Church vs State

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, by James Joyce is written in a unique way. The fact that the book doesn’t provide quotation marks around dialogue kind of set me off guard for a minute. Becoming familiar with new characters was also challenging for me because they were often brought forth with little introduction (in my opinion) Perhaps it was Joyce’s creative language and puns that set me off guard. Regardless, I have enjoyed the story so far and I like the character of Stephen. Upon research about James Joyce himself, I have found many sources claiming that the character of Stephen Dedalus is somewhat of an autobiography of Joyce’s own life. Although there are many differences, there are many similarities that I have noticed as well. For example, James Joyce actually did attend the Clongowes Wood College that is presented in the book. Stephen Dedalus is educated by Jesuits at Clongowes Wood College and at first has a hard time adjusting there.

In Chapter 1 the young Stephen breaks his glasses and is thus “pandied” for his “lazy scheme.” There are some sources that say that this event actually happened to James Joyce in real life. However, there are other accounts of history that claim this particular event did not happen but Joyce was “pandied” for other events” Whether it happened in to Joyce in real life or not, it is interesting that he incorporates it into his novel. A passage that I found interesting is on page 48 in the novel. It describes how Stephen felt after he had been brutally punished after breaking his glasses.

“Yes, he would do what the fellows had told him. He would go up and tell the rector that he had been wrongly punished. A thing like that had been done before by somebody in history, by some great person whose head was in the books of history” (48). I could be wrong but I feel like the event that happens to Stephen is some reference towards the event with Charles Stewart Parnell.
Earlier in the chapter we see that Stephen’s family argues over the case of church vs. state involving Parnell at Christmas dinner. We learn that the case of Parnell, who was a priest is very controversial. He was charged by the Catholic Church. Stephen’s relatives argue over the church at Christmas dinner.
“-We go to the house of God, Mr. Casey said, in all humility to pray to our Maker and not to hear election addresses.
-It is religion, Dante said again. They are right. They must direct their flocks.
-And preach politics from the altar, is it? Asked Mr. Dedalus.
-Certainly, said Dante. It is a question of public morality. A priest would not be a priest if he did not tell his flock what is right and what is wrong” (27).

I think that the breaking eye glasses event and Stephen presenting his cruel punishment to the church and the discussion at Christmas dinner, highlights the fact that James Joyce himself had a rocky relationship with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church and the Church vs State was a very controversial issue in Irish Culture, especially during Joyce’s time. Maybe I’m drawing on coincidental events from the novel but I think that they relate to Joyce’s on personal feelings about the Catholic Church. Having been institutionalized in a religious environment in real life, it seems that he is very sensitive about the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, not to get all controversial talking about religion but I found it interesting on page 43 when Stephen was analyzing the order of the “highup people” in the church. “It was because he was allowed because a priest would know what a sin was and would not do it. But if he did it one time by mistake what would he do to go to confession? Perraps he would go to confession to the minister. And if the minister did it he would go to the rector….etc” (43). Now maybe I’m just drawing upon random things but this analysis could be used in the case of Parnell. If a state official makes a sin…isn’t there some sort of higher order he can go to within the state to take care of it…it’s almost as if Stephen is drawing the conclusion that in the case of Parnell the church is seen as the higher order….

Ok I’m going to stop babbling on. I’m not sure I’m making sense but just some things I have cooking in my head.

Happy almost St. Patrick’s day to everyone! I’m trying to get this post out of the way so I can get a good night of sleep tonight and go out and celebrate the Irish Tradition tomorrow evening. 

At first I didn’t know where I should begin because there are so many aspects of this piece of literature that can be further explored. I decided to take some of Colleen’s suggestions into consideration and eventually chose to further explore the term hamartia that she presented.

Prior to this post I had never heard of the word hamartia before. Following some research that I found on about.com, I learned that Hamartia is a concept used by Aristotle to describe tragedy. Hamartia refers to the fall of a noble man caused by some excess or mistake in behavior, not because of a willful violation of the god’s laws. Hamartia is related to hubris. (I believe hubris means overwhelming pride.) When I first read about.com’s definition of hamartia, I immediately thought of Dorian Gray.

“Dorian, the gods have been good to you. But what the Gods give, they quickly take away. You have only a few years in which to live. Then your youth goes – and your beauty will go with it. Then you will discover that there are no more triumphs left for you” (18).

My initial interpretation of the word was that a hamaritious person (Yes, I think I just invented the word hamartious) is someone who is well liked by society for varying reasons but experiences a great fall due to an error in behavior or judgment. I thought my initial interpretation of the word accurately described Dorian Gray’s character.

The above passage from page 18 of the book is foreshadowing the outcome of Dorian’s character. At first we see Dorian as beautiful and of elite society; than we learn that something causes him to make poor choices and his behavior begins to spiral out of control. This makes me second guess my initial interpretation… maybe this term isn’t describing Dorian

After reading the definition of hamartia from Britannica.com my perception of my initial interpretation has changed:

Aristotle introduced the term, hamartia, casually in the Poetics in describing the tragic hero as a man of noble rank and nature whose misfortune is not brought about by villainy but by some “error of judgment” (hamartia). This imperfection later came to be interpreted as a moral flaw, such as Othello’s jealousy or Hamlet’s irresolution, although most great tragedies defy such a simple interpretation.

For whatever reason, I immediately thought of Basil Hallward after reading Britannica’s definition of hamartia. My interpretation from this definition is that hamartia describes a character that is of noble rank but unfortunately something happens for people to misinterpret this character, therefore he is never seen as the hero but sometimes he is seen as the villain, or nether. I could be completely way off but that is the way I interpreted Britannica’s definition.

I thought of Basil Hallward because Oscar Wilde is known for his passion for aestheticism, therefore, Basil being an artist, can be portrayed as noble rank in the novel. Many people in elite society regarded artists as important people. The error in judgment could be that he was the one who painted the picture of Dorian Gray; therefore, he might be blamed for Dorian’s wild antics after the picture ultimately impaired Dorian’s morals and values.

The definition goes on to say that this imperfection later came to be interpreted as a moral flaw, “such as Othello’s jealously or Hamlet’s irresolution.” Perhaps Basil’s moral flaw is that he worries too much about Lord Henry’s influence on Dorian but doesn’t consider how is painting might influence Dorian. Maybe if Basil had insisted that he see the portrait when Dorian wouldn’t let him the course of events what have greatly been altered. I also think that Basil is very naïve. On page 146 he says,

“You must care Dorian. Of course, I don’t believe the horrible things people say. I think sin is something that writes itself across a man’s face. I cannot be hidden. You look as young and pure as you did when we first met” (146).

Basil is easily fooled by Dorian’s looks. Therefore his moral flaw could be that he judges people based upon how they look and not how they act. Basil’s painting could have just fueled Dorian’s narcissism and immoral values. I think a lot of people tend to point their finger at Lord Henry, but in reality they both could have made a bad influence on Dorian. I might have this all wrong but just some ideas I’ve been trying to put together the last couple of days. Maybe I should just go straight to Aristotle’s, Poetics, (where the word hamartia originated) to develop a further understanding of the term.


Works Cited:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/drama/g/Hamartia.htm

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/253196/hamartia

The picture of Dorian Gray

First of all, I would just like to say that I enjoyed this novel. Although, it was an engaging ‘easy’ read, I’m sure the symbolization within the novel is very complex and I’m sure there are a lot of things to discuss. I took some of Colleen’s suggestions and did a bit of internet research on Oscar Wilde. I was not surprised to find that although he was married to a woman, Oscar had a homosexual relationship with a man named, Lord Alfred 'Bosie' Douglas. I found it curious throughout the novel that Basil was so infatuated with Dorian’s beauty. I also found it curious that Lord Henry was so obsessed with seducing Dorian’s decisions and lifestyle. (i.e. the yellow book that led Dorian to believe that “evil was now beautiful” (140). Therefore, I was not surprised that my suspicion towards homosexual bonds may not have been far fetched.
Oscar Wilde was also a big advocate of the aestheticism movement. I think this plays a major role throughout the novel. The Britannica Encyclopedia describes the aesthetic movement as
“The movement began in reaction to prevailing utilitarian social philosophies and to what was perceived as the ugliness and philistinism of the industrial age. Its philosophical foundations were laid in the 18th century by Immanuel Kant, who postulated the autonomy of aesthetic standards, setting them apart from considerations of morality, utility, or pleasure.”
Essentially, the aestheticism movement strived to free art from the considerations of morality, utility, or pleasure. Therefore, the male characters in the story (tending to allude towards homosexual relations) speak for the aestheticism movement by setting apart from utilitarian social philosophies. Homosexuality definitely was not accepted during this period in time so it was a big advancement for Oscar to make such references, and it definitely was not considered ‘moral.’
Although Oscar says to be such an advocate for the aestheticism movement, I think that in the novel, he tends to contradict his own beliefs. The aestheticism movement holds the meaning of valuing new ways of seeing the world over moral ways of seeing the world. However, throughout the story the picture of Dorian Gray becomes transformed each time Dorian commits a sin. Isn’t that saying that morality is in deed affecting art?
“The portrait had changed! It was incredible! How could such a thing occur? Was there some connection between the picture painted on the canvas and the soul that was within him? He gazed at the picture in sickened horror and fear” (100).
The above quote reiterates the idea that the portrait (art) was affected by morality. When Dorian was cruel to Sybil Vane, the portrait grew ugly, just like the ‘soul that was within in him.’
This topic leads me to the role of Sybil Vane, or shall I refer to her as Sybil VAIN. Personally, I think Sybil is very vain to fall in love with such an egocentric man whom she barely knows; she is just infatuated by his beauty. I think her role in the novel is to show that beauty can blind you from the truth behind the perfect image. I also think the notion that she falls out of love with acting when she finds real love with Dorian is a symbol of the aestheticism movement. Advocates of the movement, such as Oscar Wilde, believed that life should copy art. They considered nature as crude and lacking in design when compared to art. (I found this from wikipedia, which isn’t the most reliable source, however it supports my argument) Sybil Vane was beautiful and a wonderful performance artist, this is why Dorian fell in love with her. She flawlessly performed beautiful art and was thus considered beautiful. However, Sybil lost her talent and passion for acting when she realized she was in love with Dorian Gray. Dorian saw her untalented performance and quickly found her repulsive and fell out of love with her.
“But don’t you realize what you have done? You have killed my love for you,” Dorian coolly replied. He looked at her harshly” (84).
Dorian found her repulsive once she seemed real and not a ‘copy of art.’ Maybe I’m all wrong here, but these are just some of the things that I thought while reading the novel. Overall, I think that the picture of Dorian Gray is a symbol of this idea that life should copy art because art can be portrayed as perfect. However, as we learn in the novel, perfect is not attainable. Dorian Gray wants to remain perfect like his portrait, but he soon learns that his desires and life get in the way. Thus the imperfections of his life cause him to stab his portrait in frustration, because his life will never be as perfect art.


Works Cited

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7474/Aestheticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticism

http://www.cmgww.com/historic/wilde/bio4.htm

Literary Criticism

Nicole Gehrman
English 263
March 2, 2010

Literary Criticism of Michael Davis’s Gothic’s Enigmatic Signifier: The Case of J. Sheridan Le Fanu’s ‘Carmilla”


The author of this article, Michael Davis makes a lot of references towards other pieces of gothic work and he heavily mentions the enigma of gothic literature. Davis proposes many of his ideas about ‘Carmilla’ in relation to the ideas of French psychoanalyst, Jean Laplanche and his notion of the enigmatic signifier. Whether or not Davis agrees with Leplanche’s theories is unclear to me throughout my analysis.
Davis begins his analysis by discussing this idea of the enigmatic dream. Enigma can be described as a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence or situation containing a hidden meaning. He relates his theory of dreams to Sigmund Freud’s theory that dreams are wish fulfillments and ultimately those wishes are the result of repressed or frustrated sexual desires. Davis agrees with Freud when he states,
“Similarly, to attend only to the manifest content of the Gothic text is, in many ways, to miss the point. As with the dreams, so the Gothic, of all genres, demands to be read allegorically. Like a rebus, Gothic encodes its meanings; its signifiers form a puzzle that demands to be translated.” He later goes on to say, “to recognize how the Gothic frequently confronts its characters (and readers) with teasing enigmas which, proving ultimately indecipherable, often prove to be traumatizing and, in certain cases, fatal” (223).
Basically what Davis is saying is that there are many things to be translated in the novel, however, there will never be a complete understanding. I concluded this idea because Davis states that, ‘Carmilla’ represents a failure of ‘translation’ a traumatizing failure to decode the enigmatic signifiers received from and indeed implanted, namely Carmilla” (223).
There is a reoccurring theme that caught my attention throughout ‘Carmilla” and the Enigmatic Signifier article, one being the dreams that take place in the story and how they play such a significant role in the plot of the story and two a point that Davis points out; the shadow of a lost object: Laura’s mother. On page 227, Davis says,
“Laura informs us that her mother ‘died in [her] infancy’ (243). This loss, I believe, haunts Le Fanu’s text as an uncanny absent presence. Laura claims that she does not even remember her mother because she lost her ‘so early.’ Initially, it seems, it was Madame Peredon ‘whose care and good nature in part supplied the loss of her mother. But the amnesia that, Laura believes, has left no memory trace is in fact not total. Laura does remember her mother, albeit unconsciously, and this becomes evident in her maternal transference to Carmilla” (227).

I found it interesting that Laura first meets Carmilla in a dream. Dreams seem to portray some sort of critical role throughout the novel so I can’t help but wonder what that role might be. To be honest, I don’t really know that much about Sigmund Freud’s theories about dreams or the significance of their portrayal. Basically, what I have concluded from his theories is that our dreams must mean something and there’s a reason that we construe these dreams from our subconscious. I know that I have heard many things like if you try to scream in a dream and no sound comes out it must mean that you feel suffocated by something in your life etc. I’m not to familiar with what Freud thinks certain things mean, (I’ve heard that they are very strange) but none .the less I think that the point that Davis is trying to make is that our dreams must mean something. So if Laura is having these dreams about repressed feelings and a maternal like figure approaching her bedside, it must mean something, but what? And that is the point that Davis is trying to bring across.
Another passage from Gothic’s Enigmatic Signifier that I found interesting was when Davis was comparing ‘Carmilla’ to Laplanche’s theory about the “otherness.” Davis says,
By the end of Le Fanu’s tale, we know that this element that cannot be metabolized, assigned meaning and assimilated remains actively at work in Laura’s psyche, ‘attacking the ego as agency from thing’ (letter, 108), long after the events she narrates. Like the alien (source-object) inside the subject, and like the Gothic itself, the internal alien other is ‘exciting rather than informing’ (Gothic, 4). And as Laplanche points out, what is not translatable becomes ‘the measure of the quantity of trauma’ (Otherness, 130) (226).

I must have re-read this message ten times and I still don’t understand what it is saying. I decided to challenge myself and slowly pick apart pieces of the passage trying to decipher its meaning. The conclusion that I came to, like Davis’s underlying theme is that the message cannot be fully translated because I don’t think the writer (Le Fanu) wants it to be translated, the message is that even we can’t fully grasp the meaning of our own subconscious. To better understand the meaning of this passage I researched Laplanche’s Otherness. Basically, what I interpreted upon research was that the other is basically the exact opposite of what you are. However, this supposed other tends to have some sort of control over your psyche, as defined in this adult-infant relation, it’s almost as if the perspective is transmitted from the otherness causing your original perspective to radically change.
The word translatable can be defined as to change from one place to another. This brought me back to the description about the ‘internal alien.’ What exactly is the internal alien? Is this the voice of manipulative thoughts from the other? The otherness always seems to be challenging the other. So basically Laura has some bipolar thoughts going on in her head. I know, sounds stupid, but this is what I have interpreted.
The passage that says,

“Carmilla is not just a character in a Gothic text, she is also the excess(ive) and ambiguous (allegorical) figure, or indeed the enigmatic letter(s) of the Gothic itself: Enlightenment’s dark internal foreign body. Indeed Carmilla and her enigmatic messages, together with the anagrammatical lability of her ‘name’, are like the chimeras sold by the hunchback.” Davis goes on to say, “Thus, through the allegorizing selfreflexivity of Le Fanu’s text we see that Carmilla and the Gothic are chimerical” (231).

So is Carmilla just a figment of Laura’s imagination that was developed in her subconsciou because of the repression of her sexuality and loss of a mother? I know I’m probably way off here, I’m not even sure where my thoughts are leading. However, is that the point that Davis is trying to make by comparing Laplanche’s thoughts and ideas about repression and relating Freud and how dreams are suppose to have some sort of hidden meaning etc. So therefore all of Laura’s dreams and daydreams are just illusions because she is so severely jaded by the loss of her mother and about her confused sexuality? So she creates this character in her head that cannot be metabolized so she never realizes the true message from her dreams? Perhaps it’s the word play with the word chimerical, which I looked up and found it to mean: existing only as the product of unchecked imagination, fantastically visionary or improbable (Merriam-Webster) Is Carmilla a character that Laura crafts from her subconscious because she doesn’t understand her true sexuality? I’m probably way off her, but this is what I have concluded from deciphering the words. Even though Davis says on page 223 that the words cannot be deciphered. I think the more I have analyzed the less I understand. Perhaps that is the underlying message.

Works Cited

Davis, Michael. "Gothic's Enigmatic Signifier: The Case of J. Sheridan Le Fanu's 'Carmilla"." Gothic Studies 6 (2004): 223-235. Print.

Fanu, J. Sheridan Le. Carmilla: A Tragic Love Story by J. Sheridan Le Fanu. London, UK: Createspace, 2008. Print.

"Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2010. .

" Radical Philosophy - Interviews - July/August 2000." Radical Philosophy - Welcome to Radical Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2010. .