Two potentially significant differences between the focuses of The Mezzanine and Mrs. Dalloway occurred to me as I was reading others' posts:
1. Baker focuses on a reality that characterized largely by physical objects in the modern world, vs. Woolf, who only seems to focus on people. This may be a reflection of the time period in which the books were written. (?)
2. Baker's character focuses only on his perception of the world, whereas Woolf's characters spend a much larger amount of time considering the thoughts and actions of other people in their own private thoughts as well.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The Mezzanine vs. Mrs. Dalloway Memory of Specifics
Upon looking back at my reading of The Mezzanine, I notice that I retained at least 98% of the material in the book. When Mr. Mitchell would cite a specific sentence, quoting from the beginning of the sentence, I often found myself nodding, remembering the rest of the sentence and the context. How unusual! And I do not think that this effect was lost on the vast majority of the other students in the class. How is it that Baker can write a book from which each sentence can be separately memorable?
Conversely, when I am reading Mrs. Dalloway, I realize that it is immensely difficult to think of one specific passage or sentence, and recognize the context, or know what occurs in the rest of the sentence. Woolf' is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Baker in terms of sentence, plot, character, and action recognition. Why would two books that are both generally trying to achieve a true representation of a real-life person, to encompass what humainty actually is through a character, both express it in such different ways?
I think in Mrs. Dalloway, the sentences are hard to keep track of and to remember specifically because they lead all over the place in general, because there are so many tangents, un-retraced, and unfinished lines of thought in Woolf's writing. I opened up the book to a variety of random pages just now to find an example. In trying to open the page randomly (several times, in fact) to select a specific sentence or sentence section to quote, I proved to myself just how convoluted Woolf's sentences seem to be. I could not even select a coherent section out of a sentence, because they tend to go on and on, with the beginning of the sentence usually nowhere near the end in terms of subject matter. However, the sentences are long enough such that there is significant space to concisely yet clearly transition between thoughts. Thus I believe that it is difficult to remember specifics from Woolf's writing because of the lack of complete coherence of a section of her writing. If each sentence cannot even stay centered on one topic, her sections definitely could not.
Yet the lack of complete conclusion of all thoughts and topics in Woolf's writing is essence of the reality of her writing style. She is capturing the image of the "wandering mind."
In looking back at Baker's novel as a whole, it seems as if he is making more of a point about how we should think, rather than what or how we actually do think as humans. He will spend long sections of writing focusing on minutia. Baker overemphasizes his points, keeps focus on one of his minutiae or the other for so long that the reader cannot help but comprehend. And his focus on minutia has an unnamed attractive quality that also helps his cause. Though Baker does follow tangents, his writing is almost outline-able. His chapters all focus on specific topics; his paragraphs lead logically from one to the other, with completely, even overly-explained transitions. Not to mention an innumerable number of a, i, ii, iii; b, i; c, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi...etc. Because Baker focuses so completely on coherence, even though it is widened coherence, it is very easy to remember specific sentences in his book upon mention, because it is as if his writes as if he is transcribing thoughts already catalogued into his mind. The pre-storage of thoughts, mapped onto paper, is thus easily mapped onto the reader's mind, becoming their own memories.
Thus, whereas Woolf captures the thoughts as they are formed, Baker captures the thoughts after they have been purified and categorized. Herein lies the essential difference between the writing styles of Baker and Woolf.
Conversely, when I am reading Mrs. Dalloway, I realize that it is immensely difficult to think of one specific passage or sentence, and recognize the context, or know what occurs in the rest of the sentence. Woolf' is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Baker in terms of sentence, plot, character, and action recognition. Why would two books that are both generally trying to achieve a true representation of a real-life person, to encompass what humainty actually is through a character, both express it in such different ways?
I think in Mrs. Dalloway, the sentences are hard to keep track of and to remember specifically because they lead all over the place in general, because there are so many tangents, un-retraced, and unfinished lines of thought in Woolf's writing. I opened up the book to a variety of random pages just now to find an example. In trying to open the page randomly (several times, in fact) to select a specific sentence or sentence section to quote, I proved to myself just how convoluted Woolf's sentences seem to be. I could not even select a coherent section out of a sentence, because they tend to go on and on, with the beginning of the sentence usually nowhere near the end in terms of subject matter. However, the sentences are long enough such that there is significant space to concisely yet clearly transition between thoughts. Thus I believe that it is difficult to remember specifics from Woolf's writing because of the lack of complete coherence of a section of her writing. If each sentence cannot even stay centered on one topic, her sections definitely could not.
Yet the lack of complete conclusion of all thoughts and topics in Woolf's writing is essence of the reality of her writing style. She is capturing the image of the "wandering mind."
In looking back at Baker's novel as a whole, it seems as if he is making more of a point about how we should think, rather than what or how we actually do think as humans. He will spend long sections of writing focusing on minutia. Baker overemphasizes his points, keeps focus on one of his minutiae or the other for so long that the reader cannot help but comprehend. And his focus on minutia has an unnamed attractive quality that also helps his cause. Though Baker does follow tangents, his writing is almost outline-able. His chapters all focus on specific topics; his paragraphs lead logically from one to the other, with completely, even overly-explained transitions. Not to mention an innumerable number of a, i, ii, iii; b, i; c, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi...etc. Because Baker focuses so completely on coherence, even though it is widened coherence, it is very easy to remember specific sentences in his book upon mention, because it is as if his writes as if he is transcribing thoughts already catalogued into his mind. The pre-storage of thoughts, mapped onto paper, is thus easily mapped onto the reader's mind, becoming their own memories.
Thus, whereas Woolf captures the thoughts as they are formed, Baker captures the thoughts after they have been purified and categorized. Herein lies the essential difference between the writing styles of Baker and Woolf.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Chelsea's Response to Howie's Response to Aurelius
Having fully accustomed myself to Baker's style by page 120 of The Mezzanine, I remember that I read the quote from Aurelius quickly, expecting the meaning to soak in easily. I continued reading before taking the minute amount of time necessary to actually understand Aurelius's point, but I was stopped at the first "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" (120) because I did not expect such sudden criticism. To me, it seemed a bit harsh for Howie to clobber Aurelius's philosophical theory so roughly, presumably without even reading the supporting arguments for the theory.
My interpretation of Aurelius's argument is that mortal life (versus what? immortal life??) is unimportant in the scheme of things because it passes by so quickly. This point of view is completely against the idea of the novel in general, because the seeming purpose of The Mezzanine is to only focus on the extreme of the everyday, the mundane, even maybe the OCD. Thus Baker's philosophical argument is that it is worth glorifying human life (I choose "human" instead of "mortal" because it is much more specific) as well as human error into something that makes us feel like we need to open our eyes to the immediate real world we live in and to stop looking at the past and future.
Howie, probably a partial figment of Baker's imagination, would have reacted exactly as Baker would have to Aurelius's argument. Howie is so repelled by the passage because Baker was so repelled by the passage. In writing this book, Baker could have chosen any quote, out of any book, to include. Yet he chose this particular one, a choice that must be significant. Baker is extolling his love of the commonplace by utilizing Howie's revulsion towards a sentence that argues hatred of the commonplace. It is possible that the physical existence of The Mezzanine shows that Baker may have written his entire novel simply to try and crack open and let bleed philosophies such as Aurelius's.
My interpretation of Aurelius's argument is that mortal life (versus what? immortal life??) is unimportant in the scheme of things because it passes by so quickly. This point of view is completely against the idea of the novel in general, because the seeming purpose of The Mezzanine is to only focus on the extreme of the everyday, the mundane, even maybe the OCD. Thus Baker's philosophical argument is that it is worth glorifying human life (I choose "human" instead of "mortal" because it is much more specific) as well as human error into something that makes us feel like we need to open our eyes to the immediate real world we live in and to stop looking at the past and future.
Howie, probably a partial figment of Baker's imagination, would have reacted exactly as Baker would have to Aurelius's argument. Howie is so repelled by the passage because Baker was so repelled by the passage. In writing this book, Baker could have chosen any quote, out of any book, to include. Yet he chose this particular one, a choice that must be significant. Baker is extolling his love of the commonplace by utilizing Howie's revulsion towards a sentence that argues hatred of the commonplace. It is possible that the physical existence of The Mezzanine shows that Baker may have written his entire novel simply to try and crack open and let bleed philosophies such as Aurelius's.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)