Is it about waiting for God or just about a man who has multiple personalities? I do not know. From the very beginning of the play I was convinced that this was a story about two personalities inside one person’s head, Estragon and Vladimir. Throughout the play the two cannot seem to separate from one another even though they claim numerous times that they would be better apart. Their anxiety seems to rise when they are separated for a time and sometimes Vladimir has to speak for Estragon because Pozzo doesn’t hear him. Estragon doesn’t remember anything outside of the interaction with Vladimir, almost like he doesn’t exist without him. Towards the end of the play when they saw Pozzo for a second time the idea of maybe this was an allegory for those who are waiting for God popped into my head. The men stay in the same place and are waiting for this person, they do not remember when he is coming, or details for it but they continue to wait. A couple of instances it talks about how nothing happens in their lives, it’s the same things over and over again and sometimes they want to give up. Also throughout the whole interaction with Pozzo it gave the illusion that time had passed between them, more than just the couple of days they talk about. So I am stuck with a dilemma. What does this play mean to me? Is it a deeper story about the journey of those who wait for God to appear or is it just a simple yet entertaining play about one man with two personalities? I believe it is both. This play just like other stories I read, it is what I need at the time. I believe that our unconscious mind makes stories we read fit into the situation we are in at the time and this time I think I needed both.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Running circles around my head!
When I read I naturally look for the underlying themes of the text. This is probably the most frustrating thing I have ever read! I started it expecting something along the lines of Pi and O'Brien. I ended it thinking why in the world did I even read that. I have gone back and reread some of the parts to try and understand what in the world is going on and the most I can figure out is that they are waiting for Godot. Yeah I could have got that from reading the title. Its really frustrating because one of them will start to say something really profound and then all the sudden they will start fighting or talking about turnips. It is the strangest thing. There is never any progress made at all. It reminds me of learning about circle stories in elementary. I never quite could understand why you would write a story to have the characters end up back in the same exact place. I feel the same way about this only no one ever moves they just continue to sit there waiting for Godot. One of my favorite lines is "Let's go. Yes, let's go. (They do not move)." I laughed when I read that because I feel like sometimes that is exactly what I say and then I sit there unmoved.
ON!
In all honesty my brain didn't even think about dissecting this play. As I read it I found my self laughing through it all. I had sympathy for Lucky and I felt for Didi at the end. I made a bizarre connection between the boy's brother and Gogo. The boy's brother is beaten and so is Gogo. Didi is obedient to Godots commands to be at the tree tell he comes, and the boy is also obidient to Godots commands to deliver the message that he will not come. Also, I found it very bizarre the bit about happiness, how a new day will start out so full of hope and end so drained of hope.
Near the end theres a rather funny part when Pozzo comes back, blind. I found my self giggling at the bit were all the characters fell over. Then I was brought to reflection by Pozzo's last words in the book. He says, "Have you done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! When! One day, is that not enough for you, one day he was dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, oneday we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you? They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more. (He jerkes the rope.) On!" No matter the termoil in life, and no matter how many times you fall, just move one and don't bother with time. Over all, I didn't understand the play, but it entertained me.
Near the end theres a rather funny part when Pozzo comes back, blind. I found my self giggling at the bit were all the characters fell over. Then I was brought to reflection by Pozzo's last words in the book. He says, "Have you done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! When! One day, is that not enough for you, one day he was dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, oneday we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you? They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more. (He jerkes the rope.) On!" No matter the termoil in life, and no matter how many times you fall, just move one and don't bother with time. Over all, I didn't understand the play, but it entertained me.
Waiting for Godot "Prompt"
Some of you have been waiting (im)patiently for me to post the Waiting for Godot prompts. In a way, this actually mirrors the action of the play, or lack thereof: Will he post the prompts? Will everything be clearer when he does? What if he never posts prompts? Will that effect my grade? Can I have a carrot? Did they beat you? (Of course they beat me.) That's a turnip. Coat! Whip! Stool!First of all, don't worry if you don't "get" the play as you are reading it. That's part of the experience of reading it or seeing it performed. Waiting for Godot can be called an anti-allegory, where everything appears to mean something but does not definitively point to anything. So my "hint" to help you read it is this: focus on the reading experience itself even more so than the meaning of the text. At what points do you feel most inside of the play? At what points do you feel most pushed out? Do you, at times, feel like you are beginning to understand, only to have the play undercut you? Do you feel frustrated with the play at some moments, wishing you could put it down, only to come across something funny or poignant that draws you back in? Pay attention to these ups and downs and you will be getting somewhere. In a sense, Gogo's lines on page 43 are true: "Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!" But in another sense, the play means a lot: form, tone, concrete details, and colloquial speech all have meaning in and of themselves, and Beckett's use of them shows how much "meaning" is inherent in elements that do not clearly stand for something else. He shows how we are always looking for "the meaning" of a text when much of the meaning is the text itself.
If you choose to write about this play on the blog, give us your honest reaction to the reading experience. These reactions should go beyond "I don't get it" and "This is weird," but you should not feel any obligation to interpret the theme of the play or analyze its symbolism or come to a conclusion of what it's all about (though you may attempt this and are encouraged to do so if you if you would like). As long as you write something interesting, it will be fine.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Better Story
From the get go I knew there was going to be some twist at the end of the book. Most books aren’t able to reveal the outcome early on and still be able to influence the opinion of the reader that the book is a good read without a good final twist. At the end of The Life of Pi, Martel gives us two different stories that force us to decide which one is true. In my opinion, Martel chose to write the better story for his book (yes this is referring to the one with the animals).
The reason I have this as my opinion is solely because of the rich insight it provides into Pi and his character. Assuming the human story was true, we would learn about Pi from his perspective as the book is written in 1st person. It would be good of course and we would undoubtedly learn a lot about him. However, the animal story brings something additional to the table. From the animal story, as told throughout the book, we learn about Pi and his character from both his 1st person voice and from Richard Parker. This is kind of like having Pi from two perspectives: his personal thoughts and feelings about himself, and also his personal thoughts and feelings from someone else’s perspective. We are more able to fully understand Pi and his changes from human instincts to more animal instincts.
No matter which story is true, all can agree that Richard Parker and Pi are remarkably similar. I’m really happy that Martel chose to write the animal story so we can learn about Pi from two different characters. For myself I felt like I connected with Pi, Richard Parker and their relationship. Because I think we naturally make connections with those types of relationships, both in literature and in our own lives, Martel chose the proper story to write about.
The reason I have this as my opinion is solely because of the rich insight it provides into Pi and his character. Assuming the human story was true, we would learn about Pi from his perspective as the book is written in 1st person. It would be good of course and we would undoubtedly learn a lot about him. However, the animal story brings something additional to the table. From the animal story, as told throughout the book, we learn about Pi and his character from both his 1st person voice and from Richard Parker. This is kind of like having Pi from two perspectives: his personal thoughts and feelings about himself, and also his personal thoughts and feelings from someone else’s perspective. We are more able to fully understand Pi and his changes from human instincts to more animal instincts.
No matter which story is true, all can agree that Richard Parker and Pi are remarkably similar. I’m really happy that Martel chose to write the animal story so we can learn about Pi from two different characters. For myself I felt like I connected with Pi, Richard Parker and their relationship. Because I think we naturally make connections with those types of relationships, both in literature and in our own lives, Martel chose the proper story to write about.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Animals please
Throughout the story like I had mentioned in class, part of the reason I continued to read was because of the idea that there was a happy ending to the story. When I heard the other version of the story I had a really hard time with it. I was actually really let down and almost hurt. Although the story with his mother was more realistic in the sense that it is more probable of a scenario then Pi living with a tiger I preferred the story with the animals instead. After I let it settle in more and began to put my feelings aside I finally grasped the reality of his journey more. It is a beautiful story that is put in a way where it isn't focused on the cruel reality of his mother dying but rather the journey and necessary options Pi had to face and deal with. It gives you an image of Pi that you would not have been able to see if he just told you the flat out truth of the situation.
Sirens
The carnivorous island was the most pivotal point in the book. I felt it was a metaphor for the religious context that this book offers, specifically regarding agnostic declaration.
In the beginning of the book, it tells of Pi’s search of religion and his formation of ideas concerning religion or lack therof. He explicitly criticizes agnostic beliefs; the belief resting on so much reason rather than faith. Reason is very comforting to the human mind. When things make ‘sense’ we do not concern ourselves with uncertainty or fear or the journey. We simply acknowledge the question and leave it blank.
Staying on the island is a metaphor for renouncing agnostic beliefs. He had a choice. The island held the requirements for survival: food, freshwater, and shelter, where as to leave on the boat meant an abandon to the comforts of the island. Reason would have led him to remain there forever till his eventual death, but he chose not to remain; he left as soon as he caught glimpse of the sad fate that would await him. Dry, yeastless factuality. He would stop the questioning, and simply accept this island as the way to live. He uses the words “half-life of physical comfort and spiritual death” (ch.92) regarding the island and he chooses to return to the ocean, knowing quite well that choice meant physical discomfort and yet a spiritual life.
In the beginning of the book, it tells of Pi’s search of religion and his formation of ideas concerning religion or lack therof. He explicitly criticizes agnostic beliefs; the belief resting on so much reason rather than faith. Reason is very comforting to the human mind. When things make ‘sense’ we do not concern ourselves with uncertainty or fear or the journey. We simply acknowledge the question and leave it blank.
Staying on the island is a metaphor for renouncing agnostic beliefs. He had a choice. The island held the requirements for survival: food, freshwater, and shelter, where as to leave on the boat meant an abandon to the comforts of the island. Reason would have led him to remain there forever till his eventual death, but he chose not to remain; he left as soon as he caught glimpse of the sad fate that would await him. Dry, yeastless factuality. He would stop the questioning, and simply accept this island as the way to live. He uses the words “half-life of physical comfort and spiritual death” (ch.92) regarding the island and he chooses to return to the ocean, knowing quite well that choice meant physical discomfort and yet a spiritual life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)