This took so long to figure out how to make beautiful.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
I Finally Know What to Name the Protagonist of Hunger!
James Wood’s piece “Knut Hamsun’s Christian Perversion” elucidates all the mysterious surrounding the protagonist of Hunger. The character that none can parallel had to have some inspiration, and that inspiration came from the author himself, moreover, the protagonist might as well be named Knut Hamsun! The things that make Knut Hamsun himself are as crazy as those that make the protagonist himself. Hamsun was born into poverty, disparaged religion, was self conscious about his origins, he was hysterical, skittish, and often rudely eccentric. Just like the protagonist, he moved to a poor district called Christiania. It seems like everything he did was out of sincere madness. The reason he liked the Nazis is not because he was an anti-Semite, rather he despised English occupation. Furthermore, he was the “king of man who wanted to be thrown out of parties.” And this most upsetting of all, he drifted into oblivion just as the protagonist did when he boarded the boat at the end of the novel.
Before I begin praises Wood for his ability to psychoanalyze the protagonist, I want to praise Knut Hamsun. No matter how arrogant and incorrigible his personality seems, I think it is necessary to note his abundant humility and humbleness. If his characters are based on him, he might be one of the most down to earth and crazy person in the world. He knows that he is mad. I know I have faults, yet if I were to write a book with a protagonist based on myself; it is safe to say that I would embellish it very much. I think it is necessary to note and honor Knut Hamsun for his ability to be blatantly honest with a unsavory side of himself.
In fact, Hamsun himself, and therefore his characters, are so complex, I was surprised by what Woods was able to deduct about their personalities. I never thought of it, but it makes so much sense that the protagonist wants to be punished. He sins so that he can be punished. When he lies, he wants to be caught. When he thinks he steals, he wants to get in trouble. But what is the force that controls this? “We are able to see that his characters believe that they control their destinies, and that is a delusion.” What I could only establish as capriciousness in the protagonist, Woods makes clearer. He will attack himself for his own self induced poverty, and then a few lines later, will reject money because he is full of false pride.
What I consider to be a major aspect of the novel is the characters lack of certainty. The fact that he goes off tangents is all encompassing, and Woods dissected why he does what he does. The protagonist sins to get in trouble and has a strong sense of false pride which only mirrors the conditions that Hamsun lived in. Moreover, the protagonist’s craziness, however sad it may be, is an exact replica of Hamsun. The most disturbing display of madness in the novel when the protagonist bites his own finger actually happened in Hamsun’s life, yet to a greater extent. Hamsun actually hacked at his own leg with an axe! How does this happen! With a man like this writing a novel, it is inherent that a major idea from it will be the absolute craziness that the protagonist has. “I dream of literature with characters in which their vary lack of consistency is their basic characteristics.” – Knut Hamsun. I reckon he achieved that very well!
Also, I think Knut Hamsun is pretty badass because when he went to meet Hitler, one of the most powerful people in the world at the time, he showed no respect for him. He had the balls to lecture him and complain about one of his representatives. “An aide later recalled that Knut Hamsun was the only man he had ever seen thwart Hitler.” What a guy.
Before I begin praises Wood for his ability to psychoanalyze the protagonist, I want to praise Knut Hamsun. No matter how arrogant and incorrigible his personality seems, I think it is necessary to note his abundant humility and humbleness. If his characters are based on him, he might be one of the most down to earth and crazy person in the world. He knows that he is mad. I know I have faults, yet if I were to write a book with a protagonist based on myself; it is safe to say that I would embellish it very much. I think it is necessary to note and honor Knut Hamsun for his ability to be blatantly honest with a unsavory side of himself.
In fact, Hamsun himself, and therefore his characters, are so complex, I was surprised by what Woods was able to deduct about their personalities. I never thought of it, but it makes so much sense that the protagonist wants to be punished. He sins so that he can be punished. When he lies, he wants to be caught. When he thinks he steals, he wants to get in trouble. But what is the force that controls this? “We are able to see that his characters believe that they control their destinies, and that is a delusion.” What I could only establish as capriciousness in the protagonist, Woods makes clearer. He will attack himself for his own self induced poverty, and then a few lines later, will reject money because he is full of false pride.
What I consider to be a major aspect of the novel is the characters lack of certainty. The fact that he goes off tangents is all encompassing, and Woods dissected why he does what he does. The protagonist sins to get in trouble and has a strong sense of false pride which only mirrors the conditions that Hamsun lived in. Moreover, the protagonist’s craziness, however sad it may be, is an exact replica of Hamsun. The most disturbing display of madness in the novel when the protagonist bites his own finger actually happened in Hamsun’s life, yet to a greater extent. Hamsun actually hacked at his own leg with an axe! How does this happen! With a man like this writing a novel, it is inherent that a major idea from it will be the absolute craziness that the protagonist has. “I dream of literature with characters in which their vary lack of consistency is their basic characteristics.” – Knut Hamsun. I reckon he achieved that very well!
Also, I think Knut Hamsun is pretty badass because when he went to meet Hitler, one of the most powerful people in the world at the time, he showed no respect for him. He had the balls to lecture him and complain about one of his representatives. “An aide later recalled that Knut Hamsun was the only man he had ever seen thwart Hitler.” What a guy.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Hunger Pastiche
My Friend the Protagonist Talks about the SAT
I could see the sun rises from the peripheral of my vision. It seemed as if it was beckoning all the citizens of Christiania onto the streets. How they judge me. Stop! I must not get distracted from my work. This is useless. Futile. How does this test show who I am as a person? What gives this test the right to denote who I am? Aren’t I more than a number! I got up in a fury and began to vehemently rip the paper into pieces. The scraps of paper falling from my fingers brought my joy. I stomped on the scraps of the paper. Oh, that will show College Board, I thought. I can imagine the administrators now. Oh no kind sir, why did you rip our test, what did we do wrong!? Hahaha, I would reply smugly, tests like this do not accurately asses someone of my standard. Yes my position. In fact, if anything, your test is nothing but an insult. How dare you! Who do you think you are! People like you are what is wrong with society! The rough wood floors began to irritate the bare skin on my feet.
I could see the sun rises from the peripheral of my vision. It seemed as if it was beckoning all the citizens of Christiania onto the streets. How they judge me. Stop! I must not get distracted from my work. This is useless. Futile. How does this test show who I am as a person? What gives this test the right to denote who I am? Aren’t I more than a number! I got up in a fury and began to vehemently rip the paper into pieces. The scraps of paper falling from my fingers brought my joy. I stomped on the scraps of the paper. Oh, that will show College Board, I thought. I can imagine the administrators now. Oh no kind sir, why did you rip our test, what did we do wrong!? Hahaha, I would reply smugly, tests like this do not accurately asses someone of my standard. Yes my position. In fact, if anything, your test is nothing but an insult. How dare you! Who do you think you are! People like you are what is wrong with society! The rough wood floors began to irritate the bare skin on my feet.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Futility
Franz Kafka’s “A Hunger Artist” and Knut Hamsun’s “Hunger” have a lot in common, but even more holistic than that, Kafka’s piece truly embodies what I see to be the existentialist movement’s opinion of the world. Firstly, I am going to discuss the similarities to the novel we are reading, and then I am going to give another opinion of the piece that I feel emulates the movement. The thing that will differentiate the paragraphs is whether one believes that the Artist likes what he is doing.
One could argue that the protagonist in “A Hunger Artist” does what he does solely to placate others. Also, just like in Hunger, the Artist tries to save face when spectators make fun of him. He wants the people to believe that he is truly fasting… but why? “He could keep showing them once again that he had nothing to eat in his cage and that he was fasting as none of them could.” From this, it seems that the protagonist strives off others perceptions of him rather than his own doings. I see a lot of similarities between the protagonists of the two pieces of literature. Both of them are extremely concerned with how the outside world perceives them, even if it hinders them. Like in Knut’s book, the protagonist would rather die of starvation than seem indecent because he was unable to return someone five kroner that he owed. The protagonist in Kafka’s piece of literature is just the same.
However, if one believes that the Artist “was fanatically devoted to fasting more than anything else”; there are more references to be made to the whole existentialism unit. Also, I think it is important to say that I do not really think that the protagonist in Hunger loves writing as much as Kafka’s does; therefore, I will refrain from making any of those connections. But, if you believe that Hunger’s protagonist loves to write, then it would make sense for you to connect the two. The Hunger Artist wants to reach new levels of glory in his fasting career. He knows that he can fast more than forty days, but the impresario hinders him from doing that. The impresario might as well be called society because I believe that is what Kafka is saying. Society impedes us from becoming what we truly can. It stops our potential and in turn uses us for what it feels necessary. Later in the piece the text reads, “The hunger artist responded with an outburst of rage and began to shake the cage like an animal, frightening everyone. But the impresario had a way of punishing moments like this, something he was happy to use.” Once again society is at play and is using his powers to mollify us. Society controls us even though we have the ability to strive farther than it permits. Moreover, when the Artist decides to move to the circus, once again “he did not dare to approach the administration about it.” Although the idea of a Hunger Artist seems weird to us, it becomes clear that the protagonist was not living up to his full potential, only because society did not really have much room for it. He was unnecessary.
The thing that got me thinking the most in this passage occurred on the last page. When questioned why he would not do anything else by the supervisor, he responded “Because I couldn’t find a food which tasted good to me.” I think this means that he could not find another path of life that made him happy. So, he went for what he loved, being a Hunger Artist and what did he get… death. Even worse to that, seemingly a characteristic of existentialism, no one remembers the Hunger Artist as his cage is replaced with a panther. The world sucks.
One could argue that the protagonist in “A Hunger Artist” does what he does solely to placate others. Also, just like in Hunger, the Artist tries to save face when spectators make fun of him. He wants the people to believe that he is truly fasting… but why? “He could keep showing them once again that he had nothing to eat in his cage and that he was fasting as none of them could.” From this, it seems that the protagonist strives off others perceptions of him rather than his own doings. I see a lot of similarities between the protagonists of the two pieces of literature. Both of them are extremely concerned with how the outside world perceives them, even if it hinders them. Like in Knut’s book, the protagonist would rather die of starvation than seem indecent because he was unable to return someone five kroner that he owed. The protagonist in Kafka’s piece of literature is just the same.
However, if one believes that the Artist “was fanatically devoted to fasting more than anything else”; there are more references to be made to the whole existentialism unit. Also, I think it is important to say that I do not really think that the protagonist in Hunger loves writing as much as Kafka’s does; therefore, I will refrain from making any of those connections. But, if you believe that Hunger’s protagonist loves to write, then it would make sense for you to connect the two. The Hunger Artist wants to reach new levels of glory in his fasting career. He knows that he can fast more than forty days, but the impresario hinders him from doing that. The impresario might as well be called society because I believe that is what Kafka is saying. Society impedes us from becoming what we truly can. It stops our potential and in turn uses us for what it feels necessary. Later in the piece the text reads, “The hunger artist responded with an outburst of rage and began to shake the cage like an animal, frightening everyone. But the impresario had a way of punishing moments like this, something he was happy to use.” Once again society is at play and is using his powers to mollify us. Society controls us even though we have the ability to strive farther than it permits. Moreover, when the Artist decides to move to the circus, once again “he did not dare to approach the administration about it.” Although the idea of a Hunger Artist seems weird to us, it becomes clear that the protagonist was not living up to his full potential, only because society did not really have much room for it. He was unnecessary.
The thing that got me thinking the most in this passage occurred on the last page. When questioned why he would not do anything else by the supervisor, he responded “Because I couldn’t find a food which tasted good to me.” I think this means that he could not find another path of life that made him happy. So, he went for what he loved, being a Hunger Artist and what did he get… death. Even worse to that, seemingly a characteristic of existentialism, no one remembers the Hunger Artist as his cage is replaced with a panther. The world sucks.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Comparisons Between The Distraction Society and Hunger
In this article, the author explicitly states that things like e-mail and twitter have become too prominent of things in our lives. Philosopher Blaine Pascal stated “The sole cause of man’s unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.” I can relate to this immensely, and things as easily available as e-mail and other web based things just catalyze off-tasking. The author also states that we’re seeking some consolation, asylum or easy pleasure.” The internet is that in a nutshell. The reason people search for distractions is because things like pain and boredom are sometimes too much to bear. Rather, it is easier to find a distraction than confront what we do not want to. There are many examples of these distractions in Hunger by Knut Hamsun.
Throughout the book, the protagonist goes off into seemingly harmless tangents of deranged thought that actually begin to consume him. What started out as an innocent whim turns into a fully fledged fact that he cannot get out of his head. His capriciousness hinders him from staying on task. Examples of this also happen when he is trying to write. Although he knows that his life and getting food depends on him writing a good story and getting them published, he finds himself distracted by the smallest things such as flies on his paper. But why does he fool around so much if he is in such a poor state of living?
Just as we find distractions from the cruelness of the world in the internet, the protagonist of Hunger finds distractions from his horrid life in his crazy tangents. Although the character believes he is a strong willed man, the reason the man does what he does is because he can’t bare the life he has. He cannot stand to face the world he has so he creates little worlds of his own and gets carried away with these stories so that he does not have to live in the real world.
Throughout the book, the protagonist goes off into seemingly harmless tangents of deranged thought that actually begin to consume him. What started out as an innocent whim turns into a fully fledged fact that he cannot get out of his head. His capriciousness hinders him from staying on task. Examples of this also happen when he is trying to write. Although he knows that his life and getting food depends on him writing a good story and getting them published, he finds himself distracted by the smallest things such as flies on his paper. But why does he fool around so much if he is in such a poor state of living?
Just as we find distractions from the cruelness of the world in the internet, the protagonist of Hunger finds distractions from his horrid life in his crazy tangents. Although the character believes he is a strong willed man, the reason the man does what he does is because he can’t bare the life he has. He cannot stand to face the world he has so he creates little worlds of his own and gets carried away with these stories so that he does not have to live in the real world.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Ironic and Immoral
My feelings towards Existentialism are ambiguous, and reading Existentialism and Humanism did not elucidate the ideas a single bit. A part of me wants to support the party of thought. I want to be bad ass and rebel and live for myself, but I can’t wrap my head around the sometimes immoral and ironic aspects of the idea. However, I think part of this is because I am still not too sure what the movement is. I hope that reading the books we are going to this section will clear that up. But for now, I am going to discuss the impracticality, and immorality of the movement. Please don’t get mad at me if I sound totally ignorant because I might, and I feel like I am risking it when I try and sound intelligent when in reality, the answers might be right in front of me, I just haven’t gotten to understand them yet. Let’s do it!
Where would the world be today without organized religion and societies? How could economies and civilizations survive if everyone was an existentialist? If everyone followed their personal path in a search for the truth, what would come of the world? From what I understand of the idea, man should forget everything else and do what he deems necessary to survive. Although a very interesting thought, these people would not be able to support themselves if there was not a working class and a place to work. I think existentialism is impractical nowadays because we are so used to the “normal” civilizations. I have to admit if live started with existentialism and that was the norm, you would meet some pretty interesting people and maybe the world would have adapted to support populations with everyone doing what they feel necessary.
Next, when Jean-Paul Sartre brought up the situation where a student had to choose whether to stay with his emotional ill mother and going to fight in England, I was disgusted. I understand how he would see this to be a good example of following what you want and morality, but any decision other than staying with your mother is immoral. If the woman who brought you into this world is getting hurt, it is outlandish for you, as the son, to leave. The moment that family stops being your number one priority is the moment that I begin to look down on you. No matter how much you believe in self exploration, to have the audacity to leave your mother to explore something for you own, is uncalled for. It is disgusting. This example was really what turned me off existentialism. There are always certain people that need to be in the back of your mind, people that you know that no matter what situation you are in, it is important for you to be there for them in a time of need. The fact that some existentialists would revoke their role as a son makes me look down on them. You cannot forget where you came from.
I want to like existentialism, and I am going to make an effort to see the world from their eyes. The reason I might treat it without such scorn is probably because of the world I grew up in. My mother is very loving, and I was the youngest child so I was babied through most of my youth. Why would I want to leave that!? Also, the fact that my parents want me to go to college and get a good job and follow a sort of pre set path has made me think that I want that to some extent (maybe I do… I will find out eventually). That might be another reason that I am so against the movement. See you!
Where would the world be today without organized religion and societies? How could economies and civilizations survive if everyone was an existentialist? If everyone followed their personal path in a search for the truth, what would come of the world? From what I understand of the idea, man should forget everything else and do what he deems necessary to survive. Although a very interesting thought, these people would not be able to support themselves if there was not a working class and a place to work. I think existentialism is impractical nowadays because we are so used to the “normal” civilizations. I have to admit if live started with existentialism and that was the norm, you would meet some pretty interesting people and maybe the world would have adapted to support populations with everyone doing what they feel necessary.
Next, when Jean-Paul Sartre brought up the situation where a student had to choose whether to stay with his emotional ill mother and going to fight in England, I was disgusted. I understand how he would see this to be a good example of following what you want and morality, but any decision other than staying with your mother is immoral. If the woman who brought you into this world is getting hurt, it is outlandish for you, as the son, to leave. The moment that family stops being your number one priority is the moment that I begin to look down on you. No matter how much you believe in self exploration, to have the audacity to leave your mother to explore something for you own, is uncalled for. It is disgusting. This example was really what turned me off existentialism. There are always certain people that need to be in the back of your mind, people that you know that no matter what situation you are in, it is important for you to be there for them in a time of need. The fact that some existentialists would revoke their role as a son makes me look down on them. You cannot forget where you came from.
I want to like existentialism, and I am going to make an effort to see the world from their eyes. The reason I might treat it without such scorn is probably because of the world I grew up in. My mother is very loving, and I was the youngest child so I was babied through most of my youth. Why would I want to leave that!? Also, the fact that my parents want me to go to college and get a good job and follow a sort of pre set path has made me think that I want that to some extent (maybe I do… I will find out eventually). That might be another reason that I am so against the movement. See you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)