Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sir Walter Scott
I didn't get it. Now I get it.
It's easy to put Sir Walter Scott in a box, his interpretation of the lower class is not quite PC by contemporary standards, but I think his narrative approach is more irrelevant that irreverent. Meaning that I think Scott's commentary on the working classes, which may seem a tad demeaning is unintentionally so; In fact I think that Scott's narrative may be trying to romanticize the 'Drover class,' rather than convey the negative a portrayal that, today, reflects more poorly on Scott than the Drover.
His descriptions appeal to nature and the 'natural' qualities of the class system: certainly a romantic motiffe. But unfortunately, today his analogical language and alluisons to the drovers place amongst the 'herds' seems more like an elitist appeal to animalism than the beauty of nature.
"For the Highlander, a child amongst flocks, is a prince amongst herds, and his natural habits induce himt o disdain the shepherds slothful life, so that he feels himself nowhere more at home than when following a gallant drove of his country cattle in the character of their guardian."
Ok so not much need for explanation. His writing is very thoughtful, but lacks the critical thought to which modernism (particularly realism) appeals. 'A child amongst flocks' is a nearly biblical imagef Scott manages to convey without explicity allusion. 'Country cattle in the character' is a smooth use of alliteration, and the passage as a whole is rhetorically sound. Sir Walter Scott is a very good writer and clearly a thoughtful one.
However, his to his great unfortunance, modern readers will have a difficult time overlooking the dated ideals that resonate throughout almost every paragraph of his prose.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Mere Anarchy
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
CON-JUNG-RAD
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The European Dilema and The future belongs to Islam
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Paste
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
I appreciate Montaigne, and so should you.
'Hmmm,' they might say, 'that's really great.'
'Yes I'd say so, it was very great' I would say.
If a bold inquierer so dares to queery, "On what?"
'Hmmm?'
"Montaigne on what, what was he writing on?"
"Oh, uh; he was writing on some verses of Virgil" I'd snap.
Because honesty is the best policy, and if anyone asks I would tell them the truth: Tonight I read Montaigne on Virgil.
What I got out of this.........................................................
Somewhere elluded me.
I really do like Montaigne. I've read him before, he's really not SO difficult to keep up with, translations varying, but his style opposes the assumptions that any modern reader brings to a text. We often associate precision with concision, but montaigne's sentences each contain an exhausting anatomical correctitude. An occasional fragment would be cathartic for the Montaigne reader, instead his heavy punctuation weighs down his prose and encumbers the eyelids of his readers.
Not that it's bad -his writing- it's brilliant, but it opposes the standards of contemporary lit, in way incomparable even to the dry, dense sentences of some modernist like James and Joyce.
"Pleasure is a quality of very little ambition: it thinks itself rich enough of itself without any addition of repute; and is best pleased where most retired. A young man should be whipped who pretends to a taste in wine and sauces; there was nothing which, at that age, I less valued or knew; now I begin to learn; I am very much ashamed on`t; but what should I do? I am more ashamed and vexed at the occasions that put me upon`t. `Tis for us to dote and trifle away the time, and for young men to stand upon their reputation and nice punctilios; they are going toward the world and the world`s opinion; we are retiring from it: "Sibi arma, sibi equos, sibi hastas, sibi clavam, sibi pilam, sibi natationes, et cursus habeant: nobis senibus ex lusionibus multis, talos relinquant et tesseras;" the laws themselves send us home. I can do no less in favor of this wretched condition into which my age has thrown me, than furnish it with toys to play withal, as they do children; and, in truth, we become such. Both wisdom and folly will have enough to do to support and relieve me by alternate services in this calamity of age:
"Misce stultitiam consiliis brevem."
-In the preceding passage Montaigne establishes a truism. Then he draws it out. Then he relates it to himself. Then he draws it out.
His style is not flawed, relative to the era it may have been revolutionary (I really don't know). The thesis of his paragraph 'Pleasure is a quality of very little ambition' may have, in Montaigne's age, seemed like a cutting edge observation rather than a grandfather's parable; but today the reader expects more relation to the immediate.
Montaigne has by no means lost relevance, his place in the canon, his work as a leg of the pedestol on which the great writers of all time stand, is by no means ephemeral. However, the approach that readers take montaigne has changed. We're not reading for content but analysis, not of his substance but his style.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Marx-Engels
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."
Very eloquent language, the loose alliteration of 'patrician and plebian,' the rhythmic, assonance of the opposing terms 'guild-master and journeyman,' all promote the illustrious tone of Marx's message; regardless of what that message actually says.
I think the lasting quality of Marx's work as the premier statement of Communist ideas may derive from his tone. Surely there were other great and similar political theorists scribing their quarrels in illustrious statements throughout the 19th century, but Marx explicitly establishes his notions as an expression of the ages; as a truism, relatively adaptable to any era. And his language, his grandiose style of statement, exudes the romance of an oration in antiquity. Leftist of the twentieth century may have idealized the revolutionary content of Marx as rhetoricians of the thirteenth century held Cicero on a pedestal.