Trainspotting 5/2/12

These are unrelated characters and events. Just trying out the style.

- Awright, Aiden?
- Aye... I just wis thinkin, ken?
- Aye... Ye look a wee bit sad is aw.
Aiden shrugged, glancing up at Matthew. They had known each other since they were young, and were like brothers.
- We kin go to the pub, likesay, fir a drink.
- Aye.
Aiden nodded his agreement, standing from where he'd been seated on the building's stoop.
- Ye cannae be sad wi a good drink, kin ye?
- Naw.
He finally smiled a bit, glancing over at his friend as they walked.


Something else I wanted to mention. Neil Gaiman is a British author. When writing his novel American Gods, which takes place in the United States, he said he consciously had to think about writing in "American" rather than "British," because it needed to be believable to American audiences. He said this was somewhat like trying to write a novel in French. Even though it's English still, it is like an entirely different language when it needs to be convincing to the people who speak it. Writing this was similar. It's still English, but I had to stop and look up how every word was spelled, even words like "you" or "for." Very interesting experience.

Trainspotting 4/30/12

In the article we read, this line stood out to me: "Whenever I discuss Scottishness with Scottish students the consensus is that the only good indicator of a Scot is a Scottish accent." I wish the article had gone more in depth on this topic. Does this mean the Scottish do not have distinctive characteristics other than their accents? Or are they simply not characteristics useful in determining upon a first meeting someone's nationality? It seems hard to believe that this is the only indicator, or differentiating factor, though the accent is distinct.

The sections at the end of Exile that are told from the third person are fascinating as well. Since the rest of the book is told in such distinct, first person voices, these chapters stood out from the rest. It was a completely different experience to watch these characters from the outside, rather than from the point of view of a character.

Trainspotting 4/25/12

The scene with the squirrel stuck out to me in this section of reading. Renton seems, from the beginning of the novel, to be one of the least violent characters. Yet here, he has no qualms about killing a squirrel, something that upsets Spud greatly. Spud speculates about this. He suggests that it's because the squirrel is "free. That's mibbe what Rents cannae stand. The squirrel's free, man." He then relates the squirrel to baby Dawn, and says how their lives were wasted for no reason, and how it makes him sad and angry. This scene paints an interesting picture of both Renton and Spud. The reader sees a slightly more violent side of Renton, and the very gentle, compassionate side of Spud.

Comparing the film to the book was fascinating. I had only read the first half of the book when I watched the film, so it was interesting to see how the events of the first half of the book ended up all over the film, not just the first half. Things were changed, and moved around, but the feel of the film was similar to the feel of the book. I also feel that the characters were portrayed well, and as expected, except Begbie. Not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't him.

Trainspotting 4/23/12

The first part of Trainspotting firmly establishes the world of the novel, heavily influenced by drugs and the means of getting drugs. The audience is introduced to the characters and to their world. It is dark and dirty and unstable, and even in the first two sections, several people get hurt and/or die. However, their lives, while sad, are not as miserable and hopeless as one might expect. What was the most surprising wasn't the drugs or the sex, it was the absolutely revolting moments, such as when Mark/Rents digs in the clogged toilet for his drugs.

The different accents are interesting as well. It is a bit difficult to differentiate between the Scottish voices, and to establish who is speaking. However, the difference between these and the more familiar English is stark, and therefore, interesting, because it makes uniquely different characters. The Scottish parts are hard to read and at first, a bit tedious, but it is very critical to the story to differentiate between Scotland and England.

Cock and Bull 4/18/12

I have commented on Cock and Bull several times previously now, so I will refrain from reiterating what I've already said (I finished reading it a week ago, so I don't have any new light to shed on today's portion).

I will focus instead on how interesting reading the interview between Self and Amis was. This was not even because of the content. It was because of how the interview, as Self and Amis' exact words, demonstrates who they are, and can be used in examining their works. The interview was far more intriguing because it was two authors we've read, rather than one being interviewed by someone unrelated. It made for a much better comparison point. Seeing both authors as authors, rather than as narrators, sheds an entirely different light on the works. It was also fascinating to hear them talk about their own works, and each others. It is one thing to speculate about a work, and another to hear about it from the author himself.

Cock and Bull 4/16/12

I will start out by again mentioning that I greatly preferred "Bull" to "Cock." It was a combination of things - Bull was a far more likable character than Carol, and the sexuality of the piece was a bit less in your face than in "Cock." Clearly, the sexuality is still present, but it isn't quite as obsessive like Carol's. It's more sensitive, because, while Carol becomes more masculine and powerful with her new body part, Bull becomes more feminine and sensitive with his. This, for whatever reason, made him far easier to sympathize with, which made the piece more enjoyable.

In the article we read, a line on page 122 stood out to me. It says, "There is nothing like rubbing shoulders with the forbidden for it to lose its totemic power." This line is interesting because it's so true. Things are taboo in a culture because the people of that culture are not accustomed to them. But the more someone spends time with a taboo thing or idea, the less taboo it becomes. Americans object to the idea of eating horse and dog, but in many cultures, it is as normal (or more normal) than chicken, cow, or pig. These books are like this too. They're strange and uncomfortable at first, but the further one reads, and the more books like these one reads, the less weird it becomes. It's simply desensitizing. Funny, to think about how different the world would be if everyone understood than and accepted more.

Will Self imitation 4/11/12

Matthew woke one day to find that his skin had become scaly and that his back had a dome-shaped growth on it. The growth sounded hollow when knocked upon, like a shell. He struggled to get out of bed and, once in the bathroom, stared incredulously at his new appearance.

No amount of lotion would smooth out the rough, greenish-grey skin. He tried, with an entire bottle. When that failed, he stood, staring into the mirror, contemplating with the strange calmness that comes after a serious shock. He certainly couldn't go to school or to work like this. He doubted if he could go out in public at all. He couldn't even go to the doctor. He wondered whether his physician made house calls. He wondered whether he would give his physician a heart attack, when the doctor saw that the young man strongly resembled a tortoise.

Cock and Bull Review

Cock and Bull is a book by Will Self comprised of two shorter works, "Cock" and "Bull." "Cock" is the story of Carol, a rather unhappily married woman who inexplicably grows a penis. Similarly, "Bull" is the story of a man named Bull who one day wakes up to find he has a vagina on the back of his leg. Carol's bodily change makes her more masculine and powerful, enabling her to later engage in behavior she wouldn't previously have been able to (not only sexually). In contrast but not surprisingly, Bull's change makes him quite sensitive and rather feminine. Like Carol, his story ends somewhat surprisingly, though both endings are in fitting with their suggested characters. Both stories feature dysfunctional relationships that are later resolved in some way, and Carol and Bull both continue on with their lives.

While both stories were interesting, "Cock" was less enjoyable because of Carol's personality and behavior and how she was portrayed. the manner in which it was written was successful, but it was difficult to relate to or sympathize with the character. "Bull" was far more enjoyable, likely because Bull was a more sensitive character who was easier to sympathize with. He was a kind man both before and after his change, whereas Carol was always rather unpleasant. Bo were written very similarly, however, and were quite successful despite being about a somewhat "different" topic. The book poses a lot of questions about gender, gender roles, and sexuality, which makes it rather thought provoking and perhaps worth a read despite it being a bit uncomfortable to read, particularly in public.



Sorry this assignment is a bit short and a bit late. Was out of town for Passover and Easter and just returned.

Professor Self 4/4/12

I read the following article published in The Guardian in February of 2012: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/23/professor-self-university-knowledge-value


There were two lines that stuck out to me the most, standing out from the rest of the predominantly expected article. One was this:


"I realise that the above may make it sound as if I'm more concerned with what I will get out of teaching these students, rather than what they may get out of me – but actually I believe the two are pretty much the same thing," followed later in the paragraph by "There is something mysteriously powerful that can happen when young, inchoate minds come into contact with older and more worldly ones in a spirit of intellectual and creative endeavour – if I believed in progress I suppose that's what I'd call it."


This is strikingly true. Each generation comes from essentially its own world. The younger generations have a newer world, full of new technology and new ideas. The older generations have been around longer and therefore know more and have more experiences. They, too, are experiencing the new world, but in a different way, as they are no longer as new themselves. When this young generation becomes the older generation, the new world will become knowledge, and a new new world will be in existence. There is also the idea of two perspectives - yes, the younger and the older perspective, but also simply the two different perspectives of two different people. People react differently to things. Different ideas come to different people. They interpret and understand things differently. In combining these various ideas, understandings, and perspectives, a fuller understanding can be reached, as well as a more complete idea. 


As a student, particularly in a group discussion-based learning environment, I sure hope the teachers learn as much as we do, or maybe even more. I hope our discussions give them new ideas and new ways to think about things, and that they will take what they have learned from us and apply them to later groups of students, who will then take the ideas we developed and passed on and develop them even further. This combining and enhancing of ideas is so important - it's how we have the world we have today. So, Will Self is right to be concerned with what he will get out of teaching the students. What he learns will benefit future students, who will in turn benefit him and other people. 


Self also says: "However, if I don't believe I'm helping my students towards a fuller and more empowering relationship with the world, then I'll resign." This is a very powerful thing to say. It suggests that he fully realizes the implications and importance of education, both in receiving and in providing it.

Don't Cry 4/4/12

This story and interview were interesting, particularly having read "Secretary," a short story mentioned in the interview. "Mirrorball" was very different from "Secretary." The latter was sad and rather disturbing the whole way through, while the former, though sad, resolved itself. Interestingly, "Secretary" seemed far more transgressive than "Mirrorball." Its atmosphere is far more similar to the other works we've read, though "Mirrorball" is a bit odd too. I suppose "Mirrorball" was most like Nights at the Circus - transgressive-ish in a fantastic, magical sort of way.

The interview was interesting as well - it allowed me to see her literal voice and compare it to the voices of her works. It also touched on topics important and relevant to her, which were also interesting in light of her works. It was fascinating to hear about her novels, with which I am unfamiliar, because they sound so different from the two stories I've read, and yet, in keeping with her voice and style and her experiences that the interview touches upon.

Guts 3/28/12

I don't know where or why, but I had read Guts before. It surprised me, actually, that the piece was familiar because, while I like Palahniuk and his voice and style, I think I've only read Invisible Monsters and Lullaby. He's not one of those authors where I've read every single thing he's ever written.

Guts is interesting. It's raw, for lack of a better term. Or maybe that's the perfect term. I have to say, it's a little unclear to me what exactly about it supposedly makes people faint. Sure, it's grotesque and a bit gorey, but it's far from the most disturbing or shocking thing I've ever seen or read.

Palahniuk's style is wonderful. At least in the works of his I've read, his voice always sounds like a brilliant teenager. The combination of this with his frequently taboo subjects creates an interesting feeling within his works, like a kid telling you something a kid shouldn't know. When writing essays, Palahniuk's voice still maintains a fictional quality, like he's telling you a story but it isn't a story. It has this casual feel but you still have to take him seriously.

It's very easy to relate Palahniuk to the British transgressive works we've read. The topics are similar, as is the style in which he writes them.

Nights at the Circus 3/26/12

The Spectacle of Her Gluttony shed light on something I hadn't put much thought to while reading the novel, but looking back on it, the themes of eating and appetite are very present. Seeing the emphasis on appetite is even more fascinating upon learning that Carter herself struggled with anorexia. There is constant reference in the novel to food and hunger and eating, as well as to Fevvers' significant size. There is one moment in the novel where Fevvers is "off her food," which comes as a surprise to the reader.

One of the most interesting things about the novel was how the smaller the places they went to got, the more the circus disintegrated. In London, there doesn't seem to be much wrong at all. The whole circus company is there and well. but as the story progresses to St. Petersburg and Siberia, the circus begins rapidly losing members of its company, from clowns to tigers to elephants to dogs. The significance of the animals is fascinating as well - they have thoughts and feelings in an almost human-like way. The female tiger is so jealous of her mate dancing with Mignon that she attacks. With Sybil the pig, it is at times easy to forget she isn't human. The elephants work to put the fire out with their trunks. The animals are almost as human as the humans. Throughout the whole novel, there is a strange lack of separation between animals and humans. Fevvers is half human and half bird, which ties the animals and the humans together. The animals are quite human-like, while the humans, at times, become quite animalistic, like Walser after he loses his memory.

Nights at the Circus 3/21/12

The juxtaposition between art and cheap commercialism in both Nights and Money hinges around prostitution. The art in Money is the movie, the books, and the real relationships. The cheap commercialism is the prostitution, the deception, and the money. In Nights, the art is Fevvers, her presentation of her life, and the Circus. The cheap commercialism here is the "prostitution" (though she is the "virgin whore"), and Gain, the money, though there is a far lesser focus on it in Nights than in Money. In Nights, it's more about image and respect than money itself. The prostitution is the line between the art and the commercialism in both situations. The prostitution is both part of the art and the means for the money. In Money, sex is a controversial topic amongst the actors in the movie. Vron sees her work as art. There are sex tapes, sexual performances, and sexual publications. The sex fuels the movie, which in turn, should create money (though this is thwarted by Fielding). Self also loses money to prostitution. In Nights, Fevvers' body and abilities are her art. She is paid for them, but never touched, thus making her the "virgin whore." Like Vron and many others in Money, her body is her art and also her means of money, though in a slightly different way. The contrast and similarities between art and cheap commercialism in these books is interestingly similar despite the stories being quite different.

Nights at the Circus 3/19/12

The allusions to Shakespeare in the London section of Nights at the Circus are many and varied. Though not all are direct, they bring Shakespeare to the reader's mind. They begin on page 33: "'Midsummer,' said Lizzie. 'Either Midsummer's Night, or else very early on Midsummer Morning.'" This is, of course, reminiscent of A Midsummer Night's Dream, both because of the word choice and because the time between the time periods stated (night and morning) is the time most closely associated with dreams. Shakespeare's story is about fairies, which is also reminiscent of Nights at the Circus, because of Fevvers' fairy-like qualities and the magical aspects of the stories. Four pages later, on page 37, Fevvers' sword is referred to as "her wand, like Prospero's." this brings Shakespeare's The Tempest in as well, again relating to Nights because of its magical content. The audience is reminded of The Tempest again on page 43, where Fevvers' voice is referred to as "a voice made for shouting about the tempest." The language here seems deliberate - another word, such as "storm" could have been used. On page 53, Fevvers directly mentions Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and how they wept at it. On 62, she says, "Then the old hag herself comes tottering down the cellar like Lady MacBeth," which is, of course, a reference to MacBeth. On page 70, she says, "like Hamlet, I would think: 'What a wonderful piece of work is man!'" The character Christian Rosencreutz brings to mind Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of Hamlet, but is more similar to 17th century founder of the Rosicrucian Order, Christian Rosenkreuz. Shakespeare obviously carries some importance both to the novel and to Carter.

There are also many allusions that are reminiscent of familiar fairy tales, namely Snow White and Cinderella (with the clocks at midnight).

Money 3/7/12

The end of the story - with everyone actually using Self's money - was fairly surprising. Amis portrayed Fielding the entire book as someone trustworthy and fairly likable. Even Self had "probably been deeply in love with Fielding from the moment [they] met" (301). It was only mildly suspicious that he kept encouraging Self to spend money. But Fielding was an actor, an artist. "They were all actors," says Martin Amis the character (332). Even the actors were actors, funnily enough. Maybe the Shakespeare throughout was hinting at this. Many events were certainly dramatic and theatrical enough. But even looking back, I don't feel it was all that obvious. Perhaps reading it again, I'd see clues I missed.

The Shakespeare bits were interesting in and of themselves. I particularly found it fascinating that Barry Self owns the Shakespeare. He's like Claudius (of Hamlet) - the not the father father figure. He, as we later learn, is not John Self's father, but has acted as if he were (once again, with the acting). Like Claudius, he is manipulative. He owes Self money, but manages to avoid paying him (through manipulation). In a way, Self himself is like Hamlet - a sad, sometimes mad person who has been tricked. However, he does not get his revenge, but nor does he die.

In terms of how acting relates to the themes of Money - acting gets you money. Some just do it differently than others.

Money 3/5/12

"Amis uses the 'four distinct voices' of Self's internal dialogue (money, pornography, aging and weather, thought and fascination) to encapsulate both the enticements and the destructive effects of his character's immersion within a commodified and consumerist culture" (Begley 86).

This sentence immediately stood out from the article to me. First, the specification of Self's "voices" is interesting. These things - money, pornography, aging and weather, thought and fascination - are certainly interests of his, particularly money and pornography, but to call them voices is different. However, it makes sense. His voice does differ as he talks about these different things, and they all make up different parts of his personality. When he talks about money, he gets repetitive, as if to emphasize its importance. There is an energy when he talks about money that isn't otherwise present. When talking about pornography, he assumes almost a business-like tone. This is perhaps due to his troubles in this area - it almost becomes a chore. Aging and weather are almost just passing thoughts, but strangely consuming passing thoughts. References to him being "middle aged" are frequent, and he quite often talks about the weather as well. Thought and fascination are often sad topics for Self - he doesn't like not knowing.

The second part of the sentence, "...to encapsulate both the enticements and the destructive effects of his character's immersion within a commodified and consumerist culture" is extremely accurate. These voices are, quite successfully, used to demonstrate both the enticements and the consequences of these enticements. They show Self's downward progression, as well as just how important material things and pleasure are to him.

Money 2/29/12

Sorry about the crappy picture, but I didn't want to type the whole page! It's page 175.

This whole page is funny. It's a drunk funny, and also a sad funny. It is exaggerated, absurd, and farcical. The exaggerated-ness presumably comes from Self's drunkenness. The absurdity and farce is quite present - the things he does while drunk are absolutely ridiculous. The things he says are ridiculous. John Self is himself ridiculous.

I feel that Amis disagrees with the Roman view of humor (according to the article we read). His humor (as much modern humor is) is offensive, obscene, and arrogant. Self's drunkenness is funny but publicly inappropriate, and his behavior due to his drunkenness is funny but inappropriate as well. Much of his behavior is offensive to both specific characters and to particular groups of people outside the book. Much of it, due to the pornographic elements of the book, is obscene as well. But regardless, it's funny, and very much in keeping with the character Amis is portraying.

This scene is also humorous relief from the awkward previous scene in which Self and Lorne meet. It removes the tension and allows the reader a break from the seriousness of other parts of the books.

Money 2/27/12

"The car and I crawled cursing up the street to my flat. You just cannot park round here anymore. Even on a Sunday afternoon you just cannot park round here anymore. You can doublepark on people: people can doublepark on you. Cars are doubling while houses are halving. Houses divide, into two, into four, into sixteen. If a landlord or developer comes across a decent-sized room he turns it into a labyrinth, a Chinese puzzle. The bell-button grills in the flakey porches look like the dashboards of ancient spaceships. Rooms divide, rooms multiply. Houses split - houses are tripleparked. People are doubling also, dividing, splitting. In double trouble we split our losses. No wonder we're bouncing off the walls" (64).

In terms of plot, this passage is indistinct. In terms of Martin Amis' voice, it is extremely telling. It is basically an entire figurative paragraph. It begins with personification. Cars, of course, cannot crawl or curse. The second and third sentences demonstrate repetition, which emphasizes John Self's statement. The rest of the paragraph is figurative as well - houses do not literally halve, divide, into multiple other houses. Landlords and developers may, in fact, restructure their buildings, but they don't actually make them into labyrinths or Chinese mazes. "The bell-button grills in the flakey porches look like the dashboards of ancient spaceships" is a simile, comparing the bell-button grills in the flakey porches to the dashboards. Rooms do not literally divide or multiply as he implies. Houses cannot park. People cannot divide or split. This language is extremely figurative, and does a marvelous job of creating a mental image not unlike that of cells dividing and multiplying. It's a very biological image and works well to portray what Amis presumably means.

This paragraph is also incredibly demonstrative of Amis' writing style in this work. So many things in Money are repetitive and figurative. Self is constantly comparing things and repeating several subjects - money, pornography, drinking, Selina, etc. the paragraph also demonstrates the casual tone Amis uses to create Self. Sentences are generally short and blunt, and very in keeping with Self's projected personality.

This paragraph also demonstrates how much Amis uses hyperbole. He exaggerates a lot of things for dramatic effect - from crawling up the street to not being able to park anymore. In all likelihood, he was probably going a normal speed up the street, and despite it being challenging, it is probably possible to park. Houses don't actually divide into sixteen residences. It's all exaggerated, as much of the writing in the novel is.

Money 2/22/12

In Martin Amis's Money, the main character is hard for me to relate to. I'm sure some people are able to relate to him, but probably not most. To him, everything is about girls (one in particular, but also less specifically), drinking, and money. Especially money. Though one might suspect the importance of money in this book because of the title, I was nevertheless surprised by just how much it showed up. He isn't a terribly likable man - he has bad habits and problems. It's hard to understand him and why he is the way he is and why he does the things he does.

Amis is sort of a dark cloud over the whole book. He makes the places and characters what they are, and gives them the dingy, slightly ominous feeling they have. This is New York, but it isn't the New York I know. Amis makes the book into John Self's New York - a place very distinct from the real New York, but New York nonetheless. These aren't the parts of New York you see unless you're looking for them.

"In the end I had ample time for my farewell to New York. First off, I gave Felix a fifty. He seemed strangely agitated or concerned and for some reason kept trying to make me lie down on the bed. But he was pleased, I hope, by the dough. I love giving money away. If you were here now, I'd probably slip you some cash, twenty, thirty, maybe more. How much do you want? What are you having? What would you give me, sister, brother? Would you put an arm round my shoulder and tell me I as your kind of guy? I'd pay. I'd give you good money for it." Pg 48

In this passage, Amis does something strange and off putting. John Self goes from narrating to immediately addressing the audience. It puts the reader in a strange position, going from simply being told and comprehending what is happening to having to actually think about and potentially produce an answer. This passage also demonstrates both Self's and Amis' casual tone. Words like "dough" and "cash" give the narration a particular feel, as does addressing the audience directly. This feeling quite clearly defines Amis' work.

Crash movie

The movie Crash is a fairly good representation of the novel by J.G. Ballard. There are parts that are surprising, even apart from the obvious and necessary differences that are inevitable when changing a written work into a visual one. My first indication of the differences between movie and book was the realization that the characters were driving on the left side of the car. This led me to realize that their accents were not British. Following this, I noticed that their license plates were Canadian. The setting of the novel is so important and distinct that the shift from London to Canada was quite obvious and a bit unsettling. Why Canada? How much more difficult would it have been to find British actors and film in England? While the movie is an "adaptation," and as such, is subject to changes, this is a crucial part of the original story that should have remained intact. That said, the more specific locations were portrayed extremely well and what seemed like in keeping with the book. The road settings were similar to how they were described in the book, and Seagrave's home was as unclean and unsophisticated as I imagined. The hospital ward was as I had pictured, as was the apartment. The attention to detail in these settings, while changing the location of the book, was interesting. It was also fascinating that the film was actually less graphic than the book. This is particularly interesting because the movie is visual, while the book is only words. Ballard's descriptions of the sexual acts in the book were far more detailed and descriptive than the visual counterpart. While probably better for finding an audience, this drastically changed the movie from the book.

Crash 2/13/12

Even after reading and contemplating Crash, I still have very little idea of what Ballard's intent was with this novel. His world, while realistic in the sense that there aren't any dragons or people with magical powers, turns everything we, in the real world, know upside down. Crash is everything not normal, everything extreme, everything not "morally right" (by whatever definition). It's uncomfortable and unrealistic, but somehow, he makes it seem real. Because it is so absurd, it is hard to tell whether Ballard has written this book for a similar reason to Swift writing A Modest Proposal, or if there is some message hidden behind it. Is it a message on modern human reliance on technology for happiness and entertainment? Is it a comment on the pursuit of sexual pleasure? Whatever his intent, it is not explicitly stated (despite the book being rather explicit...).

Ballard style imitation

He watched her. The way her feet fell softly, heel to toe. The way her hair moved as she walked, each hair touching others with an almost imperceptible sound. The way her dress was just a little too long in the back. Irritating. So irritating. He took a step after her.

He could hear the sounds of his sneakers on the pavement - the squeak of the rubber and the crunching of tiny stones and grit. He wondered briefly if she could hear it too. Decided she couldn't. He watched her walk as he followed, her weight falling slightly more heavily on her right leg. She looked unconcerned. Oblivious. Perfect. It was all perfect. He followed.

Crash 2/8/12

The relationship between Vaughan, Ballard, and Catherine has grown deeper and more complex. Catherine is deeply interested in Vaughan, and Ballard's interest in Vaughan continues to grow. While both Ballard and Catherine are interested in and attracted to Vaughan, the reader is left to wonder a bit to what extent Vaughan feels the same about them. Clearly, from Vaughan and Catherine's experience in the car wash, he is at least somewhat interested in her. But will Ballard get what he wants, and have a sexual encounter with Vaughan? Does Vaughan have any interest in that?

Imitation of Ballard's voice:

He watched her. The way her feet fell softly, heel to toe. The way her hair moved as she walked, each hair touching others with an almost imperceptible sound. The way her dress was just a little too long in the back. Irritating. So irritating. He took a step after her.

Crash and Menippean Satire

The repetition of and emphasis on Ballard's accident is interesting. This alone clearly demonstrates the obsessive nature of both Ballard and the novel. The scene - both the physical place and the event itself - are very important to Ballard. He revisits this scene over and over, and goes so far as to involve other people in his fantasies about it. He drives past the scene of the accident time after time and derives some strange sort of pleasure from it. This particular crash seems more important to him than crashes in general. He gets the exact same car after his is wrecked, goes to visit his totaled car, starts a relationship with the woman whose husband he killed in the crash, and, of course, revisits over and over the place the crash occurred. The idea of negative theology is interesting as well. Though the concept is fascinating, I've had a hard time directly relating it to Crash. What is the belief that is absent, that suggests an unnamable belief? 

Crash 2/1/12

I feel like the physical location of Crash is trivial. It could take place almost anywhere in the world and have the same effect. Its location is not even distinct - the airport isn't referred to by its name, it is just "the airport," and other details of location are left out as well. The primary location seems to be in the narrator's head. The story thus far is essentially just his thoughts, perceptions, and feelings, thus taking place in his mind despite outside figures and occurrences. The other characters are not particularly important. It is all about the narrator. I suppose in a way, this is true of any story with a single narrator - the story is that person's view and that person's world and the experiences of that person. However, in most other stories, outside events and people play a bigger role. This is not a physical location, but rather, Ballard's world. Whether it is Ballard's or his character James Ballard's is subject to some debate. To an extent, it's both.

Nabokov and Bakhtin 1/30/12

Cut up:

He's a vet tech, a "side vet," he calls it.
He lives next to, but not in, the egghead condominiums,
The ones with the shiny white tops.
His speech has a sort of glossy syntax.
He is avid about criminal amateur disgression voting.
Whatever that is.
Awkward engineer, priest pinging,
That's his replacement major.
He has a fear of bugs and shelves, his "maggoty shelf fear."
When he sees bugs or shelves, the floor seems to vanish, a waning floor.
In an attempt to cure his fear, he visits Sheen Church.
He has a ripple relation, hallelujah.
What?

Natasha:

In Natasha, the line between reality and fantasy is blurred. It is unclear what is distinctly there, what is implied, and what doesn't exist. Natasha's strange feelings/visions add to this greatly. The end is fairly abrupt and unresolved - Wolfe admits he loves her then vanishes, then she thinks she sees her father outside but he is in bed and has died. What happens with Wolfe? What happened to her father?

There are other unanswered questions as well. Why was Natasha's father ill? How long had he been ill? What is the family's relationship to Mr. Wolfe? How old is Natasha? Why is her age distinctly undefined?

The whole story has a fairly unsettled feeling about it. The fact that so many things are so unclear adds to that unsettled feeling.

Bakhtin:

Bakhtin's ideas of polyphony and dialogism apply quite clearly to both Natasha and the excerpts from Burroughs. In Natasha, the parts of Natasha, her father, and Wolfe are all equally important both in their presence and in their effect on the telling of the story. So many things are left out or left to be interpreted, but what is present is provided by three points of view, but still in third person. There is no primary, despite what the title of the work might suggest. Burroughs' work is similar in that it has multiple characters who are important to the telling of the story. His work goes so far as to place parts of the dialog in a play-like structure with the character listed in capital letters before his or her speech.

Bakhtin questions:

What are the specific differences, if any, between polyphony and dialogism? It seems that Bakhtin uses both as an opposite to monologism.

Burroughs 1/25/12

Seeing part of Burroughs' personality (in the interview) and comparing it to small parts of his work is fascinating. Though both the interview and excerpts from his work were brief, it was immediately clear that they ere of the same person. The way he is (or seems to be) is the way he writes. He seems somewhat scattered, yet still intentional, like his cut-up work. His cut up work was also interesting - not easy to comprehend, but clearly done the way it is for a reason, or for no reason at all.

I decided to try a cut-up poem from a page of the book I'm reading now - American Gods by Neil Gaiman.

Grim, as many titles as there are ways to die.
Drown that whisper.
Beach of skulls tasting the sounds,
Believe everything.
Ghostly-grey, somewhere deep beneath the world,
Drown that whisper, "Odin."
"Odin."
It would have been warmer there.

The way the same words can make several completely different things is an amazing concept. Here is the page from which the words were taken: