READ THIS!
Here's what you've already done:
For chapters IV (four) and V (five) you have annotated passages. Some of you have used the enotes link (over there in the right margin) to print out and write on passages. Some of you have written on post-it notes or scraps of paper in your books. Some of you have jotted notes on a separate sheet of paper. Whatever your method you have made observations related to literary elements--narration, style, characterization, imagery, allusions, etc.; the whole landscape of the text--and have speculated on connections between those elements--features of the landscape--and the development, effect, and meaning of the novel as a whole.
Here's what you need to do Wednesday night before pumpkin time:
Now we'd like you to write an explication (also called a "close reading") of a passage from chapter V. (Most of you will write about the passage you have already annotated; though some of you might have been inspired by something you heard in class.)
A friend, Mr. Ryan Gallagher at Malden (MA) High School, writes, "A passage explication is an essay that takes apart the pieces of a prose passage to demonstrate how it creates meaning [on its own and in relation to the rest of the work]. Its main question can be reduced to the simple idea of 'What does the passage mean? What is its purpose? How does it create that meaning and achieve its purpose? How does it fit in with the rest of the text (if available)?'"
A further note on the etymology of explication: in Latin explicare means "to unfold," so it might be useful to imagine Joyce's text as compressed (or folded) into a particularly dense and layered package of potential meaning.
Your job as an explicator is to unfold the densely layered mass, to report on what you discover as you unfold, and to speculate upon the significance of what you discover.
Another friend, Mr. John Brassil, an AP Language teacher in Maine who is active with the College Board, talks about "close reading" as walking through the landscape of a text. What do you notice? (What is odd? What is interesting? What's similar? What's different? What stands out? What blends in?) And then, what might be significant about what you've noticed in relation to the text as a whole (or, to extend the metaphor, the landscape as an ecosystem)? We recommend that you walk through the passage from beginning to end, commenting as you go about what you notice and how it might be significant.
Here's what you'll do next (by Tuesday, November 29):
Write an expository essay that develops your interpretation of how a particular thread that embodies a tension in A Portrait of the Artist is significant to the work as a whole. We'll get the prompt up here tomorrow.
Chapter 5 Annotation: pg 206-208
ReplyDeleteThe passage I selected showcases the tensions between Stephen's perceptions of darkness and light, while embodying the earthly sensations he shunned during his adoption of Catholic ideals. The opening and closing of the quote touch on the motif of falling, relating(as we have often mentioned in class) both to the fall of Satan and the fall of Icarus.
"The talk about him ceased for a moment: and a soft hiss fell again from a window above." It is interesting that Joyce would juxtapose the
end of a focus on Stephen in the world around him with an ambiguous falling, where it is unclear what exactly falls. Whatever it
is drops from a window, a lens through which the world can be seen. On the one hand, the ceasing of chatter focused on Stephen allows him the freedom of independent intellectual flight, but also a fall from the connection he hopes for in society. "The life of his body, ill clad, ill fed, louse eaten, made him close
his eyelids in a sudden spasm of despair: and in the darkness he saw the brittle bright bodies of lice falling from the air and turning
often as they fell." This directly describes the world's dirtiness and immersion in the tiny meaningless pleasures of everyday life. It also
very much resembles the metaphorical worm reference from Chapter 3 when discussing the pain of conscience. Though he is no longer viewing the world from a priest-like vantage point he still associates bugs and low-end creatures with the sins and triteness of the world.
During this passage, the senses of the body he worked so hard to mortify in Chapter 4, are all reinstated with full-blown intensity. "allowed his mind to summon back to itself the age of Dowland and Byrd and Nash. Eyes, opening from the darkness of desire, eyes that dimmed the breaking east." He slips directly into the world of musicians and poets in his thoughts, later adding the images of both womanly
extremes(Mary and Mary Magdalene) to his mind, but stating "The images he had summoned gave him no pleasure." This makes it clear that his return to the realms of the earth is not completely satisfying to a developing consciousness like himself. He is still lost in his apparent lack of reasoned ideals, rather they seem to come in unorganized bursts, nearly unrelated to one another. Stephen "tasted in the language of memory ambered wines," and "sharply he smelt her body." The desirous senses pour from him as the argument between his friends continues in the background(negated from Joyce's narration, but present based on continuity before and after this passage).
PART 2!!!
ReplyDeleteStephen's confusion of a quote by Nash is frustrating to him and very telling of his mindset to the reader. He first remembers it as
"Darkness falls from the air," but later recalls it to be "Brightness falls from the air." Darkness and light can be considered very spiritual concepts, where as the evil and unrighteous will fear the light and love the dark because it hides their sinful deeds, while the righteous will flock to the light because they are cleansed by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Just another way Joyce reminds us of the deep penetration of those concepts on Stephen's mind regardless of how he has tried to leave them behind. If in this sense, they would point to a lingering sense of moral shame in Stephen's mind, preventing him from acheiving the lightness of consciousness and confidence he found in the woman at the beach("without shame or wantonness" pg 150). They would once again lend themselves to the death religion would produce and the way he is forced to dwell on that fact every time such juxtapositions present themselves to him.
A second way of interpreting his mistake would be with an artistic and intellectual lens. Throughout which the brightness is the enlightenment and full awareness of the world(which he seems to fear by his replacement of it with darkness), and darkness is the ignorance resulting from a narrow or very unchangeable set of ideals. However, Stephen seems to prefer the more concentrated vision to the openness of full societal pervading, perhaps because it is too overwhelming for someone of his artistic perspective to handle in regards to the conflicts of the entire universe. The irony is he embodies his preference toward partial ignorance(darkness) in the fact that he is ignorant of the correct quotation during his musings.
The passage as a whole is a clear representation of the fogginess Stephen is actually experiencing with his place in society and the world, regardless of how he portrays himself to his friends(with decided opinions and insights).
I chose to annotate a paragraph on page 157. It starts with “through this image” and ends with the four lines about ivy upon the wall. I notice how the paragraph relates to Stephen’s lack of real life adventure and overabundance of imaginary adventure. The first line says, “Through this image he had a glimpse of a strange dark cavern of speculation but at once he turned away from it.” Stephen turned his back on adventure once again for something that was easier. That something was his imagination.
ReplyDeleteThis paragraph deals with consciousness as well. Stephen is in class, listening to a discussion. “And he found himself glancing from one casual word to another on his right or left in stolid wonder that they had been so silently emptied of instantaneous sense.” He feels that people use words lightly, and that they talk simply just to talk. He feels that people have no substance behind their words. Also, I find it funny how it says, “his soul shriveled up sighing with age as he walked on in a lane among heaps of dead language.” In other words, people’s empty, meaningless words are making Stephen’s soul literally age. I find it funny because Stephen clearly thinks that his intelligence is superior to the intelligence of others, whose words have no meaning.
Also, I find the ending of the paragraph ironic. “His own consciousness of language was ebbing from his brain and trickling into the very words themselves which set to band and disband themselves in wayward rhythms.” This sentence leads into a poem that makes no sense. So here Stephen is scoffing at other people’s senseless words, and now he’s trying to decipher the meaning behind a senseless poem.
The passage I chose is on page 153 and it starts with “He shook the sound out of his ears….” The passage was talking about Stephen had overheard someone yelling at Jesus and how offense he found that. It also went onto say how offending and threatening Stephen found his father’s whistle, his mother’s mutterings and the screech of an unseen maniac. They were threatening to “humble the pride of his youth.”
ReplyDeleteThis passage leads me to believe that Stephen has a problem with authority and voices. He has never been happy or comfortable around his father who may be the most authoritative figure in his life right now. When someone rules over you like that and you really do not appreciate it every little thing that they do bothers you. How they sit, how they talk, and even if they just whistle you get annoyed.
Stephen has always struck me as someone who enjoys quiet more than anything. He has always been more of an observer or a follower. He has never been the one to be observed of the leader. So, when unnecessary noise comes around he does not like it. Since Stephen does not appreciate necessary noise that much unnecessary noise, like whistling or muttering, is not appreciated at all. He would much prefer to be by himself and only things that need to be said were said. Wanting to be by himself is why Stephen has come full circle by the end of the novel. At the start he was very withdrawn and did not want much interaction. In the middle he was trying to interact and fit in but by the end he had withdrawn again. Wanting to be alone is what makes the novel end the way it did.
the passage i chose contains the conversation between Stephen and Cranly, directly before the book changes into the journal. The conversation is about Stephens decisions to leave the church to pursue his life as an artist. Cranly tells Stephen that this choice will lead to a life of loneliness, and Stephen understands this, and is willing to take the risk to achieve the life he wants.
ReplyDeleteThis signifies Stephens growth as a person, he is not being influenced by anything(like his father, or the church) and he is making a life changing choice. He decides that he will not serve, like Lucifer; however his choice isn't so black and white. he isn't going to practice his religion, but he isn't going against his own morals. So he has finally started creating his own identity, although he is still figuring out some things. Yet even more important then finding out who he is, Stephen is finally free. Free to live, free to express himself, and free to pursue what ever he wants. This is the first time Stephen has the confidence to do anything on his own, with nothing supporting him. It is also the first time he could have a conversation with a girl he liked, and was able to speak his mind. So his conversation with Cranly was the last step he had top take to end his old journey, and start his new adventure. He shows his readiness by stating "I do not fear to be alone or to be spurned for another or to leave whatever i have to leave. And i am not afraid to make a mistake, even a great mistake, a lifelong mistake and perhaps as long as eternity too.".
The passage that I chose to annotate is on page 224 and is Stephen sitting on the steps of the library at the university, gazing up in the sky, musing about a flock of birds flying above him. In the last two passages I annotated, I also found bird imagery and so I was not entirely surprised to read a scene involving even heavier bird referencing. Beginning the passage with “What birds were they?,” Joyce goes on to explain the pattern of their flight: “bird after bird: a dark flash, a swerve, a flash again, a dart aside, a curve, a flutter of wings. He tried to count them before all their darting quivering bodies passed: six, ten eleven: and wondered were they odd or even in number. Twelve, thirteen: for two came wheeling down from the upper sky. They were flying high and low but ever round and round in straight and curving line and ever flying from left to right, circling about a temple of air.” Later in the passage, Joyce recycles the beginning line, “what birds were they?” I think Joyce is making a connection, by doing so, to the flight of the birds and I think possibly Stephen. In Stephen’s varying relationships, he has an extreme quality to all of them. Stephen is constantly changing who he loves and his beliefs but they are always very well calculated. I think that at times, Stephen’s tone suggests he is jealous of the birds “because they, unlike man, are in the order of their life and have not perverted that order by reason.” I find this a bit ironic because I find that Stephen prides himself on intellect and language and reason. Although he changes his mind, Stephen fully dedicates himself to what he believes in and justifies his beliefs with reason and to call that practice “perverted” is odd.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy annotation begins on either page 157 or 156 (I don't have the book with me at the moment) starting with “The girl came back, making signs to him to be quick and go quietly out the back...” and ending with “I was not wearier where I lay.” This excerpt immediately follows Stephen's “rebirth” or “rebaptism” by his mother at the beginning of chapter. It also includes his response to his father calling him a “bitch.” Which is “He has a curious idea of genders if he thinks a bitch is masculine.”
ReplyDeleteIt is noteworthy, I think, that this is the first time in the book (to my knowledge) that Stephen verbally disagrees with his father, and is immediately after his rebaptism. It shows that Chapter V's Stephen is immediately different from the Stephen that has been present for the first four chapters of the book. His mother corroborates this, talking about the college “...you'll live to rue the day you set foot in that place. I know how it has changed you.”
As soon as Stephen leaves his house, he walks past a insane asylum for nuns, who are literally yelling “Jesus! O Jesus!” This makes a joke out of practically all of Stephen's religious experience, while simultaneously saying that if he had gone that route, that is what would have happened to him. He shakes off these voices, as well as those of his parents, which seems to be alluding to him shaking off (or attempting to shake off) the influences he had previously clung to.
The last paragraph of the passage is entirely about Stephen seeing things in Dublin and instead thinking of various famous authors. He is both immersing himself in artistic influences (which are replacing the ones he had previously shaken off) and escaping Dublin via artistic works. Also worth noting is the writer Guido Cavalcanti (mentioned in the paragraph) was a friend of Dante's (writer, not aunt) which may be a subtle reference to Dante (aunt not writer) and her artistic influence on Stephen, and Stephen's subsequent separation from it.
** Sorry I'm posting this again! I totally forgot to include my name (as always) so figured I'd try again... ELEANOR KELLER
ReplyDeleteI chose one of the passages from Chapter Five where Stephen was writing. My passage starts on page 223 (April 5) and continues onto page 224 (April 10). I was immediately drawn to this section because of the 'swirling bogwater.' My memory automatically flashed through other moments where water was involved; first to the second that Wells pushed Stephen into the cesspool, and then forward to the picture of the almost angelic, bird-like woman in the water.
Stephen starts the entry of April 5th with the words: 'Wild Spring. Scudding Clouds. O life!' As Sarah said today in class, so many of the complex pieces that Joyce has intertwined, finally come together as 'A Portrait..' nears its end. The jux ta posed language throughout the book highlights the tension and meaning of the whole. Stephen compares the wild livelihood that comes with Spring to the clouds that (although they are usually connected with gloominess), skim through the sky, with the same vitality as the young artist himself. Then Stephen's eyes fall to the ground, to the water; the very entity that both haunts and pleases him throughout the whole book. Within the dark swirls Stephen sees the flower petals floating innocently. Like the girl's enticing eyes against the generic leaves, the petals provide beauty in something that at times makes Stephen cringe. It's interesting to me that Stephen, an artist who has built himself off his surroundings, finds pleasure in people rather than nature.
The tone of April 6th's passage changes drastically. Stephen speaks of the past, childhood, and the way the two effect the present. It humored, and somewhat worried me the way that Stephen questions the existence of his own childhood: 'Then she remembers the time of her childhood - and mine if I ever had one.' I wonder how Stephen personally feels about his so called 'childhood.' Obviously it wasn't what most people think of, but does he feel like he missed something. I wonder how the rest of the class feels about this.
Later in the day Stephen writes again. As Michael Robartes hugs a woman he 'presses in his arms the loveliness which has long faded from the world.' Stephen disagrees and wants to 'press in (his) arms the loveliness which has not yet come into the world.' This is an interesting use of language to mean similar, but at the same time, very different things. Like much of Joyce's writing that moment is one that could be skimmed over quickly and not seen for the meaning it contains. Reading again lets me ponder on the idea that Stephen has a flame of optimism within him that allows him to see hope in the future.
April 10th is a passage written about night. He describes the darkness as heaving and says the city 'has turned from dreams to dreamless sleep as a weary lover whom no caresses move.' Even reading again and again I am not one hundred percent sure what Joyce means by this, or what he is trying to say. He goes on to write of the hoofs of horses, walking the streets, breaking the silence. Unlike usual, it is not Stephen in the streets this time, but the horses. He says the 'hoofs shine amid the heavy night as gems.' and that they are hurrying towards a journeys end. The journey is not explicitly defined, as Stephen is unsure of their purpose, but the word journey implies that the horses are working towards a specific goal. In ways, this seems almost the opposite of Stephen. When he walks and thinks he feels intellectually and mentally high, but never portrays himself as a gem, precisely. He also seems to 'wander' the labyrinth of Dublin rather than towards a destination as the horses do.
The passage I had chosen has already been posted by Olivia, and I have thus decided to annotate a different section of Chapter 5. This is later in the chapter, closer towards the end of things. It follows Stephen as he wakes up one morning in a state of grace, following an epiphany of a dream. Beginning with “Towards dawn he awoke” and culminating in his divinely inspired villanelle, composed for the girl from the tram a decade ago.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, there is an aspect of feel. How do you feel when you read this book? Though often disjointed, wandering, highly cerebral and sometimes downright confusing, the book operates in a strong sense of feel. When reading, a mood, or an idea, or something else equally if not more intangible rises to the top and colors the text. The feeling is, for me, like riding a bike – There are the minute details to pay attention to, the myriad intricate workings all contorted together to form the bike, the layout of the road and the technical, instant and continuous studying of the surface on which you’re riding – And then there is, at the same time, the feeling of motion, like it’s just your head traveling through space, or some other similarly separate sensation that floats on top of the whole scene. In Portrait, this effect is crucial to the meaning of the work.
I read this passage at first to float. It is reverent, mystical, inspired. The is the beautiful sense of inspired purpose that sets the writer frantically in search of a writing utensil and surface (In this case, the cigarette paper). The ecstasy of seraphic life. Look at that sentence! It’s meaning is beautiful, it sounds beautiful!
And yet, wait. Hasn’t the reader been dragged through the muck and the mire of Stephen’s monstrous, sinful and impure life and nature? The skies have been bleak, his soul tortured, strained and cold. Perhaps that is what makes this passage all the more powerful. As Stephen says so himself, only through sin can he fully appreciate innocence. There is only light because of the dark.
This, I think, is the main thing I can draw from floating. A major theme that floats on top of Portrait is this light and dark, innocence and purity. And the grey that Stephen dwells in. The passage is permeated with reference to the religion that has figured so prominently in his life (the earth was a swinging smoking swaying censer), and the sense of purity and inspiration is weighted with that. He also acknowledges his impurity as he recalls the memory of the girl, the rude, brutal anger that consumed him as he thinks of her mingling with resigned wonder. Through all this, we must recognize the absence of dispassion that dominated the earlier parts of the book. Whatever it is he feels in this passage, for it is many things, it is passionate. It’s also not all sin and doom and squalor – though his soul may be charred by sin, he still sees through the inspired lens of the artist, and this moment strikes my heart as being a real essence of what I’m coming to surmise adult life to be. It is impure. It is the divine epiphany scrawled upon the cigarette packet.
The bit of Chapter 5 that I chose to explicate begins after Stephen concludes it is much too late to attend his French class. He settles for Physics, and after entering the dark theater, happens upon the dean of studies, who is tending to his fireplace. After greeting him with scholarly vigor, Stephen is subject to a lesson of sorts, as the man methodically starts a fire, using tried methods.
ReplyDeleteThe general air about the theater seemed a bit strange as Stephen enters, being described as “chilly”, “grey”, and “dusty”, setting the stage for the dean who inhabits the theater to be a bit off beat and peculiar himself. While the man is clearly skilled at this craft, “placed them deftly among the coals” there is a hint of uneasy eeriness to him. When the dean physically kneels down on the flagstone to kindle his hungry fire, I was reminded of the literal kneeling that occurs at church. After a bit of investigation, kneeling during mass can equate to plenty of things. To name a few, kneeling in awe of God, kneeling to express honor and respect, kneeling before God to implore his aid, and kneeling to remember He who is greater. This kneeling of the dean may symbolically suggest something about his character, perhaps that he is a dedicated follower of God, or is in need of his help. This is particularly echoed a line later in the passage, “he seemed more than ever a humble server making ready the place of sacrifice in an empty temple”. In the next line, Joyce’s use of the phrase “levite of the Lord” also mirrors the dean’s service to his “creator”, as levite literally means assistant. This made me wonder about the symbolic significance of the fire, as there seems to be ground to think that his kneeling has characterization significance.
Stephen begins to scrutinize the man, and comes off a bit critical and paradoxical, “his very body had waxed old in lowly service of the Lord-” Calling the dean’s service to God lowly is telling of Stephen’s morals and startling to the reader. Stephen’s apparent awkwardness in the situation stands out, as he seeks to fill the silence with an empty assertion, that the dean is quick to question. The dean’s deep and philosophical thoughts that he imparts on Stephen reveals an air of cockiness about the latter, as he is prompt and strong in his replies. For example, when the dean asks, “Can you solve that question now?” Stephen answers with: “Aquinas. Says pulcra sunt quae visa placent,” a Latin phrase that means “The beautiful are those things that, being seen, please.” Stephen continues slyly with this Latin quoting, but the dean notices this, and asserts his own knowledge of Latin, leaving Stephen with a bold, questionable statement.
Stephen continues to closely observe the dean, and notices his brisk walk that was slightly hampered by a limp. This stood out to me, and I was a surprised that nothing more was said about how or why he had this incompetency. The only connection, which I found strange, that was made to this debilitation was regarding Ignatius, “Like Ignatius, he was lame, but in his eyes burned no spark of Ignatius’s as him from the pale loveless eyes.” Joyce chooses to end the passage with another piece of Latin, “similtier atque senis baculus” which means, “Like an old man’s walking stick.” This part seemed to blend into the latter half of the passage, at first glance, as it seems like more of Stephen’s constant internal ravings and philosophical connections, however, upon closer examination, it seemed more significant. Stephen compared the dean of studies, a levite of the Lord, an assistant and obedient servant, to someone that anyone could ultimately lean on and confide in, which is telling of both the dean, and Stephen himself.
I chose the passage that starts on pg 185 (in my book). The passage starts out with, “'I am sure I could not light a fire.'” This passage describes the encounter that Stephen has with the dean. One of the patterns I constantly see is fire. Fire in a good way, not the bad way like Hell. What mean by fire in a good way is fire is a form of guidance. Which can also mean that fire is a symbol for God.
ReplyDelete“'I need them only for for my own use and guidance until I have done something for my self by their light.'” When I see this quote I think that light is just another word for guidance. In this passage Stephen only uses his own guidance and shapes it to whatever he likes. The Dean cautions Stephen by telling the story of Epictetus. How I interpreted it was, that unnatural guidance or guidance that you change to your will, will have bad consequence, but if you pick a more natural guidance like God, good things will happen. Stephen said: “I am sure I could not light a fire”, which means that he could not create his own guidance, but based his off others.
“'...satisfies the animal craving for warmth fire is a good. In Hell, however it is an evil.'” In this case, fire is not only guidance, it is God. If you want or need God, then God will be good to you. If you sin and go to Hell, God's wrath will be after you. In Hell, if you want God, it means that you want God's wrath, not grace. God's grace is also another word for fire or guidance in this passage. It provides a set unchangeable guidance for anyone who wants the guidance.
I decided to annotate pages 153 to 155, the part of the chapter in which Stephen is bathed by his mother and talking about his days. The first thing I noticed on page 153 was the fact Joyce brought in birds by stating "the interstices at the wings of his nose." Next I noted that Stephen's mother was washing him (due to his laziness or sloth), which is a sin yet in class we noticed that the bathing was almost like being baptized. I feel as if these are two very conflicting ideas. The idea of wetness or dampness constantly comes up, as does the idea of waste "...amid heaps of wet rubbish" and other scenes describing the environment as wet. Lastly I noted that Stephen's pride is constantly questioned in this scene. First his father calls him a "lazy bitch" which has to be hurtful. Next, he speaks about the voices that are trying to "humble the pride of his youth". And at last he has "his monkish pride" stung and is forced out of his hiding place.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think Stephen has changed drastically since he left the university. He has become lazy and prideful. Often he comes up with awkward situations, such as saying his mother enjoys bathing him still. Originally he was trying to stay away from sin, yet now that he is out he is doing the opposite, starting His thoughts are dreary and the moments that were lit were only lit for a few minutes and then are swiped out from under Stephen. I want to have hope for him but after these scenes I am not sure.
I chose a passage toward the end of Chapter 5, starting from when Stephen talks to Cranly about his mother. However, the passage was very long, so I cut off the conversation, but I hope its enough to find out something...
ReplyDeletePersonally, I found this scene to be coinciding with some of Jesus’ life, but it may just be me, so I’ll just point out what I saw,
In the beginning, when Stephen announces that he had a “quarrel”, Cranly asks “With your people?”, to which Stephen answers, “With my mother”, about religion. I somehow thought of how Jesus had”argued” with his parents that he only had one true “Father” (God), and that Mary and Joseph were not his parents. Later it is seen that Cranly has a “calm”, “moved”, and “friendly” attitude while Stephen is “hot”, “excitable”, and “bloody”. Stephen is mad about the “quarrel”, while Cranly seems to look at the situation in an impartial way.
When Cranly threw his fig down and proclaimed, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire!”, it had reminded me of Jesus when he had said something similar to Peter, his disciple, the same thing when Peter recommended Jesus not to return to Jerusalem while it was still chaotic. Stephen had asked if the other choice was “an eternity of bliss in the company of the dean of studies”, who earlier in the chapter had been speculating on fire (how to start a fire).
When Cranly had asked Stephen if he “loved” his mother, Stephen had shook his head, not knowing the meaning behind the words. So when Cranly asks if he has ever loved someone, Stephen asks about “women” (Emma/E.C., prostitutes) to which Cranly “coldly” says no. Here, the situation of “hot” and “cold” switch between the two.
Cranly had advised Stephen to follow his mother’s wishes. The scene reminded me of when Jesus had been invited by his mother to a wedding. At the wedding, the wine had run out, and Mary had went to Jesus for help, which he gave by asking for barrels of “water”.
After the class discussion, we had mentioned “snares”, “traps”, and “nets”, and I realized that there was a similar situation in my passage where it is mentioned three times that Cranly “traps” Stephen. He had “pressed”, “taken” and “tightened his grip” on Stephen’s arm. Each of these scenes seems to happen when Stephen is getting riled up or when he wants to make a point to Stephen.
The passage I chose was when Stephen and the Dean had the discussion about Stephen’s use of the Irish word for funnel and Stephen gets frustrated by the Dean.
ReplyDeleteThis passage struck me in a way that at first made me very frustrated. It was hard for me to get through it and completely understand what Joyce was trying to have Stephen convey. However, after reading it, and rereading it and then reading it out loud, I believe I understand the significance of this section.
This sections finally conveys Stephen’s frustration with language and its inability to convey his emotions and feelings. He says that English will always be a “borrowed language” and that his words and the Dean’s will never match. Not only does this show the problem with cultural division between English and Irish, it makes the argument that language is simply a tangible value that over time loses value and never has an equal value. What he wants to say is going to be lost in translation, such as his use of the Irish word for funnel, and the Dean not being able to understand. Though they mean the same thing, they have different values and this is hard for Stephen to accept until the very end.
During the first chapter, you can see evidence of his exploration of language when he keep repeating “canker is a disease of plants; Cancer is a disease of animals.” This line shows that he understand words are close, but don’t always have the same meaning, One simple letter can mean the different between plants and animals, but are similar enough that they both pertain to a disease.
I think his frustration towards language, is what leads him to try and act as a perfect religious man, and his misstep with his encounter with the prostitute. His lack of words to describe his feelings required him to act them out in a way that people can understand the way he feels.
My close reading of Chapter 5 was based on a passage from pages 171 - 173: “The droning voice of the professor.... given back flatly by a Wicklow pulpit.”
ReplyDeleteOf the passage, the portion that stood out most resolutely to me was the comparison of the Czar to Christ:
“Cranly turned his pale face to Stephen and said blandly and bitterly:
—Per pax universalis.—
Stephen pointed to the Tsar's photograph and said:
—He has the face of a besotted Christ.—
The scorn and anger in his voice brought Cranly's eyes back from a calm survey of the walls of the hall.”
This excerpt is woven through with curiosities. The first notable aspect is Cranly’s comment being said “blandly and bitterly”, which immediately charges the passage with irony, as the comment means “For universal peace”, which one would assume would be full and meaningful. However, this lack of sincerity gives Stephen’s refusal to sign the document more solid legitimacy, as he does not want to give his signature to something empty. The next and most significant key of this passage is the comparison of the Czar to “the face of a besotted Christ.” This is ironic in every sense. Christ as a representation of purity cannot be coupled with intoxication or infatuation without a sacrilegious connotation. Additionally, Czars, being known for their cruelty, are not often associated with pure, pious figures or with movements of international peace. Stephen makes this comment with “scorn and anger in his voice”, which highlights the ceaseless emotion he feels toward circumstances he encounters that pertain to him directly or only by observation, such as the document for peace. Cranly’s sudden attentiveness when Stephen’s voice turned sharp illustrates an interesting theme among many of Stephen’s peers: they seem to interact most directly when using negative language or actions, such as the quarrelling that occurs later in the chapter and the cesspool scene in chapter one.
A very predominant theme in the passage I examined in chapter five (and in the piece as a whole) is the authoritative figures in Stephen’s life. Priests are commonly brought up throughout the book, and in this passage in particular. Before the scene I chose to explicate, Stephen is conferring with a Father who seems to have a more flattering light shed on him that previous Priests and holy men. I think it is important in Stephen’s development, as it demonstrates his heightened ability to begin (though not entirely) look past the occupation or religious standpoint or gender of those he interacts with to judge them in a pure and unbiased light.
“MacCann is in tiptop form. Ready to shed the last drop. Brand new world. No stimulants and votes for the bitches.” This statement, extracted from later in my explicated passage, illuminates two more important symbols. First, the drop Moynihan discusses can be thought of as the last drop of blood, which parallels Christ’s crucifixion and the Catholic tradition of imbibing the blood of Christ at mass. This counters the intended meaning of the phrase, which was to go all out, and ties the Priest back to his duties in an indirect and almost backwards way. Additionally, the mention of “votes for the bitches” again brings up the tension of distinguishing between womanly and feminine features and holy or pure, priest-like features. For Stephen, as highlighted by the Father’s pale hands in chapter one, the distinction is not always entirely clear. This also links into his insecurities dealing with both priests and women, and his constantly developing opinions and emotions on both groups. The irony in this statement is that the priest evidently won’t vote for “bitches”, or women, but some of the underlying characteristics of the priest are feminine, and to Stephen, posses some of the same mystifying traits that women do.