*4.5-STARS* || This story almost enlightened me with a promising technique : Unreliable narrator as a concise and effective méthod for conveying theme*4.5-STARS* || This story almost enlightened me with a promising technique : Unreliable narrator as a concise and effective méthod for conveying themes’ importance.
How to quickly show that both the themes and their antithetic theme could be important to someone ??
That by dedicating so much time on dissing thé themes, you are communicating how much you care for their anti-thesis.
Making the audience care for two diametrically opposite themes with only the expression of one of these themes would save so many pages and would be a groundbreaking proposal for art across many médiums.
This technique is effective in : (i) Memorability: the entire story being overwhelmed by thematic satire, the audience never forgets the existence of the anti-thesis despite thé short “explicit” duration it has been bestowed at the end.
(ii) Conciseness: instead of inserting arguments to communicate to the audience the anti-thesis’ importance after doing so for the themes, (so basicslly, instead of doing the exact same process that the writer has done in the entire story), in just one or two pages of unveilling the deceit, the writer kills two birds with one stone.
/—— But ultimately, it is an ineffective technique because it only allows people to conceive/imagine that thé antithetical theme could be important for thé artist. But it does not give us access to those feelings. It only lets the audience imagine the feelings; but as far as we talk about instantaneous appréhension of emotions, human imagination does not have that much power.
(Antithetical theme is an expression that makes sense contextually because themes here is implied as the main thematic problem) —- “Anyone who takes what I write as the truth would perhaps be less mistaken than someone who takes it for a fable.”
Throughout the book, Jacques was actually making a fool out of his master.
He says he wants to continue the story and two seconds later he says the hand of destiny (of God) is gripping his throat.
A- The master says that everything is written above.
B- Jacques tries to say that he is master of destiny; and he can make whoever he wants believe what he wants. As he deceived his master all along and the master from what Jacques presented to him confirmed all his philosophical principles and universal laws about humans. The master tried to guess Jacques' behavior from these 2 (known universal laws + apparent behaviors)
Another illustration of Jacques supporting the opinion which says that ...more
The whimsicality entrenched in these lines is so much like in a disney movie – when the big bad wolf starts to sing and waddle with his voice a littleThe whimsicality entrenched in these lines is so much like in a disney movie – when the big bad wolf starts to sing and waddle with his voice a little deep but while keeping the playful, festive and childish spirit of disney..
Just by reading certain lines, the poet does not have to put the commas that you are forced to read these lines with a mini-pause at exactly every two words: your head is bound to bounce from left to right from such a jocund company!
The final stanza seeks to share the sense of involuntary consolation the poet receives from thinking of the lighthearted (mis)adventures of the daffoldis (those recounted throughout the very poem we just read) during these moments of solitude. ("I wandered lonely as a cloud"- wow, the use of cloud is so fitting; they are silent, idle, and lack solid feature; they are empty. loneliness is so well encompassed by that sole word.)
By reading this conclusion, we realize that it was important -in order to merge with the narrative aims- to craft this work so that it would produce phonetically the cartoonish and dancing effect which brightens the spirit of the writer during the frequent sorrows of his life.....more
*2.5-Stars* Diotima’s love for Hyperion has fractured the harmony with herself and the world, and brought about a distressing detachment from her earth*2.5-Stars* Diotima’s love for Hyperion has fractured the harmony with herself and the world, and brought about a distressing detachment from her earthly environment, and which was tragically the first sign of her upcoming demise.
The recounting of Hyperion’s failures (recovering back his land, Greece), misfortunes (death of his loved one), aims and of its future self discovery are all relatable to me. But, I frequently felt an inorganic effort from the Poet to include the delicate scents and flowers of nature in his poetry, without using them together to create verses representing a concrete image as a whole that compliments a specific sensation. Their collective power being very weak, it felt like pretty things scattered around with feeble homogeneity (for example : he would take a lot of sad entities of Heaven that reminds him of sadness but their collective power as a whole does not create a long fleshed out imaginary that depicts in more thorough ways his sadness… or when there was, the allegory was not percutent enough to me) … too loose, a bit like some celestial shallow ornament at times.
-Hyperion or the Ermit by Friedrich Höderlin: 5.5/10...more
Kant initially distinguished the judgment of humanity between two types: analytic judgment (like all bodies are heavy) and synthetic judgment (like alKant initially distinguished the judgment of humanity between two types: analytic judgment (like all bodies are heavy) and synthetic judgment (like all bodies are extended). The former does not require to go outside the concept stated. But the latter (synthetic judgement) has the potential to amplify our cognition, since we need in addition of the concept (heavy), to look for something else (every single other body). It is pertinent to note that it is this synthetic judgment that will bring us - the human race - ever closer to its preached "God/higher intelligence" at the end.
Kant progresses in his book by also distinguishing between cognitions which arise independently of any experience and -even if- all impression of the senses (a priori) and the ones dependent on them (a posteriori).
Among those a priori cognition (universal and necessary knowledge), he hypostatizes something transcendental from it. The pure cognition.
A pure cognition should not be something like a prediction of “my house might fall” because the subject knows from past experiences that houses fall when they lack support.
Another example is “every alteration has its cause” is an a priori cognition, only not pure, since alteration is a concept that can be drawn only from experience.
The transcendental philosophy he seeks to manifest is, to him, a merely speculative reason. Containing no concept drawn empirically.
In transcendental aesthetic (Aesthetics = critique of taste), he isolated sensibility by separating off everything that the understanding thinks through its concepts, so that nothing but empirical intuition remains.
Secondly, he will then detach from the latter everything that belongs to sensation, so that nothing remains except pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is, according to him, the only thing that sensibility can make available a priori.
In this investigation, he found that there are 2 pure forms of sensible intuition as principles of a priori (universally and necessary) cognition:
-Space:
Beside space, there is no other subjective representation related to something external that could be called a priori objective. Hence this subjective condition of all outer appearances cannot be compared with any other.
It yields a determinate concept a priori, and through inner intuition we would not have sensations, thus no empirical representations and no science of objects.
Space concerns only the pure form of intuition, thus it includes no sensation (nothing empirical) in itself, and all kinds and determinations of space can and even must be able to be represented a priori if concepts of shapes as well as relations are to arise.
(A rose counts in an empirical sense as a thing in itself, which yet can appear different to every eye in regard to color (due to light and such).
The transcendental concept of appearances in space, on the contrary is a critical reminder that absolutely nothing that is intuited in space is a thing in itself, and that space is not a form that is proper to anything in itself, but rather that objects in themselves are not known to us at all, and that what we call outer objects are nothing other than mere representations of our sensibility, whose form is space, but whose true correlate , I.e, the thing in itself, is not and cannot be cognized through it, but is also never asked after in experience.
-Time:
It is the 2nd pure form of sensible intuition that he found. It is not an empirical concept (because simultaneity or succession would not themselves come into perception if the representation of time did not ground them).
Only bc of time, we can presuppose the (empirical) existence of things occurring simultaneously or successively.
One cannot remove time from appearances. Everything else can disappear but time itself, as the universal condition of their possibility cannot be removed. (If the concept of time doesn’t exist, that means, the clock is always at 0, then nothing exist- like, Imagine if the world is paused forever...)
So, he continues and attest that time is not a general concept but a pure form of sensible intuition
Outside every outer object, time does not exist. It is nothing if we disregard our subjective association with it to external objects.
But he’s stating this because he himself cannot cognize the influence on time on the transcendental object…
He continues by saying that it it is necessarily objective in regard to all appearance, and I agree.
Such property which belongs to things in themselves can never be given to us through the senses. No object can ever be given to us in experience that would not belong under the condition of time.
In this therefore consists of his transcendental idealist of time, according to which it is nothing at all if one abstracts from the subjective conditions of sensible intuition (I have not been convinced of this), and cannot be counted as either subsisting or inhering in the objects in themselves (without their relation to our intuition).
He never convinced me at no point on the “null impact” of the passage of time on the unknown transcendental object. He just stated that Time is nothing at all if one abstracts from the subjective conditions of sensible intuition. Yes, it is nothing at all… to us. But who says it is nothing at all to the pure objects? … And how do we and can we know? (Maybe in the future we will be able to)… -
By “Sensibility”, he’s alluding to the receptivity of our cognitive capacity when trying to represent an object in our mind.
Kant insists that sensibility remains worlds apart from the cognition of the object in itself. World’s appart is a big term. how does he know that? How does he gauge that ? He himself can’t even cognize the pure object he’s talking about, just like us. It feels like he’s saying this to maximize the importance of his “god ideal”.. Dogmatically assuming the urgency of its importance.
— Now when trying to find how to cognize a given transcendental object = X,
he noticed that “the identity of that subject does not yet come about by his accompanying each representation with consciousness, but rather by his adding one representation to the other and being conscious of their synthesis.”
hmmmmmmmmmmmm
“Therefore it is only because I can combine a manifold of given representations in one consciousness that it is possible for me to represent the identity of the consciousness in these representations itself, (iz3: the analytical unity of apperception is only possible under the presupposition of some synthetic one)..”
hmmmmmmmmmm
that “the thought that these representations given in intuition all together belong to me means, accordingly, the same as that I unite them in a self-consciousness, or at least can unite them therein, and although it is itself not yet the consciousness of the synthesis of the representations, it still presupposes the possibility of the latter, i.e.”
Can someone please tell me how “it presupposes the possibility of the latter”? because I have read the entire book and still cannot see how, yet all his proposal stands on that.
He states another main argument for it.
That, “(this is) the natural course taken by every human reason, even the most common, although not everyone perseveres in it.
It begins not with concepts, but with common experience, and thus grounds itself on something existing. But this footing gives way unless it rests on the immovable rock of the absolutely necessary.”
The contingent exists only under the condition of something else as its cause; so he sought to find among all the concepts of possible things that one that has nothing within itself conflicting with absolute necessity.
But how does that prove that the “absolutely necessary” is the combination of every single representations ?
Couldn’t there be an objective real object responsible of the singularity in appearance that each individual refers to separately? Each of those unconditionned pure objects being the immovable rock of the conditioned?
But because Kant seems so focused on his demonstration of Space as being an unconditioned unity, sustaining every objects represented in appearances through our senses, that he assumes that the unconditioned objective reality of all objects must also be a unity.
Here’s what he says: “it is unavoidable, by means of a transcendental subreption, to represent this formal principle! to oneself as constitutive, and to think of this unity hypostatically. For, ...more
*raised to 4.5-Stars* (I did not update the review, but let’s just say this book did his task right. People underestimate how much unrequited love can*raised to 4.5-Stars* (I did not update the review, but let’s just say this book did his task right. People underestimate how much unrequited love can drive someone to suicide. This book serves as a fantastic and faithful transmission to how it feels to be in their position. All of what it signifies for them. So other people can live how excessive it feels to have the love they’re hosting in their chest.
Just like in Madame Bovary, rédundant themes like this require an infatigable creative prose each time
Goethe has this manner of animating Nature and give it so much life in order to associate it with humans’ common behaviors. Why using nature ? Because it has so much caressing and soft attributes , and they enhance the warm sensation of his intimate writing. Seeing Goethe write a novel and including nature in such inventive ways, felt like sleeping next to a heater during cold weather, or sleeping in a big comfy blanket at winter. And if you think I’m exaggerating, read this:
“When I look from my window at the distant hills, and behold the morning sun breaking through the mists, and illuminating the country around, which is still wrapped in silence, whilst the soft stream winds gently through the willows, which have shed their leaves;
when glorious nature displays all her beauties before me, and her wondrous prospects are ineffectual to extract one tear of joy from my withered heart, I feel that in such a moment I stand like a reprobate before heaven, hardened, insensible, and unmoved.
Oftentimes do I then bend my knee to the earth, and implore God for the blessing of tears, as the desponding labourer in some scorching climate prays for the dews of heaven to moisten his parched corn. But I feel that God does not grant sunshine or rain to our importunate entreaties.
And oh, those bygone days, whose memory now torments me! why were they so fortunate? Because I then waited with patience for the blessings of the Eternal, and received his gifts with the grateful feelings of a thankful heart… ...more
His allegorical language can be concise and powerful. Intense emotions often manifest quickly to match up the behavior the character is exhibiting. SoHis allegorical language can be concise and powerful. Intense emotions often manifest quickly to match up the behavior the character is exhibiting. So without a doubt, the best parts about the story is the playwright’s ability to come up with efficient thematic lines.
"Plot": Francis and Charles have both been charmed by ambition in different manners.
-Charles contracted debts, -dishonoured the daughter of a rich banker -mortally wounded the husband of that girl, someone of rank
And after that, according to Francis, he took the desperate resolution to escape from the law with 7 companions whom he had corrupted to his own vicious courses. — Whereas in reality, Charles himself said he is imploring forgiveness to his father in that letter of his => he confessed all of his misdeeds thinking “where there is sincerity, there is compassion and help”.
- Actually, (Moriz) Spiegel is the ambitious one trying to convince Charles to climb the summit of glory on the pillars of infamy. —-
->Francis’ aims:
We learn later that Francis cares a lot for the girl (Amelia) whos in love with Charles (so now she can lose every support and becomes a plaything of his will). That, he wanted to be the new baron (“Francis von Moor”). That, he loved that Charles has lost their father’s love.
->Francis’ plot:
*Francis is the one who, as an excuse not to hurt his father’s feelings , read only the crimes of Charles and not the repentance asked by Charles.
*sending Hermann to convince the Old Moor and Amelia that Francis died in battle"
*the sword of Charles given by Hermann to the Old Moor and Amelia has been painted in blood by Francis with words liberating Amelia from her oath to him (Charles)
*buried his father alive to take his place — ...more
The pleasure of experiencing a new story and being faced by an unorthodox method of conveying information… at first, it’s confusing, but then once youThe pleasure of experiencing a new story and being faced by an unorthodox method of conveying information… at first, it’s confusing, but then once you perceive its thematic necessity it starts feeling like entering into a new and exponentially more interesting universe Rarely have I had such ecstasy while conceiving the stylistic decisions of a writer.
The choice to narrate the story in a series of successive letters is like incessant journeys in the soul of each character without having to be bored by a long descriptive construction of events that generates them. Both construction and emotion are expressed in the letter every time. The letter is such an intimate means of communication; and the characters already know each other. And thanks to these 2 factors, this makes it possible to create this simultaneous and continuous phenomenon between construction and central emotion. I love this narrative choice.
Crossed letters like this allows the author to confirm the reader of another character's true motives which may have been previously stated ambiguous; but this reaffirmation is effected organically through another character. This author's writing is fantastic. He knows how to immerse himself for long texts in the emotional state of each character with impressive intensity. Reading this book would be for my heart to be left in a cyphon. I have nothing to do, I feel the torrential power to which I am subjected. And at the next letter, a cyphon that rotates in another direction of rotation, with an equally incredible angular speed. And if, another direction of rotation would exist in the world, it would have been the one that I will attribute to the 3rd letter. And so on. The eccentricity emitted through interjections, incessant superlatives, repetitions and hyperboles, all this seems excessive at first glance- But contextually, it is not. The characters employ whatever it takes to convince their addressee not of a notion, but of the feelings they feel toward that notion. Convince, complain, or share their own praise. Here are the 3 origins of each letter. Not only the love, but even the indignation of the Marquise de Merteuil, the telling of her underhandedness (Prévan's false guilt) to the other marquises, Cecile's disguised mistrust to Valmont, Danceny trying to reassure her, the disappointment, etc. This makes the emotional magnitude plausible and the fact that it is told through letters makes the story narratively plausible as well.
There's nothing superfluous in his choice of characters. Each of them serves to present the redundancy of the tragic consequences of this theme despite their age, gender, or whether or not they were the initiator behind the formation of their ‘dangerous liaison’. For this specific theme, it was important to make these differentiations because these attributes are the factors that influence the theme. Each is an essential component of it. This aim of trying to globalize the scope of his central theme the most as he can, increases the artistic ambition of the piece. So many different mind states to immerse the readers in! So many different tragic consequences to effectively make the reader feel! So as to make us live that theme each time.
The Cast: -M. Le Vicomte de Valmont (Initiator, Polygamous alliance, Male, in his late thirties at least):
His extraordinary devotion to seduction towards Madame de Tourvel aroused, for the first time during their polygamous alliance, jealousy in the heart of the Marquise de Merteuil – and thus, alienated the latter from him. He broke with Madame de Tourvel to regain her trust, but she (Merteuil) during this time, became detached from him because of his already excessive passion for Tourvel and her growing liking for Danceny. Merteuil initiated a dangerous affair with Danceny, and was no longer in the mood to be with her Valmont. Thus declaring war between the two parties. The tragic consequence of Valmont in the story is to be killed by Danceny (manipulated by Merteuil).. and all of this is traced back to the “liaison dangeurese” he initiated with Mme de Tourvel.
-La Marquise de Merteuil (Initiator, Polygamous marriage, Female, in her late twenties or so): Her excessive attention to Danceny (that affair she initiated), a 20-year-old kid, sparked outrage at Valmont's pride. This enraged him even more and hastened his decision to ask Merteuil an ultimatum to war. This declaration of war led Valmont to reveal all her malefic secrets to the world through Danceny.
It was said at the end that she has 50,000 euros in debt; and all her enemies laughed at her in the streets, and her friends departed from her. (Merteuil has been well-described as someone who clings to her pride throughout the story, to maximize what that sense of shame meant to her).
-Cecile Volanges (Victim, Female,15 years old, committed to M. Gercourt – and then unofficially committed to Danceny): Carried away by the advances of Danceny, ignored the scope of the consequences that this could entail… Towards her mother, and her own anxieties throughout.
-Danceny (Victim, Male, 20 years old, committed to Cecile): Carried away by the advances of the Merquise de Merteuil, he made his Cécile unhappy; and even realized too late, that she, too, was manipulating him for a long time to “get excited”.
-Mme de Tourvel (Victim, Female, in her late twenties, monogamous marriage): She resisted Valmont for a long time (having been warned of his wickedness by Madame Volanges); but eventually yielded to the dishonor of cheating on her husband, to maintain the fire felt by Valmont's presence in her life. When Valmont broke up with her, heartaches mixed with the loneliness of being disgraced by everyone harassed her poor soul...
When Valmont died, she too took her own life.
- Knowing full well that more mature reflections always happen too late, the writer tried his best for the tragedy attached to dangerous liaisons on every social and marital level, to stop being smothered and useless in the whirlwind of our inconsistent mores....more
Loading...
