He describes Space by copying/pasting the incongruent shapes that they send back to him without trying to know if these arrangements of lines - when rHe describes Space by copying/pasting the incongruent shapes that they send back to him without trying to know if these arrangements of lines - when read by the audience - will convey to them this same sensation of perceiving multiple references of reality through a common object of Space at a particular moment in Time. He is not trying to reproduce that phenomena. He merely copied/pasted the final part. What happens is that, the initial object of reference is difficultly known by the audience; and the subjective agglomeration of figures that is perceived by the artist, difficultly blends for the audience. The reader thus never knows what they are supposed to feel from this.
And to what aim does it serve to do that? displaying how many contextually irrelevant shapes appear to you (the artist) in a given context is not something worthy to waste artists’ energy on to this degree…
This way of describing the environment is not even a technique that other artists could use, or from which they could draw inspiration to create environmental descriptions or any other important purpose. There is no purpose from this style, or potential purpose, that carries a meaningful universal significance.
A third of the way through the book, the reader already perfectly knows the soul of the book and what follows is just a simple reproduction of such a practice, very limited in importance....more
Trying to maintain a certain musical rhythm, a continuous cadence, a neighborhood of sounds, even in situations where they don't enlarge the immersionTrying to maintain a certain musical rhythm, a continuous cadence, a neighborhood of sounds, even in situations where they don't enlarge the immersion of the action? These style games make the expression of the scene less sincere because they exude an overly bizarre aura – a striking mismatch between style and substance.
I find this a thoughtless way of using poetry.
Poetry is a difficult exercise which must be used in a necessary way.
Through Edmund, Kent and so many others, Shakespeare shows his prominence in overcoming complexities of expression that are ultimately futile in the play, for too long.
Art pieces should not implicitly encourage other artists to exhaust their talents for this kind of insignificant purpose. It ridicules art as a banal game of style.
Additionally, bizarre expressions of what could be said much -much- simpler makes the audience cringe at the piece while experiencing it. (like a geek using complicated verbiage to say good morning). Especially when such bizarre expressions do not have strongly meaningful justifications.
I.e of all:
Edmund: (trying to persuade his father that he-Edmund-had just been attacked by Edgar)
The ambition was there. The (in)voluntary social abandonment and withdrawal born from the fictitiousness of reality (i.e: the people we see are just sThe ambition was there. The (in)voluntary social abandonment and withdrawal born from the fictitiousness of reality (i.e: the people we see are just sensorium impressions; or that he can 't help himself but dreaming halfway through an interaction)…. all of that state of giving up to life is expressed in an unnatural and forced manner for too much time.
The beginning of the book was awful.
The wordplay with *dreams* and the obvious paradox he's trying to create was repetitive. Too repetitive. It made the reading felt unnatural because you (the reader) know that the writer is trying to make you feel something despite the end result not being a tasteful accomplishment of that.
The melody of the reading was as if cursed by a bell that someone hit hard at the end of each sentence. She was piercing, percussive and annoying. Dreams dreams dreams. Overload of sensory stimuli…
The use of words of the same family was frequent in the same paragraph. I know it's meant to link two proposals together; create a sense of flow while rhyming … but it’s just not tasteful for something clearly targeting poetic appeal.
In the beginning, words whose texture were elegant in tone were thrown around left to right, but expressing little impactful meaning or emotional power when put together.
The verbs were conventionally attributed to words; imprisoned in their same original meanings of mundanity, when they could be liberated to help other names by putting them together in unconventional but meaningful associations.
His way of asserting that he understands the psychology of others better than them themselves without ever showing it (i know that it is not thematically relevant), coupled with the fact that he so forcibly (explicitly) paints himself as something so quirky through the forced attempted wordplay with ‘dreams’ and the first person singular.. makes this so cringe.
Quirky people just talk about themselves without saying it.. the audience notice it by themselves. But this writer is trying too hard.
I know he (the fictional character) said he writes for himself, but that can’t be a cope out for bad writing when you’re talking about serious themes.. otherwise, every writer could just writer their story from a character who just says ‘ I writer for myself’ and so since it is realistic that I am a bad writer, you cannot judge my inability to express my theme well enough like you do with other writers.
On another point, he once said in a line that fictional characters are realer than humans but with weak metaphor to power up his thematic irony.
Or when, again on another point, he stated that the museum is the whole of life, in which the painting is always exact and the only possible inaccuracy lies in the imperfect eye of the beholder… Allegories are cringe when they are untrue.
Sometimes he started to sound screechingly corny. Referencing that a woman is allowed to cheat with other men in her imaginations.. like just so corny to say things like this, regardless of the themes.
Initially, I thought it was simply because of the author's inexperience (the book begins in 1913), but even later; after, admittedly, a great leap in quality which unfortunately quickly fell.
At some point, he first started by stating it is good that we don't know ourselves enough and also that, the only reason we get on together is that we know nothing about one another. He continues by saying “what would happen to all those happy couples if they could see into each other’s soul, if they could understand each other…”
But how can he know whether it would be good or bad after stating himself that we can never know ourselves fully? He himself has no experience with knowing a single human soul (in his own words), so how does he know what would follow from knowing one?
Forcedly depressive.
-
Cognizing that the story spans across year 1913 to 1932+ about the same theme, “intellectually” increase the emotional significance of the theme towards the reader...
However, choosing to encompass into a single work all those writings about the same theme, will demand of the writer to remain consistent in the emotional intensity of the theme.
Otherwise, the weak flame enclosed in the lines might convey to the audience a less emotional significance of the theme…
The good infectious lines are engulfed in a tide of lines that have tried for far too long to replicate that same profound feeling. Failure in that attempt renders the piece inefficient in real life. It could've been avoided by remaining less ambitious temporally wise. And would be a great, flawless piece of art.
At the beginning of part 2 for example, My god, the self-confidence was mind-boggling. The writing seemed much more sincere. The insistence on ambiguizing dreams was more subtle. He was not *trying* anymore. He did. The aura of mastery was present in the image sequence when expressing his feelings; he associated dramatic states with mundane states without over-explaining. The reader intuitively felt the emotional power. The clauses in a sentence often all had an equal time limit, while keeping the same degree of pain. Symmetry in both visual length and duration between the reading of two, four, six, clauses -I want to say- was magnificent. To reproduce the same emotion not only in sentences but even in infinitesimal propositions...
**..
Styllistically,
the writer was trying to discover and establish a way of completing sentences without appearing to do so. Three dots and sentences that stop without warning are a great way to do this.
In his story, prose means reality and poetry means dreams. Merging the two styles was to implicitly express his inability to control the arisal of dreams all over his life.
That's why even sometimes when he's talking about his core theme, on the next sections, without prior notice, he will talk about god and philosophy. He can't stay focus during a conversation because halfway through his mind always drifts somewhere else and then he has little idea of what was said either by him or the person.
This gives a psychological justification for the implicit structure of the novel …
He is two people who mutually keep their distances: the ‘he’ witness of reality, and the ‘he’ dreaming about something else, while being in reality.
“Siamese twins living separate lives”
In this novel, the sentences alone do not just stop abruptly to begin a new one, narratives also do!
It's a 'narrative breaking-in between'.
Thematically,
The story is built around a layered theme unfolding in the following ways.
The Backbone: Loving to dream without being able to control their arisal is full of disquiets.
-1: disquiet from not living in the real world
-2: disquiet against the real world (against people who -ignorant of the artificial/full of impressions/dreamy nature of reality- live it)
-3: disquiet at hating what he loves -hating dreams- because he cannot control their arisal, hence not achieving anything in life because of it (step 1)
4- Disquiet from the feeling that nothing is worth doing (which in his narration is accentuated by the consciousness that, at least in the imaginary power of his soul, the exploration of it comes from within- a natural self-discovery).
But his disquiet to have to act in the real world, because of the external world, gets worse to him because it does not come from him.
These are the lines which I think would convey well to others each thematic circumstance:
-Backbone a: Loving to dream
*“The ideal would be to undertake no more action than the false action of a fountain - rising only to fall in the same place, glittering pointlessly in the sunlight and making a noise in the silence of the night that would set any dreamer dreaming of rivers, an absent smile on his lips.”
**“the sweetness of the past! to remember the past is to make it the present again”.
-Backbone b: Not controlling their arisal
*My attention floats between two worlds*
* a tendency to be about to become something else; an impatience of the soul with itself*
* Everything interests him and nothing holds his attention...*
*Siamese twins living separate lives*
-Thematic circumstance 1: disquiet from not living in the real world
*Feeling uncomfortable in both worlds (where he is and where he thinks he could be)
* I visited other lands rather than visiting me*
* I live aesthetically in another being. I have sculpted my life like a statue made of a material alien to myself… Who am I behind this unreality? *
*Merely ashes endowed with a soul*
*Feeling himself prisoner of a futile freedom*
-Thematic circumstance 2: disquiet against the real world
* Insensitive to the solemnity of the world, indifferent to the divine and despising mankind*
*Perhaps everything exists only because something else does. Nothing just is, everything coexists; perhaps that’s right. I feel that I wouldn’t exist at this hour(or not at least in the exact same way, with my present consciousness of myself, which, because it is consciousness and because it is present, is, at this moment, entirely me) if that lamp were not lit over there, somewhere, a lighthouse marking nothing, erected on the false prestige lent it by its height. I feel this because I feel nothing. I think this because this is all nothing. Nothing, nothing, just part of the night and the silence and of whatever emptiness, negativity and inconstancy I share with them, the space that exists between me and me, a thing mislaid by some god …*
-Thematic circumstance 3: disquiet at hating dreams (which is thrown back to step 1) but creates a more complex relationship between him and his love for dreams
* Has to choose what he detests- either the dream which his intelligence loathed, or action, which is repugnant to his sensibility*
-Thematic circumstance 4: Disquiet from the feeling that nothing is worth doing
*It would be better for me if I were inert, doing nothing, with nothing to do, because that tedium, though real, I could at least enjoy. In my present state there is no respite, no nobility, no comfort in feeling discomfort; there is a terrible dullness in every gesture I make, not a potential weariness in gestures I will never make.*
-
His answers against his theme:
His methods for subtilizing pains into pleasures and making of doubts and disquiets a soft bed
1- stay (emotionally) away from other ppl
2- accustom yourself to project your pain onto some imaginary figure, to create another “I” who takes on the burden of your suffering.. who suffers what you suffer. Basically, creating an inner lie.
3- apply to anxieties and sufferings an irritating degree of attention, an intensity that, by its own excess, brings with it the pleasure of excess … the author is masochist (loves pain)
After applying those 3 methods, the final step was for him to pass sensation through pure intelligence and analysis and to give it literary form. (Basically writing out those sensations = art)
By reading this book, we are reading how he's exorcizing those disquiets away....more
Loading...
