who have actually had such surgery take place.  It’s a strange topic that most would stay away from but I found it an interesting oddity (mostly because I know someone who I used to go to school with who actually had a sex change).  It led me to do some digging.  I found an interesting page on the surgery with a video about gender identity. http://health.howstuffworks.com/gender-reassignment.htm

The next link gives definitions about the types of surgery and also near the bottom images.  We’re all adults here but I gave a fair warning on what lurks on this page.
http://plasticsurgeryphotos.blogspot.com/2007/11/sexual-reassignment-surgery-sex-change.html

So yeah, I enjoyed the article for the most part.  I just expected there to be more about Myra.