Voyage, the beginning play of the trilogy The Coast of Utopia by Tom Stoppard is based on philosophical principles and revolutionary ideas from the Romanticism of the nineteenth century. Each character carries on a different element used by the author to recreate love in a family of four daughters awaiting a time to marry. In this particular work of literature, the characters are part of a Russian family where the quick and interchanged dialogue is continuously established. With this revolutionary style of dialogue, a successful picture of a casual family reunion can be described. Being this point the prominent characteristic of the Voyage.
Anyhow it is not only the dialogue that takes part of the essence of this piece for the expressionism of the ideas is clear and dynamic. The pragmatic thought behind the theatre containing the space for these works to take action, has opened the possibility for the freedom of expression. A freedom developed in every line said by each character based on philosophy, but a philosophy based on the strongest emotion, love. In between followers attached to each of the four sisters, match-making initiatives are the base of the context in this first part of the trilogy. For instance, “Stankevich: The philosopher of love Liubov: Yes, she says love is the highest good. Stankevich: Perhaps in France. Kant says, the only good actions are those performed out of a sense of duty, not from emotion . . . like passion or desire. . . Liubov: So to act out of love can never be good? Stankevich: Kant says you cannot take moral credit from it. Because you are really pleasing yourself. Liubov: Even if it gives happiness to another?”(Stoppard 26). In this example of courtship taking place with a philosophical basis. Even though they talk about George Sand, the romantic novelist of the time, it is a good method to bring up a conversation. The female part in this dialogue results being intense and constantly attacking the young teacher with deceiving questions. Theories are based on other thinkers, reflecting the dependent personality of Stankevich to support his own answers. Is it just an element to support his grandiosity? Or does he intend to hide his insecurity with many facts?
Life is a voyage, containing passionate adventures and treasures to desire. This play is based on this idea, searching for the perfect match. The game of love is a main topic in this act, replacing the complicated political opinions that will appear in the next play, Shipwreck.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Meaningless
Act II is the beginning of the end for the troubles of Voinistky, the protagonist of Chekhov´s play Uncle Vanya. It is Helena, the woman, the cause of men´s problems who drives him crazy. Unlike the mythical Pandora´s box, this woman only opens the heart of a poor farmer who only seeks to finish his life in peace. Certainly finish a boring life, but in mortal peace. However, life cannot keep up this slow pace. It is here, in the middle of his empty life where this female character turns his world around. Exasperation reins this second act, filling it with meaningless, fast dialogues that in the end make no difference. Not even the shot makes a difference. Men have no power to change things, only destiny. And destiny has no will of changing them, causing the same emptiness as in the beginning. Humans will always live to die, and life, in the end(if there is an end), is an eternal return. We will always finish where we started.
Troubles of a Russian Guy
Love, desire, emptiness; words that describe the life of a Russian guy that lives to die. The main character of Chekhov’s masterpiece, Uncle Vanya speaks to the deepness of the soul. This play narrates the empty life of Voinistky, a lonely man deprived from love and the actual sense of life. The character revolves around lethargy: his whole life has been spent nurturing a farm that will soon be taken away from him. As most of the other characters, he seems to have lost all hope, to be floating aimlessly in an endless sea of despair and futility. Voinistky is the most obvious demonstration of this hopeless desolation. Moreover, it becomes the structure of the whole play. The character´s emotion can be tracked without any difficulty, getting to analyze the simplicity of the situation. In other words, love denied equals to a harmed heart which will probably drive Voinistky to the climax of emotions. These are the final words of a guy that will live to die in surrendered peace.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
A Simple Life
Should we follow the moral taught by realistic novels like the distinguished piece of literature by Saul Bellow, Seize the Day and the thrilling book by Gustave Flaubert, A Simple Heart? It depends on each one of us, our opinions and ideas, like everything in life revolves around the difference. It is trail and error what life is about. for whom we owe acquiring knowledge and the satisfation to fill our human curiosity. The seeking to seize the day resembles the idea to live the day as if it is your last, but does it really benefit you in any way? Feeling the stress of having to take advantage of this last day must not be very comfortable. And crying for the meaningless life you have lived will not help much either. Tears will dry and will not change anything, only your eyeball color (and your mascara will be ruined). For this same reason we should simply do as our hearts tell us, not our minds. At the end it is easier, but practice is needed. Practice is essential for everything, even subconsciously, like repeating things to yourself, with enough practice you will believe what you are saying. Following karmas can be very useful sometimes, as long as the unnecessary thoughts are wiped away from your mind. This is the key to open up your heart and receive the peace from inside.
Using the heart as a guide is the simplest way to achieve happiness. Like Gustave Flaubert’s A Simple Heart which is a great example, with practice, obstinacy, perseverance and a great amount of faith, a human being can get rid of any obstruction in its path and achieve happiness. For instance Félicité, a woman with an admirable character receives the gift of a simple mind and a devoted heart. Even though she has experienced tremendous disgraces (starting with the loss of all her family), she faithfully persists in the goodness of the people. A remarkable person, getting to die with a smile on her face even though her life was worthless, should never be forgotten. We must seek for happiness to make our lives worth the pain.
Using the heart as a guide is the simplest way to achieve happiness. Like Gustave Flaubert’s A Simple Heart which is a great example, with practice, obstinacy, perseverance and a great amount of faith, a human being can get rid of any obstruction in its path and achieve happiness. For instance Félicité, a woman with an admirable character receives the gift of a simple mind and a devoted heart. Even though she has experienced tremendous disgraces (starting with the loss of all her family), she faithfully persists in the goodness of the people. A remarkable person, getting to die with a smile on her face even though her life was worthless, should never be forgotten. We must seek for happiness to make our lives worth the pain.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Methods to Seize the Day
To be able to seize a day, mastering the feeling of love, nurturing your intelligence, and banishing perturbing memories are some required skills. Without forgetting the most important one, to learn the best way to live life, a skill that can only be taught with experience. A character who is learning this lesson is Wilhelm, a fotry-aged man who I am the most sorry for. Hi life can't be worse, his wife hates him, he doesn't live with his family, he is unemplyed, did not finish school, and his father is well-known and he is a nobody. In one day his whole life is demonstrated through phone calls and memories. the search for the key of a happy life is this the moral and the only opportunity the dead man at the end of the novel has given the character to seize the day. The only opportunity to make the day worth something, at least a tear. Saturation is the word for the amount of shame I feel for Wilhelm, at least he took the opportunity to live life.
Anyway there are so many combined thoughts that it can be summarized with this quote,"I labor, I spend, I strive, I design, I love, I cling, I uphold, I give way, I envy, I long, i scorn, Idie, I hide, I want." (page 111) Usding this tool to represent the worries and troubles of so many people that on that same day are actually experiencing. I would like to emphasize the use of love, just for the reason that this is the strongest feeling humans can experience. Even though this novel talks mainly about one unique character, love is always present. It is there implicitly simbolizing the heart, which does not always love but the opposite as an effect of love. This can be a reason why love is present everywhere except in the novel, The Crying of Lot 49 where sex steals the place of true love. Working, for instance, is an effect of love for your family and for your confort, your social life and finally yourself. Actually these are the reasons to love money, created from labor. In a couple of words, love and money help you live life as good as it can be and it can be done in just one day.
Anyway there are so many combined thoughts that it can be summarized with this quote,"I labor, I spend, I strive, I design, I love, I cling, I uphold, I give way, I envy, I long, i scorn, Idie, I hide, I want." (page 111) Usding this tool to represent the worries and troubles of so many people that on that same day are actually experiencing. I would like to emphasize the use of love, just for the reason that this is the strongest feeling humans can experience. Even though this novel talks mainly about one unique character, love is always present. It is there implicitly simbolizing the heart, which does not always love but the opposite as an effect of love. This can be a reason why love is present everywhere except in the novel, The Crying of Lot 49 where sex steals the place of true love. Working, for instance, is an effect of love for your family and for your confort, your social life and finally yourself. Actually these are the reasons to love money, created from labor. In a couple of words, love and money help you live life as good as it can be and it can be done in just one day.
Try to Seize the Day
Picture yourself in the middle of a crowd walking through 5th avenue as the mob pushes you from side to side. Loitering smells and stirring colors mix in the air. It is here, in the middle of New York City where the novel written by Saul Bellow depicts the daily life of a man facing his own failure. Feelings inside the author gather to create Tommy Wilhelm the unsuccessful actor whose dreams crashed at a certain period of his life. A period marked by ten decisions that changed the course of his life. The worse thing is that these decisions where taken without any kind of supportive ideas or explainable reasons. During this special day he keeps remembering his unwanted past. During this few pages he describes the encounter with Maurice Venice, the first step to Wilhelm's disastrous life. The sensible details of each scene make of this book a close reality of the human heart.
“I was too mature for college.” Can this be called satire against oneself ? This declaration explains the immaturity of the character itself. Falsity, lack of confidence and a great way to hide mistaken decisions, are few of the characteristics of Wilhelm. The main character goes through a period of crisis which his own childhood cannot describe with all his problems, like divorce, unemployment, etc. His desperation turns to indignity and humiliation. Nevertheless he conserves an inner peace with himself. The detail in each memory awakens human emotions. Aimed for the reader's emotions this book becomes a masterpiece of reality.
Profound thinking and questioning take this character to the deepest spot in the human heart it is this that attracts the reader. “Listen, everywhere there are people trying hard, miserable, in trouble, downcast, tired, trying and trying. They need a break, right? A break-through, a help, luck, or sympathy. ‘That certainly is the truth,’ said Wilhelm. ” (page 18). It is this style of phrases that touch the majority of the people, because probably they are experiencing it also. Around the globe people suffer for thousands of reasons, and Bellow finds the best way to summarize it all in just a couple of sentences. There few pages made me feel sorrow for the unlucky things Wilhelm have to overcome for his stupid decisions. In any case, Wilhelm never takes a reasonable decision, it is his fault foe being where he is now. This feeling resembles the movies. I feel so sorry for Venice and even more for Wilhelm although it is a fictional character. I really hope this book will not continue with this fooling of emotions.
“I was too mature for college.” Can this be called satire against oneself ? This declaration explains the immaturity of the character itself. Falsity, lack of confidence and a great way to hide mistaken decisions, are few of the characteristics of Wilhelm. The main character goes through a period of crisis which his own childhood cannot describe with all his problems, like divorce, unemployment, etc. His desperation turns to indignity and humiliation. Nevertheless he conserves an inner peace with himself. The detail in each memory awakens human emotions. Aimed for the reader's emotions this book becomes a masterpiece of reality.
Profound thinking and questioning take this character to the deepest spot in the human heart it is this that attracts the reader. “Listen, everywhere there are people trying hard, miserable, in trouble, downcast, tired, trying and trying. They need a break, right? A break-through, a help, luck, or sympathy. ‘That certainly is the truth,’ said Wilhelm. ” (page 18). It is this style of phrases that touch the majority of the people, because probably they are experiencing it also. Around the globe people suffer for thousands of reasons, and Bellow finds the best way to summarize it all in just a couple of sentences. There few pages made me feel sorrow for the unlucky things Wilhelm have to overcome for his stupid decisions. In any case, Wilhelm never takes a reasonable decision, it is his fault foe being where he is now. This feeling resembles the movies. I feel so sorry for Venice and even more for Wilhelm although it is a fictional character. I really hope this book will not continue with this fooling of emotions.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Breakfast at The New Yorker with George Lois
Retrospectives
Cover Guy
by Nick Paumgarten April 21, 2008
George Lois
The Big Idea at breakfast last week with Mr. Big Idea, the advertising and graphic-design legend George Lois (“I Want My Maypo”; “I Want My MTV”; the world as we know it), was probably “Well, it’s about time.” This was, by his reckoning, and in his words, “the angle of the dangle,” the underlying sentiment, the thing you might put in a blurb. What’s been overdue is high-calibre recognition for his magazine work. Later this month, the Museum of Modern Art will present an exhibition of Lois’s Esquire covers from the sixties, which, though widely celebrated and frequently (if faintheartedly) imitated, have never had the full curatorial treatment. Sonny Liston glowering in a Santa hat, Andy Warhol drowning in a can of soup, Muhammad Ali with arrows, Roy Cohn with halo: these images helped Esquire define a decade that already had a lot of help in getting defined, and created a visual language that people in the media still feel they must learn to understand, if not speak well.
At breakfast, Lois, who is seventy-six, took his time getting around to this particular Big Idea. As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded. A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.
This was at his apartment, in the Village, spacious and filled with tribal art. Lois’s wife, Rosemary, to whom he’s been married for fifty-six years, served the first course, a dollop of sherbet atop a bowl of fresh berries, as he recounted an early art-school epiphany about how an image had better have an idea. “Thank you, girl,” he said, and Rosemary went back to the kitchen. “She’s a piece of work. All my life I’d leave the house at five-thirty to go to work. I needed three hours to myself in the morning, and I never needed much sleep. And she’s up making corn muffins, or whatever. Like, eight of them, so if anyone else was at work early he could have something to eat. She’s the last of the Mohicans.”
So, anyway, where was he? The Army, Korea, CBS, Madison Avenue, and the early days of the “creative revolution,” when art directors like Lois began taking over the ad game from the copywriters. By the time Lois, in this biographical account, got to a 1962 lunch at the Four Seasons (“I was doing their advertising, I saved their ass, too”) with Harold Hayes, the editor of Esquire, Rosemary had appeared with another course: a thin omelette, prosciutto, homemade Greek bread, and a scoop of caviar. (How about a retrospective devoted to the Lois breakfast?)
Hayes was looking for help with his covers. Lois asked Hayes how they did theirs, and Hayes explained a collaborative process involving the magazine’s staff. Lois went on, “And I’m thinking, Holy shit, a group fucking grope. I said, ‘You gotta get one guy, a guy who’s news literate, who reads, who understands the history of art and politics and culture and the movies.’ And I’m trying to think of a name.” Hayes had one in mind already, and so about a week later Lois delivered his first cover, a staged photograph of a Floyd Patterson look-alike flat on his back in a boxing ring, in an empty arena. The image was pegged to a championship bout between Patterson and Liston, which wouldn’t be contested until a week after the magazine came out. “Called the fight,” Lois said. “It took big balls. By the way, those weren’t my big balls. They were Harold Hayes’s.” Liston won, Esquire’s newsstand sales took off, and a ten-year collaboration—a prolonged provocation, really—ensued.
Magazine editors regularly call Lois to tell him that they have produced Lois covers of their own—worthy homages, at least—and his response tends to be “I don’t think so.” In general, he disdains the wan, cluttered magazine covers of today. “They go out and test: Do you like this person? Do you like this blurb? Do you like this blurb better than this blurb? It’s unbelievable. I’d do a cover that would knock your eyeballs out. Whether you liked it or hated it, you knew there was a magazine that was pumping blood.” He went on, “Now everyone’s sweating bullets. They all sit there with their cover, their this and their that, their testing, who’s the guy gonna be, who’s the woman gonna be. Do we do tits and ass. They’re all going wacko on their covers. And the covers get worse and worse.”
Time for lunch? ♦
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/04/21/080421ta_talk_paumgarten
Responding to this piece I believe that this has no defined thesis. Besides, while reading I can only find a conversation with the recognized Georges Lois during breakfast. With this piece of literature I discovered a biography type of article which puts in writing only what this person said. I was not in persuit of a written conversation but I found this one particularily interesting. I also believe that this piece is another way of commercially selling this character. Even though it is interesting to read what Lois said, the quotations are overused. The sentences are in a run-on-context, cutting the fluency as well as reader’s attention. This piece shows only one point of view which basically demonstrates adoration towards Lois. For example, “As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded.” It is the only sentence found with an interesting description, which uses quotations in a graceful manner.
The writer has a liberal mind and uses slang word choice, for instance “A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.” It is interesting how in just one sentence a person can be described in such a stylish way.
After all not even the cartoon applies to the text. Getting the old fish out contradicts completely the idea of idolatrizing the “old fish” or Lois. To support this idea, Lois is already seventy-six years old, a considerable age. The irony is expressed with the figurative action of taking the old fish out. But, there is no new fish to be seen in the contextual picture, nor in the cartoon.
There is not even the author’s point of view, nor the narration of their breakfast. The only clue that brings the reader back to a time lapse is the following quote, “Time for lunch?”. This quote left my mind floating in space. I kept thinking that they will keep talking during an invitation to have lunch. I believe that having breakfast, and talking the whole morning without any complete sentence would be extremely indecent. Although there is another point of view towards this phrase, like a good-bye, time is over.
In any case the tone of the piece can be described as curious and admiring. The structure can be differed from other pieces by the guidance of time in representation of the evolution of a conversation.
Cover Guy
by Nick Paumgarten April 21, 2008
George Lois
The Big Idea at breakfast last week with Mr. Big Idea, the advertising and graphic-design legend George Lois (“I Want My Maypo”; “I Want My MTV”; the world as we know it), was probably “Well, it’s about time.” This was, by his reckoning, and in his words, “the angle of the dangle,” the underlying sentiment, the thing you might put in a blurb. What’s been overdue is high-calibre recognition for his magazine work. Later this month, the Museum of Modern Art will present an exhibition of Lois’s Esquire covers from the sixties, which, though widely celebrated and frequently (if faintheartedly) imitated, have never had the full curatorial treatment. Sonny Liston glowering in a Santa hat, Andy Warhol drowning in a can of soup, Muhammad Ali with arrows, Roy Cohn with halo: these images helped Esquire define a decade that already had a lot of help in getting defined, and created a visual language that people in the media still feel they must learn to understand, if not speak well.
At breakfast, Lois, who is seventy-six, took his time getting around to this particular Big Idea. As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded. A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.
This was at his apartment, in the Village, spacious and filled with tribal art. Lois’s wife, Rosemary, to whom he’s been married for fifty-six years, served the first course, a dollop of sherbet atop a bowl of fresh berries, as he recounted an early art-school epiphany about how an image had better have an idea. “Thank you, girl,” he said, and Rosemary went back to the kitchen. “She’s a piece of work. All my life I’d leave the house at five-thirty to go to work. I needed three hours to myself in the morning, and I never needed much sleep. And she’s up making corn muffins, or whatever. Like, eight of them, so if anyone else was at work early he could have something to eat. She’s the last of the Mohicans.”
So, anyway, where was he? The Army, Korea, CBS, Madison Avenue, and the early days of the “creative revolution,” when art directors like Lois began taking over the ad game from the copywriters. By the time Lois, in this biographical account, got to a 1962 lunch at the Four Seasons (“I was doing their advertising, I saved their ass, too”) with Harold Hayes, the editor of Esquire, Rosemary had appeared with another course: a thin omelette, prosciutto, homemade Greek bread, and a scoop of caviar. (How about a retrospective devoted to the Lois breakfast?)
Hayes was looking for help with his covers. Lois asked Hayes how they did theirs, and Hayes explained a collaborative process involving the magazine’s staff. Lois went on, “And I’m thinking, Holy shit, a group fucking grope. I said, ‘You gotta get one guy, a guy who’s news literate, who reads, who understands the history of art and politics and culture and the movies.’ And I’m trying to think of a name.” Hayes had one in mind already, and so about a week later Lois delivered his first cover, a staged photograph of a Floyd Patterson look-alike flat on his back in a boxing ring, in an empty arena. The image was pegged to a championship bout between Patterson and Liston, which wouldn’t be contested until a week after the magazine came out. “Called the fight,” Lois said. “It took big balls. By the way, those weren’t my big balls. They were Harold Hayes’s.” Liston won, Esquire’s newsstand sales took off, and a ten-year collaboration—a prolonged provocation, really—ensued.
Magazine editors regularly call Lois to tell him that they have produced Lois covers of their own—worthy homages, at least—and his response tends to be “I don’t think so.” In general, he disdains the wan, cluttered magazine covers of today. “They go out and test: Do you like this person? Do you like this blurb? Do you like this blurb better than this blurb? It’s unbelievable. I’d do a cover that would knock your eyeballs out. Whether you liked it or hated it, you knew there was a magazine that was pumping blood.” He went on, “Now everyone’s sweating bullets. They all sit there with their cover, their this and their that, their testing, who’s the guy gonna be, who’s the woman gonna be. Do we do tits and ass. They’re all going wacko on their covers. And the covers get worse and worse.”
Time for lunch? ♦
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/04/21/080421ta_talk_paumgarten
Responding to this piece I believe that this has no defined thesis. Besides, while reading I can only find a conversation with the recognized Georges Lois during breakfast. With this piece of literature I discovered a biography type of article which puts in writing only what this person said. I was not in persuit of a written conversation but I found this one particularily interesting. I also believe that this piece is another way of commercially selling this character. Even though it is interesting to read what Lois said, the quotations are overused. The sentences are in a run-on-context, cutting the fluency as well as reader’s attention. This piece shows only one point of view which basically demonstrates adoration towards Lois. For example, “As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded.” It is the only sentence found with an interesting description, which uses quotations in a graceful manner.
The writer has a liberal mind and uses slang word choice, for instance “A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.” It is interesting how in just one sentence a person can be described in such a stylish way.
After all not even the cartoon applies to the text. Getting the old fish out contradicts completely the idea of idolatrizing the “old fish” or Lois. To support this idea, Lois is already seventy-six years old, a considerable age. The irony is expressed with the figurative action of taking the old fish out. But, there is no new fish to be seen in the contextual picture, nor in the cartoon.
There is not even the author’s point of view, nor the narration of their breakfast. The only clue that brings the reader back to a time lapse is the following quote, “Time for lunch?”. This quote left my mind floating in space. I kept thinking that they will keep talking during an invitation to have lunch. I believe that having breakfast, and talking the whole morning without any complete sentence would be extremely indecent. Although there is another point of view towards this phrase, like a good-bye, time is over.
In any case the tone of the piece can be described as curious and admiring. The structure can be differed from other pieces by the guidance of time in representation of the evolution of a conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
