So, is it really that obvious: PETER at the Gate to paradise, listening to people's stories in order to let them in or not? We are judged by our story. It doesn't matter if it is really our story, just that it is a good story.
"Question: It's nothing terrible. Everyone tells his story the best he can.
Answer: I didn't make anything up. That's how it all was. Do you believe me?
Question: It makes no difference whether I do or don't." p. 47
I love this. We all tell our story the best we can, and in by the end we just hope it comes out well. The story we are telling is our life. We incorporate others stories because those stories have become a part of our lives, thus they have become our story as well. "In short, everything everywhere is this story." p. 49 And eventually the story the answer is telling is being told as well by the question in a collaborative storytelling.
Even within the first 100 pages the strands of narrative are unravelling as they are being woven and then rewoven again.
the "truth" comes out in the liminal zone of culture: (just to bring us back to bhabha).
Lovely Lovely fun.
Showing posts with label location of culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label location of culture. Show all posts
Monday, January 27, 2014
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Bitchin'
Considering I have only read around 25 pages, these comments
should be taken with massive qualifiers.
I wonder at the “speculative” fiction claim. Isn’t all
fiction speculative? Is there some kind of pejorative connotations associated
with sci-fi or fantasy (both of which I see this text being), which the author
does not want to be associated with?
I also question books when they come with a condescending
introductory explanation for those readers who are not
accustomed/willing/capable of “puzzling out works on your own.” Does the writer, from the start, assume
his readers are ignorant and lazy?
Or perhaps he is so enmeshed in his speculative world that he thinks “Earth
readers” (? who else?) cannot fathom the arcane language of Orth? Is there a
purpose behind the other world’s language taking such a prominent position in
the telling of the story? I hope so, since so much space in the text is devoted
to using the discourse of this world. Perhaps he is intentionally using the
screen of language to hide behind to instill in the reader a sense of
ignorance, or levels of knowing, or inability to see or know as well as others,
which seems to be one of the themes emerging from the first few pages what with
all the places to hide and move and screens through which they are all looking
and seeing each other.
I know I am impatient and arrogant, but I am not sure I am
willing to move through the mechanics of this book in order to see the
movements of the clockwork so that I will know “how to read it” (p.20); so I
can understand the “spotty recapitulation of our history, reminding us how we’d
come to know all that we knew.” (p. 20)
Ok, enough bitching, back to Anathem, perhaps the millennium
gate will open and allow me into this text.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Quotes and Cowboy Commentary: Shooting from the Hip
“There is nothing to fear from someone who shouts.”
P140
The whites take over without too much ado, they simply move in and change the narrative of the region.
“There is no story that is not true”
P141
Stories become true depending upon who and how many believe them to be true. “The WMD” during the run up to the Iraqi war for example. The willingness of the villagers to listen to the stories of the missionaries, because throughout the book the people tell stories to each other to explain and reinforce custom and beliefs: the construction of social reality through story telling.
‘“Your buttocks understands our language,’ said someone light-heartdly and the crowd laughed.
“What did he say?” the white man asked his interpreter.’ P145
The blind arrogance of the white culture to not listen even when the villagers are talking. The story of the oppressed does not concern the oppressor.
“But stories were already gaining ground that the white man had not only brought a religion but also a government. It was said that they had built a place of judgment in Umuofia to protect the followers of their religion. It was even said that they had hanged one man who killed a missionary.”
“Although such stories were now often told they looked like fairy-tales. . .”155
The villagers begin to hear what was happening in other villages, but refuse to believe the stories, dismissed as fairy tales. To “foolish” to be true, even with the earlier statement that all stories are true. This was their downfall to not pay attention to the stories that were rampant, to discount tales that did not fit into their social constructs as childish, or womanish.
“The heathen speak nothing but falsehood. Only the word of our god is true” 157
“The story had arisen among the Christians themselves” 158
Nice contrast of ideas: The whites deny that the villagers can have any truth, yet the Christians are the origin of the false story that one of the people killed a “god” without consequence, thus trying to prove the superiority of Christianity over the nativist religion.
They had built a court where the District Commissioner judged cases in ignorance. P174
The difference between the “trial” of the village elders, where they heard the stories of each side and made a judgment based on what was right rather than the “law.” Justice in the village was not blind, but took in to account the people involved. The trial of Okonkwo and the others, by contrast, was a blatant use of power to control the narrative. There was no attempt to hear the villager’s story in any context other than the context of the oppressor.
“Does the white man understand our custom about land?”
“How can he when he does not even speak our tongue?” 176
Not only a different language, but the “way of knowing,” of understanding the meaning of the world around them: a discourse community.
“from the very beginning religion and education went hand and hand “182
to control the story line, or what people believe to be the storyline/cause and effect of their lives, the religion/faith of the people and the education of the people must be controlled in a coordinated fashion. Not that there is a conspiracy to control, but religion and education are very efficient “judges of normality” (Foucault) or reinforcers/editors of the community narrative.
“those who believed such stories were unworthy of the lord’s table” 185
Again, if you believe something “other” than the norm then you are not worthy of full participation in society’s goods. Makes me think of James Gee and his Discourse (big D) communities where in order to acquire the “goods” of whatever group you are in you must be fluent in the discourse of the community. Also who determines what discourse is appropriate is determined by power structures/relationships within those communities. The current “value” of education/college vs. business and making money is an example, the way the talk is being framed, as if it should be debated at all puts the western idea of “liberal” education, or the education of free (liberty/liberal) men at risk. Learn to do something that is of value to business, so you can become a commodity.
“We cannot leave the matter in his hands because he does not understand our customs, just as we do not understand his. We say he is foolish because he does not know our ways, and perhaps he says we are foolish because we do not know his. Let him go away.” 191
“The story of this man who had killed a messenger and hanged himself would make interesting reading. One could almost write a whole chapter on him. Perhaps not a whole chapter but a reasonable paragraph, at any rate. There was so much else to include, and one must be firm in cutting out details. He had already chosen the title of the book, after much thought: the pacification of the primitive tribes of the lower Niger” 209
The last few sentences of the book: perfect. The life of Okonkwo and his world reduced to a paragraph in the omnivorous narrative of the west. Cut out the details because they open up a space for a counter narrative, too messy and confusing.
Final thought: I can see why this book is often taught in tandem with "Heart of Darkness" and "The Poisonwood Bible." Lots of questions about who is in charge of the narrative, oppressor and oppressed, civilization vs. "primitive" culture.
The Horror. Exterminate them all!
P140
The whites take over without too much ado, they simply move in and change the narrative of the region.
“There is no story that is not true”
P141
Stories become true depending upon who and how many believe them to be true. “The WMD” during the run up to the Iraqi war for example. The willingness of the villagers to listen to the stories of the missionaries, because throughout the book the people tell stories to each other to explain and reinforce custom and beliefs: the construction of social reality through story telling.
‘“Your buttocks understands our language,’ said someone light-heartdly and the crowd laughed.
“What did he say?” the white man asked his interpreter.’ P145
The blind arrogance of the white culture to not listen even when the villagers are talking. The story of the oppressed does not concern the oppressor.
“But stories were already gaining ground that the white man had not only brought a religion but also a government. It was said that they had built a place of judgment in Umuofia to protect the followers of their religion. It was even said that they had hanged one man who killed a missionary.”
“Although such stories were now often told they looked like fairy-tales. . .”155
The villagers begin to hear what was happening in other villages, but refuse to believe the stories, dismissed as fairy tales. To “foolish” to be true, even with the earlier statement that all stories are true. This was their downfall to not pay attention to the stories that were rampant, to discount tales that did not fit into their social constructs as childish, or womanish.
“The heathen speak nothing but falsehood. Only the word of our god is true” 157
“The story had arisen among the Christians themselves” 158
Nice contrast of ideas: The whites deny that the villagers can have any truth, yet the Christians are the origin of the false story that one of the people killed a “god” without consequence, thus trying to prove the superiority of Christianity over the nativist religion.
They had built a court where the District Commissioner judged cases in ignorance. P174
The difference between the “trial” of the village elders, where they heard the stories of each side and made a judgment based on what was right rather than the “law.” Justice in the village was not blind, but took in to account the people involved. The trial of Okonkwo and the others, by contrast, was a blatant use of power to control the narrative. There was no attempt to hear the villager’s story in any context other than the context of the oppressor.
“Does the white man understand our custom about land?”
“How can he when he does not even speak our tongue?” 176
Not only a different language, but the “way of knowing,” of understanding the meaning of the world around them: a discourse community.
“from the very beginning religion and education went hand and hand “182
to control the story line, or what people believe to be the storyline/cause and effect of their lives, the religion/faith of the people and the education of the people must be controlled in a coordinated fashion. Not that there is a conspiracy to control, but religion and education are very efficient “judges of normality” (Foucault) or reinforcers/editors of the community narrative.
“those who believed such stories were unworthy of the lord’s table” 185
Again, if you believe something “other” than the norm then you are not worthy of full participation in society’s goods. Makes me think of James Gee and his Discourse (big D) communities where in order to acquire the “goods” of whatever group you are in you must be fluent in the discourse of the community. Also who determines what discourse is appropriate is determined by power structures/relationships within those communities. The current “value” of education/college vs. business and making money is an example, the way the talk is being framed, as if it should be debated at all puts the western idea of “liberal” education, or the education of free (liberty/liberal) men at risk. Learn to do something that is of value to business, so you can become a commodity.
“We cannot leave the matter in his hands because he does not understand our customs, just as we do not understand his. We say he is foolish because he does not know our ways, and perhaps he says we are foolish because we do not know his. Let him go away.” 191
“The story of this man who had killed a messenger and hanged himself would make interesting reading. One could almost write a whole chapter on him. Perhaps not a whole chapter but a reasonable paragraph, at any rate. There was so much else to include, and one must be firm in cutting out details. He had already chosen the title of the book, after much thought: the pacification of the primitive tribes of the lower Niger” 209
The last few sentences of the book: perfect. The life of Okonkwo and his world reduced to a paragraph in the omnivorous narrative of the west. Cut out the details because they open up a space for a counter narrative, too messy and confusing.
Final thought: I can see why this book is often taught in tandem with "Heart of Darkness" and "The Poisonwood Bible." Lots of questions about who is in charge of the narrative, oppressor and oppressed, civilization vs. "primitive" culture.
The Horror. Exterminate them all!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Metonymy Not Fragments
“Richard Rorty suggests that ‘ solidarity has to be constructed out of little pieces, rather than found already waiting, in the form of an ur-language which all of us recognize when we hear it.’ (Bhabha p. 336)
Foucault suggests that the sign of modernity is a form of decipherment whose value must be sought in petit recits, imperceptible events in signs apparently without meaning and value - - empty and eccentric - - in events that are outside the ‘great events’ of history. (Bhabha p. 348).
“. . . the figure of the ‘human’ comes to be authorized.” (Bhabha p. 339)
For years, and since I am 49 years old I mean decades, I have sensed that there is something to be found in the minutia of life which when pieced together allowed a meaning to unfold which provided a deeper understanding of the world than one would expect. I will show you fear “in a handful of dust,” as Eliot pontificated. Or Blake’s more positive eternity in a grain of sand. And this might be a mundane story, but then that is the point: When I was in elementary school, I felt there was some kind of grand meaning maker (a godlike creature) because whenever we were studying something in class, like Greek Gods, or looking at how prisms fragmented light into rainbows, then somewhere else in the world I would see the same thing or something similar. On TV there would be a show about the Gods (Clash of the Titans kind of thing) or I would notice in “The Golden Book Encyclopedias” my parents had bought for us a picture of Newton with a prism, so I would read the entry on Newton. The godlike creature I have come to realize was me. (No, I am not being narssisistic; yes I know I have that tendancy). It was just my brain taking notice of the patterns presented to it. The brain is a pattern seeking organ; and mine was working just fine at the time. I was beginning to piece together the meaning of my world with what I had at hand: a bricoluer to use a fancy academic word.
It is in the small events; the atoms and molecules that slip through the membrane seperating one space from another, where the meaning, the difference, occurs. The cumulative whole of the details create the meaning, not neccessarily the frame of the “great events of history” although that as well can be seen as one of the petit recits. Although in many ways it is the great events that become the dominant force through which we, as individuals and as a culture, become (in that incredibly violent expression) authorized. We are written into existance by the empty and eccentric signs that we read; a language that no one speaks but ‘which all of us recognize when we hear it.’ And it is this ur-language we (italics mine) all recognize that is the third space, it is neither created by us or upon us as individuals or hegemonic culture onto the colonial (interpreted) culture, but rather it is all of the bits, all of the atoms, and quarks and Clash of the Titans and pictures of Newton in interaction with one another where the Location of Culture resides. “Every atom of me is an atom of you,” -- Walt Whitman.
Foucault suggests that the sign of modernity is a form of decipherment whose value must be sought in petit recits, imperceptible events in signs apparently without meaning and value - - empty and eccentric - - in events that are outside the ‘great events’ of history. (Bhabha p. 348).
“. . . the figure of the ‘human’ comes to be authorized.” (Bhabha p. 339)
For years, and since I am 49 years old I mean decades, I have sensed that there is something to be found in the minutia of life which when pieced together allowed a meaning to unfold which provided a deeper understanding of the world than one would expect. I will show you fear “in a handful of dust,” as Eliot pontificated. Or Blake’s more positive eternity in a grain of sand. And this might be a mundane story, but then that is the point: When I was in elementary school, I felt there was some kind of grand meaning maker (a godlike creature) because whenever we were studying something in class, like Greek Gods, or looking at how prisms fragmented light into rainbows, then somewhere else in the world I would see the same thing or something similar. On TV there would be a show about the Gods (Clash of the Titans kind of thing) or I would notice in “The Golden Book Encyclopedias” my parents had bought for us a picture of Newton with a prism, so I would read the entry on Newton. The godlike creature I have come to realize was me. (No, I am not being narssisistic; yes I know I have that tendancy). It was just my brain taking notice of the patterns presented to it. The brain is a pattern seeking organ; and mine was working just fine at the time. I was beginning to piece together the meaning of my world with what I had at hand: a bricoluer to use a fancy academic word.
It is in the small events; the atoms and molecules that slip through the membrane seperating one space from another, where the meaning, the difference, occurs. The cumulative whole of the details create the meaning, not neccessarily the frame of the “great events of history” although that as well can be seen as one of the petit recits. Although in many ways it is the great events that become the dominant force through which we, as individuals and as a culture, become (in that incredibly violent expression) authorized. We are written into existance by the empty and eccentric signs that we read; a language that no one speaks but ‘which all of us recognize when we hear it.’ And it is this ur-language we (italics mine) all recognize that is the third space, it is neither created by us or upon us as individuals or hegemonic culture onto the colonial (interpreted) culture, but rather it is all of the bits, all of the atoms, and quarks and Clash of the Titans and pictures of Newton in interaction with one another where the Location of Culture resides. “Every atom of me is an atom of you,” -- Walt Whitman.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Talkin' With My Homi (Bhabha)
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/bhabha/interview.html
Here is a link to an interview with Homi Bhabha. There is also a nice short description of "Location of Culture" at the Bhabha entry on Wikipedia.
Here is a link to an interview with Homi Bhabha. There is also a nice short description of "Location of Culture" at the Bhabha entry on Wikipedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)