Before attempting to comment on these video essay. I found a youtube informatonal page in which lectured me on what exactly it was. Here is the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXKGNQg0M7c
After watching it and seeing the few videos in class. I became instantly interested in what they were. Listening to a plain ole essay from someone in front of a class is becoming obsolete in our growing technological society. The idea of having moving images, people speaking, words backed up by words draws our viewers/ listeners in stronger.
Watching Reading by Delillo was compelling to my attention because it was exciting to know this family or friends of an astronaut was proud of their son's accomplishments, but it went down hill after the explosion. Now having visuals and people crying in the background, to me, is stronger than having a person read off paragraphs. It's stronger now because as we listen, we feel the emotion of the pain of what went on that day. We probably would have never felt the same realism from reading it on paper.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Stein part 2
After revisiting Gertrude my relationship with her is still in major dislike. There is a level of respect for someone who can have an entire book based off her own ideas and make their readers dig deep between the lines for a profound meaning, but there isn't much enjoyment, in which I personally receive from her work.
I have an interesting theory that is probably wrong but I would like to express it. I never understood what or who Lolo was in the work. From my understanding it could have been that this Lolo character could have been like an alter ego of Stein's. Although she changes its sex a few times I had a few questions about what this person or thing meant to her. "there is some relation between romance and the human mind but no relation between human nature and romantic anything because human nature is not interesting but romance is." 435 and the next stanza says Lolo. It makes me wonder she saying this as a connection or relation between her own mind, body, and ego. If that is the case there is no relation between human nature and romances because her mind won't allow it.
"A masterpiece certainly has nothing to do with identity because if identity had an audience would not care to be a masterpiece." Pg 459 Stood out to me saying a larger profound thing to me even if I understood it wrong. It is saying a masterpiece can stand out without and identity, but a identity can't stand without a masterpiece. Do we rely on our work speaking for us or do we strive for our work to stand alone without authorship? If a work is great than it does not need an author's title on it yet he a quick to claim the masterpiece as our own. It is a kind of tongue twisting mind bottling nursery rhyme which bounces around my mind.
Its so weird to me how she can write about several topics and keep them going on and on until the end. Using money, romance, human nature, human mind, identity, etc for an entire book of her personal thoughts yet keep your interesting along with confused throughout the piece. It is a very humorous piece with points where she expects the reader to keep up, even though for myself, I struggled to keep up and understand the humor in it. Overall, I have learned through her para-tactic novel she was a profound yet crazy lady.
I have an interesting theory that is probably wrong but I would like to express it. I never understood what or who Lolo was in the work. From my understanding it could have been that this Lolo character could have been like an alter ego of Stein's. Although she changes its sex a few times I had a few questions about what this person or thing meant to her. "there is some relation between romance and the human mind but no relation between human nature and romantic anything because human nature is not interesting but romance is." 435 and the next stanza says Lolo. It makes me wonder she saying this as a connection or relation between her own mind, body, and ego. If that is the case there is no relation between human nature and romances because her mind won't allow it.
"A masterpiece certainly has nothing to do with identity because if identity had an audience would not care to be a masterpiece." Pg 459 Stood out to me saying a larger profound thing to me even if I understood it wrong. It is saying a masterpiece can stand out without and identity, but a identity can't stand without a masterpiece. Do we rely on our work speaking for us or do we strive for our work to stand alone without authorship? If a work is great than it does not need an author's title on it yet he a quick to claim the masterpiece as our own. It is a kind of tongue twisting mind bottling nursery rhyme which bounces around my mind.
Its so weird to me how she can write about several topics and keep them going on and on until the end. Using money, romance, human nature, human mind, identity, etc for an entire book of her personal thoughts yet keep your interesting along with confused throughout the piece. It is a very humorous piece with points where she expects the reader to keep up, even though for myself, I struggled to keep up and understand the humor in it. Overall, I have learned through her para-tactic novel she was a profound yet crazy lady.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)