Oral Traditions

Sometimes when reading texts for this class, I wish I were always at home, for I feel the need to read them aloud in order to fully absorb the full tone of a section.  This is especially true for when we read Shakespeare.  However, other works I have read that require an out loud reading include Descartes, Sir Francis Bacon, The Illiad, and 1,001 Nights.  Strangely enough, I do not feel the need to read aloud when indulging in Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey.  The lack of poetry and depth in some of today's bestsellers is heartbreaking, and yet I can get immersed in a good trashy romance novel.

The idea of reading aloud is not brand new in this world.  Oral traditions came far earlier than the written word, and in some opinions, is far superior.  According to Nicholas Carr in his book The Shallows, about how the Internet has diluted our manner of learning:

"Even as the technology of the book sped ahead, the legacy of the oral world continued to shape the way words on pages were written and read.  Silent reading was largely unknown in the ancient world.  The new codices, like the tablets and scrolls that preceded them, were almost always read aloud, whether the reader was in a group or alone... It's hard for us to imagine today, but no spaces separated words in early writing.  The lack of word separation reflected language's origins in speech.  When we talk, we don't insert pauses between each word -- long stretches of syllables flow unbroken from our lips."

After reading The Shallows I felt much more comfortable with my desire to read The Arabian Nights aloud.  I feel connected to a tradition that helped bring about the written word, and which has not diminished in significance throughout the centuries.  With the nature of The Arabian Nights being stories being told within stories, the oral quality (snigger) holds fast.

The choice to sit down and immerse oneself into a story such as the The Arabian Nights should not be taken lightly, especially if you have the inclination like me to let everyone around you hear what you are reading.  I have to be in the right mood, and the right environment.  But when the mood hits, I will continue to read aloud with pride.

Original Thought

                                        CAPTION: An artist drawing an artist being interpreted by an artist drawing him.
                                                                     WHO STARTED IT?

The idea of original thought is one that has often plagued my mind.  Have I ever had an original thought?  Or has every errand belief and judgment been inspired by someone or something else?  Our brains our like sponges, and the way in which we express ourselves differs per individual.  For artists like Van Gogh, they paint, and for authors like Lewis Carroll, they write stories using their gift of vocabulary.  But having seen a painting, or read a story, those persons ideas are now in my head.  How can anything I associate with my experiences be considered my own?

In the case of the The Hunting of the Snark, it can be claimed that Lewis Carroll took inspiration from The Voyage of the Beagle.  But the idea that I expressed in class comes back to me, with question of where Carroll's inspiration ended and his "original thought" ended.  There are clearly differences in the way in which the stories are written, as well as the core concepts meant to be expressed.  So in the case of the Snark, Carroll must have gotten the rest of his themes from his experiences, which inspire the rest of his works as well.  

Experiences create parameters around our ability to conceive.  In his "Methods and Meditations" Descartes presents his Dream Argument asserts that there is little difference reality and a dream.  For how do you know which is which?  We claim to know reality based on our five senses, for they provide us with evidence that what we see and hear, feel and smell, touch, is in fact real.  But in dreams, we also see, we can also smell, we can also touch.  But dreams happen entirely "in our head" without the body doing anything.  So the senses can be deceived, and the only truth we can establish is that we are "thinking" creatures.

"In fine, I am the same being who perceives, that is, who apprehends certain objects as by the organs of sense, since, in truth, I see light, hear a noise, and feel heat. But it will be said that these presentations are false, and that I am dreaming. Let it be so. At all events it is certain that I seem to see light, hear a noise, and feel heat; this cannot be false, and this is what in me is properly called perceiving, which is nothing else than thinking."

My roundabout point is that there are certain things we know as true, which is where I abandon my agreement with Descartes.  For example, I know that this is an ice cream cone, and not a dry erase marker:

I also know and can imagine, although I have never seen one, what a dragon looks like.  I can imagine, although I have never experienced it, what drowning would feel like.  These are all things that I have "experienced" in my life.  I have read about dragons and swallowed water down the wrong tube.  But one cannot imagine something one has never experienced.  If a child has never heard of a dragon, has never had one described, does not know that they exist, it is my thought that they will never have a nightmare of one.

If a child, a fabulous monster, could picture and dream of another fabulous monster, without ever having heard of one, I believe this would be the very first original thought in a long while.

Actors Nested in Characters

I am definitely new to blogging, so please bear with me while I find my groove.  I chose this image because I believe it related to the first topic I wish to discuss.  Instead of having boxes in boxes or reflections in mirrors, I like the idea of a beautiful object containing layers of itself.   

From a young age I wanted to be an actress.  I was never shy and did not suffer from stage fright.  However, it turned out that I was just not very good at it.  Film has stuck with me though as a fantastic form of expression, and I love to sit at home with a movie and a blanket.


What sparked these thoughts and memories was the discussion in class today about the theater in Elizabethan times.  Of course I knew that the female roles were played by men because women were not allowed to be actors in that time.  But I began to imagine what it would be like to play someone of the opposite sex; not because it was some message on gender roles or a parody.  This train of thought lead me straight into thinking of when one character is played by two separate actors or actresses in TV and movies.

Usually this is because one actress can or chooses to no longer play the role, and so someone else must step in.  But the examples that came to my mind were exceptions to this general idea.  The first, being in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.  There is a particular scene when Hermione takes Polyjuice Potion and turns into Bellatrix Lestrange.  When filming this particular scene, the film team debated extensively on how to best portray this.  Either put loads of make up on Emma Watson to make her look like the 43 year old Helena Bonham Carter, or let Helena play Hermione.

The production team decided to go with the latter.  They let Emma Watson play through the scene first, acting as Hermione, acting as Bellatrix.  Then Helena Bonham Carter would go through when filming, copying Emma, who was playing Hermione, who was copying Bellatrix.

Another example is during the TV show Supernatural.  They had a character who they knew would have to be played by two different actresses.  Having known one of the actresses from a different show, I was really upset when I heard this because I thought that there would be no way for me "see" her in any other role.  I was pleasantly surprised. 

While these two actresses look nothing alike, they were both able to delve into the character and pull out the same characteristics.  There were obvious idiosyncratic differences between the two, but for the most part the dual characterization was successful.

In my mind, this all comes back to nestings because we are who we are in what we consider to be "reality." And yet, there are those who can so easily slip down into the reality of another.  This begs the question of what IS reality and what part do we have to play in it?  And what happens when there is someone playing a character who is copying another character by an actress who is copying another character?  So many layers!