motifs

So, for the project in class last time, my partner and I chose the motif of “circles.” We found quite a few: the turn-around outside of the gym, a sewer drain cover, the signs for the parking lots, a plaque on the library, the bell on the library green, handicap door buttons, etc. And when we got back, that was also one of the motifs to look for in Watchmen, and we also found a lot there: the smiley face, the craters on Mars/Mars itself, Ozymandias’s dome, the owl ship, the Doomsday Clock (and other clocks throughout), Jon’s glass domain on Mars, the hydrogen atom symbol on Jon’s forehead. I was actually surprised at the amount we found. We decided that the circular motif represented the cyclical nature of both the plot and the characters (in that they are going down the same path and making the same mistakes as the older generation of heroes). Also, we saw the characters as being caught in a sort of “circle of fear” that they cannot break out of. And I think that the heroes’ sphere of influence is also an important link to circularity – when they were in their prime, their sphere of influence was very widespread; they could go anywhere, do just about anything, but now that sphere is shrinking rapidly. They no longer have the same popular following (just think of Hollis Mason’s murder) and leeway with the public that they used to.

I really didn’t expect to find that many connections, but there they are. Interesting. I think I like analyzing this book better than I did actually reading it...

The Ending

So, a couple classes ago, someone raised the question of whether or not the ending of Watchmen is “uplifting” or not. And I don’t know how to answer it. I mean, nothing happens. Some might argue that it’s implied that the kid (I have no idea what his name is, nor do I have the book on me to look it up right now) is going to choose Rorschach’s journal, but I don’t think Moore is implying anything – I think the focus is supposed to be on the uncertainty of the entire situation – that everything depends on the choice of an individual – and how that choice balances on the moral center of the person choosing. And we have no idea what this kid’s moral center is, so the reader really can’t assume anything. It’s just as likely that he won’t even get the chance to make the decision – what if he really wanted to use the first thing he picks up? No issues would be raised.

I suppose to go along with the assumption that he does pick it up, I would say it’s not an issue of being positive or negative, even. Scenario 1) He chooses to release the information, and the assumed response to that would be that the “peace” that Ozymandias created is disrupted, right? But what if even this short respite from the tension has let people see how wrong everything had been, and they instead unite in order to take down Ozymandias and leave it at that? It that assumption too hopeful, or ignorant? (I don’t pretend to be a political person at all, so maybe that’s just plain dumb to think). Scenario 2) He is to frightened by the information to do anything about it/hides it/destroys it/etc – the peaceful state would remain, but don’t you think that the responsibility of having that knowledge would be likely to destroy himself as a person? Would he break down years later and release the information then? What would be the consequences of that?

I think perhaps I’m thinking too deeply about this. But aren’t we supposed to? So much hangs in the balance of that one decision that we’re left with…too much, maybe. I guess that’s why I’d rather assume nothing, and take the message as being one of uncertainty.

Watchmen

*Again, this was written a few days ago, but was never posted. It would really be easier to use this thing if I didn’t have to write my posts in Word first so the formatting doesn’t get messed up.*

So, I started Watchmen, and holy eff is it dense. I’m only on the 2nd chapter and it’s a fight to get through this thing. That being said, I can tell it’s going to be intense and poignant, so I’m sure it’s worth the struggle. I’m a little confused about the prose section at the end of the chapter(s), but I’m assuming that will make more sense the farther I get into the text. I feel like the artwork does a lot in this book; if the artwork wasn’t this good, I’m not sure I’d be able to push myself to keep reading through the rest of it. But there are a lot of intense images like the one on the bottom of page 3, and he plays a lot with light and pays attention to small details.

...and now I have to go finish it, I suppose. Here’s to a few long nights of sugar and caffeine.

Wonder Woman

So, my group had Wonder Woman as an iconic character to explore. I didn’t really know anything about her character other than she was that tough chick character with the star-pants. I wasn’t even aware of the Lasso of Truth, which is a big “icon” associated with her – makes me feel a little dumb, but whatever. Now I know, right? Anyway, as it turns out, my not knowing much about her ties into a lot of what I’ve found out about her iconography (that she has a lack of it that the others certainly don’t). I’ve found a lot about her being a feminist icon; she was created as Marsten’s ideal woman, really – the quote from him on Wikipedia said that “Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world.” And her entire background of being an Amazon princess, her alter ego name of “Diana” after the goddess Diana/Artemis is evidence of her being symbolic of feminine power. But that’s the only connotation, really, that has stuck in people’s minds throughout the life of the character. Other than that, she does seem like a female Superman equivalent. And Dan was saying in class that this follows her lack of true personality throughout the years, that she’s been someone who changes a lot because she can’t hook as strong an audience as the other icons. The interview with Gail Simone correlated with that thought, too, and Simone said that with her writing of Wonder Woman this time, she’s been trying to give the character that sense of self that she’s been missing. I still think it’s going to be a difficult, if not impossible feat to accomplish (although, this is coming from someone who’s never read Wonder Woman, so I’m obviously not the best person to make a judgment call here); I think it’s going to be very hard, this late in the game, to re-invent the character this way and keep her from being the simply “feminist” icon she seems to have become.

references

Getting a closer look at some of the literary references that Bechdel uses in Fun Home was definitely helpful for me. When I first read the book, I didn’t like that she used this method, but now I understand more her reasoning behind it. I still can’t make myself like the fact of it, I guess. It really limits her audience, for one, even though she tries to give an overview of the stories she’s using. But when I was posting on Blackboard and found the line where she explains why she’s using the references (“I employ these allusions to James and Fitzgerald not only as descriptive devices, but because my parents are most real to me in fictional terms. And perhaps my cool aesthetic distance itself does more to convey the arctic climate of our family than any particular literary comparison,” pg. 67) – I don’t know, it makes me feel more sympathetic to her cause, maybe? Because this is really the only way she knows how to relate her story, so how can I hold that against her? But I suppose just because this is a comic doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t have a limited audience. I doubt anyone lower than college level could get through this, and (it must be pretty obvious by now) I don’t even have a firm grasp on it. Not that that’s a bad thing.

I feel I’m in danger of not making sense anymore, so I’m going to bed now.

the pictures

Okay, so like I mentioned in the last post, I no longer think that the pictures in Fun Home are useless. I’m not even really sure why I did in the first place. I think I just had a lot of trouble interpreting her writing style. But now I see how much the pictures reflect the tone – the depressing, lethargic tone – of the subject matter and Alison as a character are conveying. An obvious example is the color scheme she uses – pretty much monotone, watered-down, dull shades of gray. It’s certainly not upbeat, but it adds something that just black and white couldn’t achieve, either. Also, like Dan was saying in class, the expressions on the faces of all the characters are pretty much half-asleep and/or stoic through most of the story, which 1) helps create the tone I was talking about, and 2) makes the times when their expressions change all that more startling, like on page 47 when she talks about her and her brother laughing the first time they see each other after their father has died. And then there’s the fact that some of the text doesn’t reveal what’s being shown in the pictures (page 214), so without both you don’t understand fully what she’s referencing. So, now that I’ve heard a different perspective on it, I appreciate it more. But it still wasn’t my favorite piece. The style is, again, a bit hard to get used to. Though, I don’t think it’s a book that is intended to make the reader feel comfortable.

Oh, and I got the new graphic novel by Terry Brooks today. It’s called “Dark Wraith of Shannara,” and it's Brooks' first graphic novel, adapted by Robert Place Napton and illustrated by Edwin David (I'm not familiar with them, but maybe someone in class is) – for anyone familiar with Brooks’ Shannara fiction series, this is a new story that follows Jair Ohmsford and Garet Jax from The Wishsong of Shannara. I’m super excited to start reading it!!

Fun Home

*Note* This post was written a while ago, and I never got around to actually posting it. So, it no longer accurately depicts my opinion of Fun Home, but I figured I’d post it anyway that way the arc of my thought process, if you will, will be documented.

A while ago, I commented on here that we hadn’t yet read a book that I dislike. Now, we have. That’s not to say that I loathed the experience of reading Fun Home. But I agree with the discussion on Blackboard that this probably would have translated better as a nonfiction prose piece, without the pictures. The literary references threw me off some too, but I’ll go into that later. I don’t know, I guess I just didn’t like the way she wrote it. Maybe I just don’t like autobiographies. I don’t think I’ve read all that many, and it’s a different style to get used to. I guess I’ll wait and see what people say in class before I form anything concrete.