(no subject)
So it is summer again. And summer, while a pleasant (and necessary) break from academia, is merely an opportunity to be led from one existential moment to another. At least these momentary crises can no longer be about college itself, since what's done is done on that front (at least for the most part). However, the future is the new culprit, and, unlike college, the future has unlimited possibilities. Which makes room for an unlimited number of crises about what I will do with it.
On the literary front, it looks the the third time is not a charm for F. Scott Fitzgerald. I've read three of his novels now, and, when they aren't dripping with pretension and filled with clichés, they are just plain dull. It's unfortunate, too, because I really do want to like him. He's from Minnesota; he's a part of that body of 1920's American literature that I adore so much. But he just doesn't do it for me. Besides, I have to assume that any aspect of his novels that I do happen to like was stolen from his wife. Plus, he was overtly misogynistic and homophobic. A double no-no.
Another thought (on a slightly more Austenian front): I used to think that Marianne Dashwood had the right stuff about her--she was blunt, clever, and generally hated people and society. On the other side, Elinor always seemed somewhat boring and uptight. But the more I reflect on these characters, the more I start to view myself as somewhere in between them. Then again, that is the ideal, so perhaps instead I'll say that I am striving toward existing somewhere in between them. That reason (and what I suppose in Austen's world one could call morality) is meant to educate the passions rather than to suppress them is something I never thought about until recently. The reason Elinor is more successful than Marianne is not because she has extinguished her emotions completely, but that she has learnt to educate them through her own constancy and propriety. To me, saying that reason should control emotion always gave it an element of superiority that I could never quite cope with, but it is interesting to think of reason as an education to emotion within a context in which they seem to work more together than they do against each other.
I also decided this summer that I was going to read some more Shakespeare, since I've always felt like I've been lacking in that area of literary knowledge. I like "Hamlet", "Macbeth", and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" the best so far. Although "Macbeth" is really interesting to me just because I find the character of Lady Macbeth to be so compelling. If I were ever to write a play (which I would not for fear a creating a literary atrocity), it would probably be along the lines of her back-story. Similar to "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" although not quite as groundbreaking and Stoppard-tastic. But maybe the Macbeths can play verbal tennis at suppertime...
I also need to decide soon what my philosophy independent research and my religion distinction paper topics are going to be. The possibilities are too many.
Beyond that.... nothing.
On the literary front, it looks the the third time is not a charm for F. Scott Fitzgerald. I've read three of his novels now, and, when they aren't dripping with pretension and filled with clichés, they are just plain dull. It's unfortunate, too, because I really do want to like him. He's from Minnesota; he's a part of that body of 1920's American literature that I adore so much. But he just doesn't do it for me. Besides, I have to assume that any aspect of his novels that I do happen to like was stolen from his wife. Plus, he was overtly misogynistic and homophobic. A double no-no.
Another thought (on a slightly more Austenian front): I used to think that Marianne Dashwood had the right stuff about her--she was blunt, clever, and generally hated people and society. On the other side, Elinor always seemed somewhat boring and uptight. But the more I reflect on these characters, the more I start to view myself as somewhere in between them. Then again, that is the ideal, so perhaps instead I'll say that I am striving toward existing somewhere in between them. That reason (and what I suppose in Austen's world one could call morality) is meant to educate the passions rather than to suppress them is something I never thought about until recently. The reason Elinor is more successful than Marianne is not because she has extinguished her emotions completely, but that she has learnt to educate them through her own constancy and propriety. To me, saying that reason should control emotion always gave it an element of superiority that I could never quite cope with, but it is interesting to think of reason as an education to emotion within a context in which they seem to work more together than they do against each other.
I also decided this summer that I was going to read some more Shakespeare, since I've always felt like I've been lacking in that area of literary knowledge. I like "Hamlet", "Macbeth", and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" the best so far. Although "Macbeth" is really interesting to me just because I find the character of Lady Macbeth to be so compelling. If I were ever to write a play (which I would not for fear a creating a literary atrocity), it would probably be along the lines of her back-story. Similar to "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" although not quite as groundbreaking and Stoppard-tastic. But maybe the Macbeths can play verbal tennis at suppertime...
I also need to decide soon what my philosophy independent research and my religion distinction paper topics are going to be. The possibilities are too many.
Beyond that.... nothing.