Two notes.
1) Contrary to what I said in class, you don't need to bring your bibles tomorrow. If I really want to bring a short passage in for discussion, I'll copy it.
2) I'm still looking for people who wanted to be workshopped. If you have a draft you'd like to see us discuss, either send me a copy (if you've been revising) or a link to the original.
The third chapter in "the Genesis of Secrecy" provided me with insight on our pressing need to interpret, or find "meanings". Kermode suggests that our need to arrive upon logical interpretations is due to the fact that "we are in love with the idea of fulfillment" (65). I agree with Kermode because while reading the infamous "Moby Dick" I felt burdened whenever I couldn't piece together logical interpretations. After reading Kermode's third chapter, I am beginning to wonder if several parts in "Moby Dick" actually had a "meaning" at all. Could it be that our interpretations were due to our need to piece together the puzzle? Is it possible that "Moby Dick" had no "meaning" at all, were we searching for something that wasn't there?
ReplyDeleteKermode’s third chapter “Man in the Macintosh, Boy in the Shirt” left me confused as to who the Man in the Macintosh exactly was. Kermode makes many references to religious characters in this chapter but not as much as in the previous two. So then is he some sort of biblical figure? Or does he not even really exist at all? One thing that made me curious was what exactly a “Macintosh” is, aside from an apple or a computer system. The dictionary defines a Macintosh as a waterproof raincoat made of rubberized cloth. When I realized this, I started to picture the Man in the Macintosh as a mysterious, detective-type of man, but I have no idea really. For all I know I could be completely off on that. I seemed to grasp the “Boy in the Shirt” better than the “Man in the Macintosh.” While I feel as if I somewhat understand the boy, I am basically dumbfounded as to who or what the man is.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of the same thing as Tamara when it came to Genesis. I found myself nodding when reading certain lines of Kermode like, "We come to rest somewhere in the end, for the incoherence of the evidence can induce real anxiety". Many readers, including myself, try to find how things fit together or their meaning. I get very frustrated when I don't understand the purpose or underlying meaning of certain events or characters. Many times, I have to put down what I'm reading and walk away. I keep asking myself whether some things are possibly meaningful or just random. But, I never know which one it is, and this is what makes it so frustrating!
ReplyDeleteOn page 42 of Benito Cereno, I really enjoyed the quote "nothing more relaxes good order than misery." When you think of it, it is completey true. That the misery of the person takes over to the point that the person is so depressed and without hope so that all they can do is cooperate to what is expected of them. I also liked throughout the story how there was a lot of comparison and contrast between blacks and whites. I liked how it was shown how the blacks upheld the whites, because you don't normally see that in historical context. Another thing that made this story interesting is how barbaric the people are. The fist time this was shown that gave an insight to Don Benito's crew was when one young boy just randomly killed another boy as if it was a game.
ReplyDeleteI actually enjoyed the plot of Benito Cereno, though it did move a little slow. The last line, "Benito Cereno, borne on the bier, did, indeed, follow his leader" really interested me. Right before that we are told that Cereno was buried at the same church as his leader, Arando. Hence the whole "followed his leader" sentiment at the end. However, right before we are told where Arando was buried, we are told how Babo was killed for his crimes. This reminds us that Babo was also Cereno's leader for a good portion of the voyage. The timing of these two facts makes me think Melville wants us to consider who was Cereno's true leader? And if Melville wants us to consider Babo as Cereno's leader what statement does that make about slavery?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "Benito Cereno", I was perplexed by the web of morals surrounding the conflict between the black slaves and Latin/white sailors - I couldn't tell which side I sympathized with. This was definitely not a simple story of good versus evil, as I would imagine many people might have taken it in the late 19th century.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, the slave revolt was bloody and brutal, the blacks' treatment of their newly-found slaves was awful, and the scheme to trick Delano and raid his ship is nefarious. The white sailors, on the other hand, are described as looking pitiful, getting pushed around, and being under the full control of the blacks. Perhaps Melville meant to reverse these roles in order to show the counter-productivity of slavery, but if this was the case, why would he describe the blacks as such conniving and ruthless people? I think the point of this was to show what effects racism has on a people – the horrible treatment the blacks received gave them enough incentive to counter-attack the whites in an even more brutal way. This horrible treatment, in turn, yielded a counter-counter-attack on the blacks by Delano’s crew.
If this was the moral Melville was hoping to create, then I would criticize this story for not adding more reason to empathize for the black slaves – perhaps with a description of how they were treated in the past or their goals to simply be free men. This lack of description really makes me wonder if this short-story is truly about the negatives of slavery or about the extreme extent of human behavior. Do you guys think the lack of character development for the slaves was omitted on purpose?
First off, I wish Kermode and Melville had read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"! (2 things: 1. Does the ! belong inside or out of the quotation there and 2. How many times have we read the "not un-" conjunction this week!)
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note, I was also sort of disturbed by this chapter of Kermode. How do we know where to look for meaning or if there is none at all; are all of our attempts to assign meaning in vain? How are we supposed to know? Yet, he still offers ample interpretations of Mark and Joyce, so obviously this interpretation and assignment of meaning serves some purpose. I guess I'm just confused as to why he's leading us through this questioning of the whole act of interpretation. Granted, it's important to understand why we do it and why we should continue, but I don't yet see him explaining that side. Hopefully more of the necessity comes later, but we shall see...
I'm not sure where to start with Benito Cereno. He makes many references to animals throughout the text, such as the negress "doe" and her "wide-awake fawn" (63). The negresses are also "unsophisticated as leopardesses, loving as doves" (63). This one struck me; leopards are fierce, but I would not use them in a comparison of the sophisticate. And doves are the bird of peace, but does that necessarily mean they are loving. When I imagine a dove, it is a solitary image of calm flight with a noble air rather than an affectionate pair or group. I would like to look more into this imagery later, but for now I would like to discuss another. On p. 70 Melville writes, "[the negros] squatting on old mats below, or perched above in the dark dome on the elevates seats, were descried, some distance within, like a social circle of bats sheltering in some friendly cave, at intervals, ebon flights of naked boys and girls three or four years old darting in and out of the dens mouth." Melville plays with us throughout the entire story; we know from the beginning that something very strange is happening aboard San Dominick, but we cannot place the responsibility for this ominous air — is it the maddened captain, the humble servant or the liberated crew that cause the uneasiness? He continues to play with us. It is near this point (of the bat imagery) that I began to understand that the captain seemed likely innocent. Bats are a dark creature of the night; they are fear-inducing likely due to their particularly inhumane features; they sleep upside-down, hunt in the night, and fly with angular wings that starkly contrast the curvatures in the human form; they allude to evil. There are many more animal images in the novel, such as the Newfoundland dog (which interesting describes both the San Dominick and the "genial" way Captain Delano "took to Negroes." Those descriptions produce (or predict) an unfolding of the plot that is in constant conflict between good and evil, trust/relief and ominous peculiarity.
While reading this chapter of Kermode I could not help but thinking that Moby-Dick is a perfect example of what he was saying about the gospels and Joyces book. I'm sure this was a conection we were supposed to make and a big reason that we are reading Kremode after Moby-Dick but I thought it was worth being metioned. Also, I would like a little further explaination of this Clement guy and his involvement in the gospels. Kermode referred to something as the gospel of Clement but why have I never heard of this and why is not talked about with Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark? Basically does Tolken have a character to represent Clement's Jesus? Does Clement even have different Jesus then the others?
ReplyDeleteI found the novella Benito Cereno to be actually pretty interesting. It was definitely a change of pace from Moby Dick but I could still clearly see Melville's style show through. Although I felt some parts moved a bit slowly, overall the plot was intriguing. The story seemed very real and unfiltered, revealing a first hand account of what happened during those times. I found especially interesting the ending where Bobo is executed and his head placed on a pole, Cereno goes mad and eventually dies. Thus ultimately following in Bobo's steps.
ReplyDelete