Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear,
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.'
-Caesar, Act 2 Scene 2, Line 32-36. 'The Tragedy of Julius Caesar'- William Shakespeare.
-
Chem practical comes in two weeks. Less even. (shrugs) Meanwhile I just realized that I have less than a months worth left of Literature classes left- after November, it'll all be over and I'll be back to having just Bio, Chem and Math to worry about. All things considered, despite the marginally smaller amount of 'fun' (if you can measure such a thing) we have with Rachael compared to when Fellender was around, I think I'm still going to miss it. Literature class was a hobby with Fellender- with Rachael, it's a science. And I don't mean that in a 'groan' kind of way. It's actually all very interesting. There are so much more dimensions to the play 'Julius Caesar' than there are at first glance. Reading Harold Bloom (a lit critic)'s essay on the ambivalence and ambiguity of Julius Caesar, given to us by Rachael as food for thought, I can't help but wish desperately for a chance to reach that level of power- that level of skill. Shakespeare wasn't just a good poet and playwright- he was a genius, almost a philosopher or psychologist in a sense when you think about the characters he portrays, why they are the way they are, what they are to begin with. It's like a story that can be told a million times, and you still won't see who's the villain, who's the hero, who won or who lost.
Which is why I'm going to miss discussing it in class. (sigh) Ah well, there's always Noreen and Farah and drinks at the cafe. I just wonder if, without someone to guide us, someone who knows the ropes, I wonder if it'll reach that level of depth, y'know? (I could sit and chat with Rachael about 'The Secret History' for hours, debating with her about the significance of (spoiler) Henry's death. And why it wasn't out of character.)
When I started writing a long time ago, I was pretending to be deep. Now that I've delved into this subject, I can't help but feel that: 'Hey, this is a cool book.' or '(insert name here) was an awesome character.' or 'Didja remember when he (insert event here)? That was just- SO, heartstopping!' - I just get the feeling that it won't be enough anymore. I want to people to frequently challenge and debate with me on what makes a good book good, what drives these characters to do what they did, what was the author trying to say?
Some people say overanalyzing something takes the beauty out of things. I believe otherwise. I believe that to transcend and grasp the meaning of a story is just as important as enjoying it. And when you pick up a book for a second time- it's not nescesarrily just because it feels right, it's because you're trying to learn something, see something from an angle which you may not have considered the first time around. Few stories are that multi-dimensional without having to have fanboys speculating and adding their own (preposterous) layers. These stories are what I call GREAT Literature. It's not just about the good time- any five-year old can pick up a book and enjoy it. I believe that these stories are secret codes waiting to be unlocked- a skill that requires not the casual word 'depth', but rather the willingness to challenge your own beliefs, and the curiosity that drives you to find out more than what you're given on the surface.
No, I'm not saying 'there are idiots who shouldn't be allowed to read them', because 'idiot' is the wrong term to use. The words 'smart' and 'dumb/idiot' are used to measure intelligence (which is, technically, not possible). The word I'd use to describe a literature analyst is 'intellecutal'. Not because he knows more, but because he is willing to ask questions and 'look beyond what he sees'. And at the same time, he is open to (and excited by) the thought of defending his ideas and/or accepting the ideas from others- an exchange of thoughts through a debate.
And really, when you can elevate yourself to that level... there's a certain rush to it. You'll realize then, that everyone else are just plebs. Sheep.
Of course, being 'intellectual', having the faculty of wonder, means nothing if you can't learn when to STOP questioning as well and just digest which, unfortunately, is what most education systems stand for, at least at school levels. Once you're in university, it's (supposed to be) a whole new ball game. That's when you're mostly left to your own devices, encouraged to explore certain avenues on your own. This is where the ones who are more inclined to being spoonfed and having things served to them, crash and burn.
No, after this long rant, I'm not going to say, 'be an intellectual, like me!' because to start with, I don't think I am. I'm just as much an Epicurean as I am a Stoic. And secondly, money's always an alternative shortcut to making you get what you want as well as making you seem...anything, actually. We judge so much on looks that you can actually 'buy' a deep look or personality. Thanks again, to the lack of proper definition of the word 'deep'.
And let's not forget that being 'intellectual' can make it hard for people to connect with you. (no, it's not just an excuse that nerds make up) Case in point- Brutus, God rest his soul.
Now what was the point of this rant again? Ah, yes- in that sense this college is possibly the best thing that happened to me. I learn new things (in a non-academic sense) every single day through the arguments and discussions I have in places like Literature class or with stubborn yet knowledgeable people like Feera, Nadia and Shahrin. I'll admit that I didn't really enjoy being wrong when I first came here. In school no one really did want to argue with me considering I'd be doing it in English and they'd be doing it in Malay, assuming any of them wanted to argue to begin with. Like I said- plebs. Simple-minded people who derive pleasure out of simple things. It's not wrong to be a pleb either- at least you're happy, right?
I'm starting to get carried away, so I think I'll stop.
(stretches. yawns.)
7 comments:
So many big words thrown about so casually, so many personal opinions being passed off a bit strongly, although done in a tastefully diplomatical manner - what you say here somewhat applies to what I feel about music: I can't exactly criticize or say what makes so and so bands better, but I like the exploring. Going from one band to the other, trying out new albums just to see how it'd stick to you, and if it does, see how well it sticks and which parts do... really, it's exciting. I'm mostly passionate about the exploring; I'm not sure I entirely am about the individual entities themselves.
Also, I have somethng to ask you, and this is out of personal curiosity, what if a person likes the exploring of books, its themes and motifs, its hidden meanings but can never articulate how they exactly feel about them? Does that make them plebs too, for their inability of engaging in "intellectual" discussion? And even if they are interested in the themes, those hidden meanings, what if they only take a passing interest in them? Does that make them a non-appreciator of art/literature?
I, for one, believe that it doesn't - but that's my opinion; I'm interested in seeing yours.
Again, I shall say, great literature should be for everyone; and adding to that statement, I shall say that it's up to the reader how far he/she wants to delve into the book, regardless of whether he/she is an intellectual.
(By the way, let's discuss this in a civil manner; I don't want to see a repeat of the comments on my blog post about HDM.)
"What if a person likes the exploring of books, its themes and motifs, its hidden meanings but can never articulate how they exactly feel about them?"
To base this argument on philosophy (I'm not sure if it's Heraclites or some other Grecian dead guy anymore), we have to go back to the meaning of the word 'truth'. Without the aid of language or societal imprints, the understanding of something is nonexistant. Truth is a matter of perception, yes, but it doesn't exist unless it is presentable to the human senses- case in point here is how a person isn't able to articulate his or her ideas into a presentable form regarding, as you said the themes/motifs of a story. Without the proper words/language for identifying these basic components of a story, those components simply don't exist to them. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by 'can't articulate exactly how they feel about it'. But either way, the gist of this idea is, if you're not familiar with at least the basic theories of understanding literature (which, those of us who passed through school should have assuming they paid attention in class- even then, a larger proportion of them couldn't care less about it, and then it becomes knowledge gone to waste), those ideas won't exist in your mind when you're consuming what the author is trying to convey. You can't find something you don't know you're looking for- and if they can understand it, but can't project their thoughts verbally- again that's knowledge gone to waste. So yes, I guess they are plebs.
"And even if they are interested in the themes, those hidden meanings, what if they only take a passing interest in them? Does that make them a non-appreciator of art/literature?"
'Passing interest' is a vague term, but if you mean that they get slightly intrigued by it, but don't give it much thought, then they really won't be able to grasp as much as they should- well I'm not too sure about this. They're either people capable of appreciating literature (but they're just crap at it) or they're people who have the capacity to delve, but they choose not to- putting them a notch even lower. Saying 'I'm a good football player' doesn't mean much unless you use those skills and prove it. I believe that so-called 'silent humility' would cause such skills to deteriorate, and that brings you back to being a pleb.
Say you're back in Matriks, and you don't have any friends who speak English with you. Say there's this guy there who CAN speak, better than you possibly, and yet he chooses not to because he wants to keep his circle of friends. It's not a wrong choice, but because he hides his ability, no one will know it's there, and so, it more or less doesn't exist. Maybe he can do it when he's at home, maybe he was a debater in school, but because in the reality that you perceive, he doesn't speak Malay, then he simply doesn't. Yes, I am limiting this to a first person dimension, but if a person show that they can't keep up with me when I turn into a lit critic, I just assume they're plebs. Maybe they do understand- but really I can't just give a rat's ass. I have better things to do with my time than trying to dig out the other party's intellectual side and make it come out into the open.
For a better example, you were to try and talk about programming stuff to me. Judging by the blurred look on my face, you'd automatically assume that I know jack about programming. Sure you'd try to express your points in layman's terms so I can understand, but that means you had to go down a few notches for me to keep up- in the programming context- I'm the pleb. But for all you know I might know some bits and pieces, I might have a passing interest, though I can't express it because I don't know the lingo. Does it matter? For all intents and purposes, you'd percieve me as a pleb. Whether you decide that your time is worth spent teaching me is up to you entirely, but at that moment in time, I would be a pleb.
And even then, if you wanted to teach me, it's not necesarrily a hole I can dig out of. There are so many other factors to consider, part of which is, as I mentioned in my post is the faculty of wonder, the willingness to question (which should not be confused with the willingness to LEARN). If I'm the kind who learns without asking or arguing, then the end result is me understanding programming, but only on the same plane as you. So I'm still a pleb- I just have smart words put in my mouth by another person.
I am admittedly reserved in this whole 'sharing' matter. I'm a purist. While it really won't harm me if everyone suddenly liked HDM, what would annoy me is the thought of it being 'another cool story' for a lot of people when their lack of willingness or interest to delve makes them 'unworthy' (I am judging. So this is my personal opinion) of holding something so...exalted. HDM is just worth studying and delving into- if you're just looking for a good time, if you're a book lover, then go pick up something else.
In the meantime they'd just be monkeys holding phasers.
(when I was in boarding school a certain person who I shall admit, I don't like very much- asked me what novels I liked. When I said 'Animal Farm', the person's eyes lit up and he said 'I like Animal Farm too! The animals were cute and hillarious! I thought you read thicker, 'smarter' books.' (I'm paraphrasing here) 'Animal Farm IS smart. It's satire at it's best,' I told him. In response he said,'Nah, Harry Potter's much better. The issues are deeper and darker! Animal Farm is more like something for children!')
To ridicule Animal Farm was one thing. Even if he had decided that Animal Farm was a deeper book than he originally gave it credit for, that would give him grounds to think he's reading on the same wavelength as I am. (and really, the last thing I want is a conventional Malay daring to think that he can resonate on a same scale as me when it comes to English literature.)
Now that I'm thinking about this guy again, I'm beginning to wonder why I left boarding school without killing him. >.< Ah well. He's on the death list.
Ah yes, when you said 'big words' did you mean 'plebs' and 'sheep'? Pardon my bluntness- it's not a word I'd use verbally in front of people, hence well, them appearing in a blog.
Interesting point of view; I especially like the programming analogy: I suppose it's true, without the ability to articulate, knowledge is not being shared, and maybe going to waste. Perhaps, perhaps. But that's the first-person observation, which makes it a personal opinion (which you stated and which I asked for) but that's what blogs are for, I suppose.
And yeah, big words, thrown about, those and a few others. An interesting post, and thanks for responding to my comment the way you did.
I may disagree, but I can't bring any point to argue for my side (I guess that makes me a pleb!) and so, I won't explicitly say that I vehemently disagree, or anything of that extreme. I suppose I just have some issues with the word "pleb" and "sheep".
Still, thank you for responding.
P.S.: Kill that guy who said Animal Farm is for kids; he doesn't know what he's dealing with. George Orwell is a master.
I second Kai's request. His brains must've been stuffed with slugs when he read Animal Farm.
power to the people! the proletariat must rule! it doesn't matter that plebs are idiots, so many of em are in power, that there must be something to this. plebs rule!
*goose-steps in the streets to the sound of Bolshevik marches*
oh, and yes. kill the dude. who did he think george orwell was, enid blyton?
Post a Comment