As a group we have reached the end of our character exploration in English 101. Our theme for this blog was one which gave us a great deal of room to explore. We had time to analyze the main characters within each story which was a good opportunity for us to gain a better understanding of each novel. As a group we explored the obvious and not so obvious details of the characters which accompanied this class all semester.
It was a pleasure to work with this group. Everyone had great insight and equally as good work habits. It was an organized and efficient effort which made this project a breeze!
Take care everyone and good luck!!
competed by: Brianne Grainger
Monday, April 2, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Fontaine the “keeper of time”
When I first read the story, I always wondered what Fontaine’s purpose in the story was, what his character represents, and even what the relationship is between Fontaine and watches. However, after Dr. Ogden analyzed Fontaine’s character, I begin to understand Fontaine much better. As Dr. Ogden described, Fontaine is a keeper of time, a keeper of history that records the now and ensures the future. Fontaine adheres to the real (i.e. reality) and not the virtual world (i.e. made from technology). He collects watches, the symbol of order that is controlled mechanically by hand power, and not digitally by technology. "[Fontaine] is an anachronist: a historian" (49). He believes that everything has a story or a history, and these stories are alive, especially in watches. Evidently, this is seen when Chevette quotes, “[e]verything, to Fontaine, had a story. Each object, each fragment comprising the built world. A chorus of voices, the past alive in everythin
g, the sea upon which the present tossed and rode” (158). Fontaine often speaks of or reminds people of the past through his collection of antiques. For example, he gathers “old-fashioned watches with their dials going rusty … some huge ugly telephone, sheathed in ridged black rubber. Fontaine [is] crazy about old things” (158). I feel that these antique items are indeed a form of history that may cause people to reminisce about the past, think of the present and how much things have or have not changed and the possibilities the future may hold. Hence, I believe these "old-fashioned watches" and items are the keeper of time and order, and becuase Fontaine is the keeper of them, it makes him the time keeper.
g, the sea upon which the present tossed and rode” (158). Fontaine often speaks of or reminds people of the past through his collection of antiques. For example, he gathers “old-fashioned watches with their dials going rusty … some huge ugly telephone, sheathed in ridged black rubber. Fontaine [is] crazy about old things” (158). I feel that these antique items are indeed a form of history that may cause people to reminisce about the past, think of the present and how much things have or have not changed and the possibilities the future may hold. Hence, I believe these "old-fashioned watches" and items are the keeper of time and order, and becuase Fontaine is the keeper of them, it makes him the time keeper.In addition, I find that there is an interesting connection between Silencio and Fontaine which is never really explained. Both characters appear to be intrigued and captivated by only watches. Fontaine was only first interested in Silencio because he wanted the Jaeger-LeCoultre military Konrad gave to Silencio. Nevertheless, Fontaine continued to care for Silencio and “found it impossible to explain to anyone why he had subsequently fed [Silencio], gotten him showered, bought him fresh clothes, and shown him how to use the eyephones. Actually [Fontaine] couldn’t explain it to himself.” (129). I feel that this special bond is a result of their fascination for watches and that the watches somehow have linked them together in an unexplainable way. Also, at the end, I think Silencio replaces Fontaine’s role, and becomes the “time keeper” himself.
By: Rosalie Pham
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Berry Rydell the "rent-a-cop"
Out of all the characters, I feel sorry for Rydell the most because he seems to lead a misfortunate life and career. He was never able to accomplish or fulfill his dreams such as being a cop. In fact, he always seems to have the worst luck with trying to keep a secure or stable job and often gets himself fired. Rydell even tried to act in Cops in Trouble but was unsuccessful because the camera had unrealistically added twenty pounds on him which made him fat even though he was obviously “all muscles and long legs” (131).
I find that Rydell is a very interesting character, and sometimes his character is contradictory. For example, “[w]hatever it was [Rydell] was supposed to be doing here, for Laney, he wanted to do it right. Get all jangled, this way, you never knew what could happen. Calm down. Nobody was losing it here.” (121) and then, "he lost it immediately” (121). Rydell appears to be a cautious person who always wants to do things right and legally. However, because he has agoraphobia, it makes him nervous, easily tempered and loses control of himself (i.e. just like when he tortured the Chinese kid behind the counter because the kid wasn't able to provide the information Rydell wanted.) In addition, Rydell believes that killing is unnecessary and often doubts the need of killing when he quotes, “killing anyone was a terrible and permanent thing to enter into” (196). Nonetheless, after witnessing Konrad killed someone “silently and without raising a sweat … [like] the way another man might change his shirt or open a bottle of beer”(196) Rydell feelings begin to contradict his beliefs and felt “something in [him] yearned so to be that, that, feeling it now, he blushed” (196).
I feel that Rydell’s fictional character and life events actually portray and represent an aspect of real life and real people. There are people who dream of becoming lawyers, doctors, police officers etc… but due to unfortunate events that occur in their lives, they are prevented from achieving their ambitions and thus, have to take alternative paths to reach their goal. Furthermore, many people have strong beliefs and values of what they consider is appropriate but sometimes their thoughts and desires contradict eachother.
In lecture, Dr. Ogden mentioned that Laney is the mind and Rydell is the body. I agree with Dr. Ogden. Throughout the novel, Laney is the “master-mind”, the one that sees all the patterns and flows in the nodal points, feels all changes in the world, and only “go” to places via his mind, such as entering the virtual world. Laney feels a change, and sees the world as ending soon, but he never physically leaves his cardboard to stop this change. Instead, he hires Rydell to carry out his exact instructions and guidelines. Indeed, Rydell, “the body” physically carries out these instructions and task that Laney has ordered. Rydell is like Laney’s body, a being that performs Laney’s commands. This is my interpretation of it, what do you think?
.jpg)
(On a completely different) Side Note: Eversince tutorial class, each time I walked into a London Drugs, it keeps reminding me of Lukcy Dragon, except London Drugs is a Canadian convenient store and not American. I found out there are roughly 63 London Drugs across Canada, most of which has the same set up and appearance. hmmm.. sort of "freaky" if you think of it.
by: Rosalie Pham
I find that Rydell is a very interesting character, and sometimes his character is contradictory. For example, “[w]hatever it was [Rydell] was supposed to be doing here, for Laney, he wanted to do it right. Get all jangled, this way, you never knew what could happen. Calm down. Nobody was losing it here.” (121) and then, "he lost it immediately” (121). Rydell appears to be a cautious person who always wants to do things right and legally. However, because he has agoraphobia, it makes him nervous, easily tempered and loses control of himself (i.e. just like when he tortured the Chinese kid behind the counter because the kid wasn't able to provide the information Rydell wanted.) In addition, Rydell believes that killing is unnecessary and often doubts the need of killing when he quotes, “killing anyone was a terrible and permanent thing to enter into” (196). Nonetheless, after witnessing Konrad killed someone “silently and without raising a sweat … [like] the way another man might change his shirt or open a bottle of beer”(196) Rydell feelings begin to contradict his beliefs and felt “something in [him] yearned so to be that, that, feeling it now, he blushed” (196).
I feel that Rydell’s fictional character and life events actually portray and represent an aspect of real life and real people. There are people who dream of becoming lawyers, doctors, police officers etc… but due to unfortunate events that occur in their lives, they are prevented from achieving their ambitions and thus, have to take alternative paths to reach their goal. Furthermore, many people have strong beliefs and values of what they consider is appropriate but sometimes their thoughts and desires contradict eachother.
In lecture, Dr. Ogden mentioned that Laney is the mind and Rydell is the body. I agree with Dr. Ogden. Throughout the novel, Laney is the “master-mind”, the one that sees all the patterns and flows in the nodal points, feels all changes in the world, and only “go” to places via his mind, such as entering the virtual world. Laney feels a change, and sees the world as ending soon, but he never physically leaves his cardboard to stop this change. Instead, he hires Rydell to carry out his exact instructions and guidelines. Indeed, Rydell, “the body” physically carries out these instructions and task that Laney has ordered. Rydell is like Laney’s body, a being that performs Laney’s commands. This is my interpretation of it, what do you think?
.jpg)
(On a completely different) Side Note: Eversince tutorial class, each time I walked into a London Drugs, it keeps reminding me of Lukcy Dragon, except London Drugs is a Canadian convenient store and not American. I found out there are roughly 63 London Drugs across Canada, most of which has the same set up and appearance. hmmm.. sort of "freaky" if you think of it.
by: Rosalie Pham
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The Silent, the Ignorant, the Mysterious: Silencio
Silencio is an unusual and mysterious Hispanic boy who first appeared in chapter 6 with Raton and Playboy. There are few descriptions given about Silencio, and little dialogues and conversations that occur between him and other characters until the end of the story where the readers discover more meaning of his existence and purpose.
In chapter 6 when Silencio is introduced, the language, diction and style writing suddenly changes into simpler, straightforward, short, and non-complex sentences. This style of writing and language perhaps corresponds to his character. His name immediately signifies who he is: a silent boy. He appears very absent-minded from the world and is seized by only one thing: his imagination and obsession for watches, a particular watch known as the “Futurematic”. Sometimes it even seems like Silencio does not exist in the world, and has little significance or importance to the world and this is due to his strange silence and absences in his eyes and lack of facial expression and gestures. One of the few descriptions states him as “[t]here is nothing between the boys gaze and his being: no mask. No personality.” and “[n]othing. Nothing moves in the brown eyes. The boy regards [the man in the coat] as calmly as might some placid dog” (41). “Nothing moves in the brown eyes” gives an impression that he’s not physically present, but instead he’s somewhere else in his mysterious imaginative world, ignorant and naïve about what is currently infront of him. The “only absence behind the brown eyes, staring back at [Fontaine], either infinitely deep or of no depth at all, he couldn’t tell” (132) describes Silencio as very difficult to read or understand, especially when there is no emotion and “life” in his eyes.
Nevertheless, Silencio’s curious silence and absences continually plays an important role in the story and “the end of the world”. Just like the other characters, Silencio’s story line is a fragmentation that intertwines and comes together for one purpose.
In chapter 6 when Silencio is introduced, the language, diction and style writing suddenly changes into simpler, straightforward, short, and non-complex sentences. This style of writing and language perhaps corresponds to his character. His name immediately signifies who he is: a silent boy. He appears very absent-minded from the world and is seized by only one thing: his imagination and obsession for watches, a particular watch known as the “Futurematic”. Sometimes it even seems like Silencio does not exist in the world, and has little significance or importance to the world and this is due to his strange silence and absences in his eyes and lack of facial expression and gestures. One of the few descriptions states him as “[t]here is nothing between the boys gaze and his being: no mask. No personality.” and “[n]othing. Nothing moves in the brown eyes. The boy regards [the man in the coat] as calmly as might some placid dog” (41). “Nothing moves in the brown eyes” gives an impression that he’s not physically present, but instead he’s somewhere else in his mysterious imaginative world, ignorant and naïve about what is currently infront of him. The “only absence behind the brown eyes, staring back at [Fontaine], either infinitely deep or of no depth at all, he couldn’t tell” (132) describes Silencio as very difficult to read or understand, especially when there is no emotion and “life” in his eyes.
Nevertheless, Silencio’s curious silence and absences continually plays an important role in the story and “the end of the world”. Just like the other characters, Silencio’s story line is a fragmentation that intertwines and comes together for one purpose.
Side note: I never knew the watch, LeCoultre “Futurematic” actually really does exist in real life! I was searching the internet for some pictures and coincidently, I landed upon the Futurematic! Here’s the website: www.jaeger-lecoultre.com if you’re interested in it’s collection, history and manufacture! The watches they have are very nice!
By: Rosalie Pham
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Laney the Obsessed
In All Tomorrow’s Parties written by William Gibson, Colin Laney’s character is very suspenseful and difficult to comprehend, especially at the beginning of the story. It starts with Laney living in darkness, in a cardboard box in
Tokyo city who is sick, never leaves the box unless he needs to empty his urine bottle, obsessed with Cody Harwood and talks of nodal points and people after him. The foreign, incoherent and disconnected information in the first few chapters made it very confusing to read. When I started the book, particularly the first chapter about Laney, all I thought was: what? who is he, what is he talking about, why is he living in a cardboard box? However, as the novel proceeds and the plot unfolds, I realized a pattern: each chapter is devoted to and narrates one character. After recognizing how the novel is structured, it makes reading less difficult and much more easier to understand the various characters in the story. Laney’s character becomes more comprenhensible, interesting and very unique; nevertheless, there are times where he is still puzzling, for instance this is shown in chapter 8, "The Hole". "The Hole is that which Laney's being is constructed around ... into which he has always stuffed things: drugs, career, women, information" (40). I still don't quite understand what "the Hole" represents. Perhaps it is his mind? A place where he stores everything, including his life, his beloved and his emotions? Any thoughts and comments on this?
Laney was an orphanage in Gainesville, and infected with the syndrome 5-SB that made him become a psychic, gave him the gift to perceive and identify patterns or “nodal points” within enormous tracts of media information.
He is able to feel changes that occurs in the world, and can form predictions, such as the world is going to end soon and it’s going to happen at San Francisco. This makes him special for he has the capability to “progress through all the data in the world (or the data’s progress through him)” (163). This ability has become “what he is, rather than what he does” (163). It makes him obsessive with data flows, and leads him to becoming obsessed with Harwood, who we find out near the end, is just very much like Laney. (Harwood has taken the 5-SB and has the same talent as Laney.) 
On the side note: What strikes me the most is that Colin Laney reminds me of the movie Johnny Mnemonic starring Keanu Reeves, and surprisingly the movie is based and inspired by the short story “Johnny Mnemonic” which is written by Gibson. Likewise, Johnny Mnemonic has a cyberpunk plot. It is set in a futuristic time, consisting of hackers, artificial intelligence and large corporations just like “All Tomorrow’s Parties”. I find it interesting that Laney shares some similar abilities with Johnny. Although the two stories have completely different plots, the parallel ideas and characters helped me relate and understand Laney better!
By: Rosalie Pham
Friday, March 2, 2007
Reg the Misunderstood
Reg is misunderstood throughout the story. Not only is he misunderstood by his family but he is also misunderstood by himself. He does not even know the world in which he lives. I believe his arrogance has created a world that nobody else is allowed into and he isn’t allowed out of. It almost seems as though he has brainwashed himself against the world. Only a traumatic incident can weaken the walls of his world and allow the bliss of some peaceful escape where he can finally interact with another individual on the grounds of caring and understanding. The traumatic issues in his life which I am referring to, begins with the death of his beloved son Kent and heightens to a revolutionary point with the assumed death of his not so beloved son Jason. Once Reg finally opens his mind and enters a world where belief and doubt surround your everyday life does he realize the benefit of understanding and compassion for feelings. Unfortunately by this point, he is alone. He is lucky enough to have Heather as a friend with whom he can trust. To put it plainly, the only reason he has Heather is because she wasn’t around Reg long enough to create a deep loathing towards the man as the rest of his family did. I also personally believe that Heather communicates with Reg out of pure obsession with Jason. He is the only person who is a part of Jason that she has left, these factors make there relationship one of opportunity and convenience.
My feelings towards Reg are simply of anger and pity. I hate the psychological issues he inflicted upon his family. His cold hearted ways made there lives more difficult. It was no wonder his wife turned into an alcoholic, broke his knee and left him. All he ever did was kick his family when they were down. Like when he called Jason a murdered after the massacres, or when he told Barb that one of her twins did not have a soul. In my opinion, only a man with no soul could say either of those things. Yet another part of me feels pity towards Reg. Especially near the end of the story when he has had his revelation and is beginning to understand. He is so alone, so full of regret and remorse. It is unfortunate that his revelation or finding of identity, whatever you want to call it, did not occur earlier in his life. Before he pushed everyone away for his beliefs or before those he cared about left him because of them. On the other hand, maybe it would have been better if Reg would have never entered a world that had doubt, he would have finished his life and died vainly but maybe he would have died a happier man.
My feelings towards Reg are simply of anger and pity. I hate the psychological issues he inflicted upon his family. His cold hearted ways made there lives more difficult. It was no wonder his wife turned into an alcoholic, broke his knee and left him. All he ever did was kick his family when they were down. Like when he called Jason a murdered after the massacres, or when he told Barb that one of her twins did not have a soul. In my opinion, only a man with no soul could say either of those things. Yet another part of me feels pity towards Reg. Especially near the end of the story when he has had his revelation and is beginning to understand. He is so alone, so full of regret and remorse. It is unfortunate that his revelation or finding of identity, whatever you want to call it, did not occur earlier in his life. Before he pushed everyone away for his beliefs or before those he cared about left him because of them. On the other hand, maybe it would have been better if Reg would have never entered a world that had doubt, he would have finished his life and died vainly but maybe he would have died a happier man.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Heather the Unfortunate
Heather was definitely my favorite character in the story. I felt she had a great personality but was constantly burdened by misfortune. While reading I constantly found myself admiring her strength and feeling sorry for her as well.
Heather was as mysterious a character as Jason was, in fact they were so much a like maybe Heather was the "dobbleganger" of Jason in female form. (For anyone who missed todays's lecture that means clone like character of yourself.) They had such similiar personalities and ambitions. They both seemed to fit together like a puzzle that they could only understand by putting themselves together and looking back on themselves not as individuals but as a set pair. Together they appeared happier than at any other time in the story. Even their life experiences were similiar. I think the death of Cheryl and its impact on Jason is a parallel to the loss of Jason on Heather. Which brings as us all back to the question, is Jason dead or alive? In Heather's mind he is lost to her even though she holds on to that tiny ray of hope. For my answer, I will follow Heathers main instinct in that Jason is gone. The bond the two of them shared was exceptionaly meaningful to the point where I beleive Heather would know if he was lost or not, she would feel it. Throughout the story I felt close to Heather as a person, she reacted to situations in a way similiar to how I believe I would act. Holding it together at first but slowely coming unhinged. But mainly how she dealt with the psychic. She was obsessed with this women calling her constantly and finding out who she is, where she lived ext. This may sound crazy but I think that is what I 'd have done as well, been obsessed with finding out more. Giving up everything for the information even while knowing that is was probably a farce. Because I can see Heather's actions as something I would do, it makes her character all the more real.
Ending the story with Heather in the position that she is in is a real shame. Heather is, unfortuantly in a state of feeling completely lost. I feel she has given up and I don't think she will ever escape it. The rest of her life is destined for what the middle section of Jasons was made up of. A truely meaningless existance, full of questions with no answers. Lost within emotions waiting for an escape, which for Heather, I don't think will ever arrive, unless of course Jason were to return.
Completed by: Brianne Grainger
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Jason the Disturbed
Jason, what a troubled young man, between his father’s influence and the death of his beloved Cheryl he has become traumatized by life. The character of Jason is extremely hard to place. Aside from the obvious unstable, distressed man it is very difficult to understand the character. This is because at different sections in the book we see other aspects of his personality come through. Examples would be with his nephews/sons the love and care he shows them melts your heart. Then with his dog Joyce, he is an extremely responsible and caring pet owner. Towards his family he always seems to pull through and be there for them. He is constantly having little breakthroughs of character which allow us to believe maybe he is getting better, only to have him fall back into his messed up life. I would like to examine the circumstances under which Jason became the person he is. In all honesty, I don’t think the death of Cheryl accounts for as much of his issues as I originally did. If Cheryl would not have died I still think they would have had marital issues, from the beginning Jason was doomed to depression and an unbalanced life, just not as extreme of problems. To begin with I think the majority of the problem was his father Reg. Reg’s vulgar ways taunted Jason all is life. Even before the death of Cheryl there is evidence of extreme anger within Jason’s character. Furthermore, we have the death of Cheryl and the situation of the massacres which in itself is enough to make any perfectly stable person crack. What I think really got to Jason was the overall abandonment by everyone around him. Almost every person he had ever met believed he had played a role in the massacres. This caused him to loose the last remaining trust he had for society. By not trusting anyone, he pushes everyone away and alienates himself from the world.
Beyond Jason’s concerning life and the causes for it are his shocking ways. For the main part I am referring to his secret marriage to Barb and his nephews being his actual children. Though I was suspicious of his close tie to the twins, I thought it was in reference to the baby he and Cheryl had lost. Quite a shocker when we find out what the actual reason was. At the same time, the entire situation made me over-run with the excitement and in a way joy. I believe Jason deeply cares about Barb, not to mention I think the twins give him something to hold on to. They are the reason he has not quite went over the edge. This storyline also brought Barb to the stage and with a BAM I must say. I didn’t see that coming, Kent’s perfect wife running off with his brother, getting married, pregnant and committing murder. This situation brought the story to its feet and I loved it.
Beyond Jason’s concerning life and the causes for it are his shocking ways. For the main part I am referring to his secret marriage to Barb and his nephews being his actual children. Though I was suspicious of his close tie to the twins, I thought it was in reference to the baby he and Cheryl had lost. Quite a shocker when we find out what the actual reason was. At the same time, the entire situation made me over-run with the excitement and in a way joy. I believe Jason deeply cares about Barb, not to mention I think the twins give him something to hold on to. They are the reason he has not quite went over the edge. This storyline also brought Barb to the stage and with a BAM I must say. I didn’t see that coming, Kent’s perfect wife running off with his brother, getting married, pregnant and committing murder. This situation brought the story to its feet and I loved it.
Completed by: Brianne Grainger
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Cheryl the Innocent
Innocence was the only word that fit all aspects of Cheryl and her life. She was a character who was married in high school and expecting a child and yet seemed to be more innocent than most high school students. Following the rules and being honest and true to her beliefs guided her life to an extreme. Cheryl deals with most of the basic teenage situations: boyfriends, gossip, secrets, parents and sex. Just add a little alcohol and some drugs and she has the bases covered. The unique aspect of Cheryl is how she deals with 
the issue in a slightly different way. For the most part I am referring to her getting married so she could have sex with her boyfriend. To most people, that sounds completely insane, but not to Cheryl or her boyfriend Jason, to them it was the right thing to do. They actually thought this was appropriate for the situation. In most other cases, if kids are worried about others finding out they are having sex, they are sneaky or they lie. But to get married was, in most cases, way worse of a decision than having sex. Yet Cheryl’s innocence which she gains through her faith changes her view of the world and what is acceptable.
In part one of Hey Nostradamus! the readers see Cheryl and her innocence in an even larger light. During the horrific situation, when most teenagers would abandon God and enter into a state of complete panic, she lays there praying. Praying for herself, her friends and even praying for the killers. Within her prayers she is constantly asking questions, not questioning her faith, but questioning God. Her innocence and optimism towards the world hides from her the reality of the situation and saves her from entering a state of complete hysteria. Many people will most likely disagree and argue that she is not innocent, but purely kind hearted. Unfortunately I believe that to be as pure of heart as Cheryl was you have to be innocent to the realities of the world.
In saying that I am slightly envious of Cheryl, she was not scared of anything, not of her marriage, her pregnancy or even her death. In that light, maybe her innocence was not a gift of religion, but a gift from God.
the issue in a slightly different way. For the most part I am referring to her getting married so she could have sex with her boyfriend. To most people, that sounds completely insane, but not to Cheryl or her boyfriend Jason, to them it was the right thing to do. They actually thought this was appropriate for the situation. In most other cases, if kids are worried about others finding out they are having sex, they are sneaky or they lie. But to get married was, in most cases, way worse of a decision than having sex. Yet Cheryl’s innocence which she gains through her faith changes her view of the world and what is acceptable.In part one of Hey Nostradamus! the readers see Cheryl and her innocence in an even larger light. During the horrific situation, when most teenagers would abandon God and enter into a state of complete panic, she lays there praying. Praying for herself, her friends and even praying for the killers. Within her prayers she is constantly asking questions, not questioning her faith, but questioning God. Her innocence and optimism towards the world hides from her the reality of the situation and saves her from entering a state of complete hysteria. Many people will most likely disagree and argue that she is not innocent, but purely kind hearted. Unfortunately I believe that to be as pure of heart as Cheryl was you have to be innocent to the realities of the world.
In saying that I am slightly envious of Cheryl, she was not scared of anything, not of her marriage, her pregnancy or even her death. In that light, maybe her innocence was not a gift of religion, but a gift from God.
Completed By: Brianne Grainger
Monday, February 19, 2007
"Love and War"
--> The poem “Peace and War”(253) by Margaret Avison reminds me of when you try going to a vending machine and your chips get stuck, every time. This boy seems very innocent and I see him as being a young boy no
t knowing what to do after his ice-cream does not dispense: “tried the ice-cream bars / but none came back / though his coin went in.”(3-5)
--> The title love and war is a metaphor for what the boy is going through with the automat. The boy wanted nothing more than his ice-cream which he had probably saved up his allowance to buy for himself; that made up the love end of the title. The war comes up when the machine will not dispense the boy’s ice-cream and the man behind the counter is trying to make him pay again to get an ice-cream from behind the counter:
“He asked at the counter.
Said the counter man, No,
I’ve got bars in the freezer
but I’ll not hand one over
till you pay me too.”(6-10)
--> The boy has a war going on within him after the counterman denies him of his ice-cream. This war happens because the boy doesn’t know what to do. The boy asks himself questions to try figure it out: “Should the boy go away? / Who should say should? / What makes the counterman so mad?”(11-13) These are legitimate questions. It seems as if the boy has never gone through this before and he is scared. The boy saved up all his money to go to the automat and when he does he is denied of his ice-cream, and the counterman was not very nice about it.
t knowing what to do after his ice-cream does not dispense: “tried the ice-cream bars / but none came back / though his coin went in.”(3-5)--> The title love and war is a metaphor for what the boy is going through with the automat. The boy wanted nothing more than his ice-cream which he had probably saved up his allowance to buy for himself; that made up the love end of the title. The war comes up when the machine will not dispense the boy’s ice-cream and the man behind the counter is trying to make him pay again to get an ice-cream from behind the counter:
“He asked at the counter.
Said the counter man, No,
I’ve got bars in the freezer
but I’ll not hand one over
till you pay me too.”(6-10)
--> The boy has a war going on within him after the counterman denies him of his ice-cream. This war happens because the boy doesn’t know what to do. The boy asks himself questions to try figure it out: “Should the boy go away? / Who should say should? / What makes the counterman so mad?”(11-13) These are legitimate questions. It seems as if the boy has never gone through this before and he is scared. The boy saved up all his money to go to the automat and when he does he is denied of his ice-cream, and the counterman was not very nice about it.
By: Rachelle Beuk
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Paul as 'God'
--> The poem “Beginnings”(224) by Margaret Avison reminds me of when I used to go to church every Sunday. In church we learned about the workings of God, and we(the people in church) understood and believed in God and what God accomplished. Avison States that “Each of us has / some sense of God”(1-2), this means that some people believe in God, and some people may not, but either way they have heard of God and have chosen what to think about him.
--> Paul is the only character in this poem, other then the narrator, which is Margaret Avison. Although, I am not quite certain what Paul’s appearance in this poem is supposed to mean. The poem is stating that Avison has trouble combining her reality with her sense of god:
“some sense of God
and we’re all coping
with realities in our
life.
I have trouble getting the
two together.”(2-7)
Avison states that this problem of combining the two ideas is not just hers, it is everybody’s, including Paul and yourself: “You do too. / Everybody does. / Paul does.”(9-11)
and we’re all coping
with realities in our
life.
I have trouble getting the
two together.”(2-7)
Avison states that this problem of combining the two ideas is not just hers, it is everybody’s, including Paul and yourself: “You do too. / Everybody does. / Paul does.”(9-11)
--> I believe that Paul is a close member of God’s inner circle or family, or even God himself. If Paul is representing God, Avison is using this to show how hard combining your realities and God really is. Combining these two elements of life would be hard because God does not actually exists as a reality, although many people believe strongly in God, he is not actually visible and a big influence on your life. This idea is saying that if God, the leader of all, can not even combine his reality, then how are we supposed to be able to.
By: Rachelle Beuk
Saturday, February 10, 2007
'Take Your Child to Work Day'
--> The Poem “Child in Subway: Sketch” by Margaret Avison, coincidently also reminds me of Vancouver. It probably reminds me of Vancouver because this is where I have grown up my whole life. This poem would most likely remind anyone of a busy urban city, for example; Toronto or New York. This poem talks about a subway ride, and just like Vancouver on game night or after a huge concert the subway is packed, with people getting on and off, on and off.
--> The child in this poem seems to be going on an adventure. From what I understand the scenery is all new to this child and this trip is going to be new and unpredictable; “wherever his day’s lifetime may / go in its faithful unpredictability.”(12-13) The people in this poem seem to be typical subway riders. They seem to be frustrated because of the busyness and they are all in a hurry; “cement crumbs cinders newspaper scraps / grits the eyelashes from / the people-bobbled stairs down to the subway.”(2-4)
--> The child seems to be scared, but on an adventure with the parents. It almost seems as if it could be ‘take your child to
work day’. The child seems to have never been on the subway before by the way it is described by Avison; “A child, stumbling at the steepness / and the hurrying hurrying, / hangs on…”(5-7). The child is on the subway at a very busy time, which very well could be when everyone is going to work and they are “hurrying hurrying”(6). How the day is described as being a “day’s lifetime” (12) is a way of describing what the day means. If the child is going to work for a day, the child is taking out one day, to look at somebody else’s lifetime.
--> The child in this poem seems to be going on an adventure. From what I understand the scenery is all new to this child and this trip is going to be new and unpredictable; “wherever his day’s lifetime may / go in its faithful unpredictability.”(12-13) The people in this poem seem to be typical subway riders. They seem to be frustrated because of the busyness and they are all in a hurry; “cement crumbs cinders newspaper scraps / grits the eyelashes from / the people-bobbled stairs down to the subway.”(2-4)
--> The child seems to be scared, but on an adventure with the parents. It almost seems as if it could be ‘take your child to
work day’. The child seems to have never been on the subway before by the way it is described by Avison; “A child, stumbling at the steepness / and the hurrying hurrying, / hangs on…”(5-7). The child is on the subway at a very busy time, which very well could be when everyone is going to work and they are “hurrying hurrying”(6). How the day is described as being a “day’s lifetime” (12) is a way of describing what the day means. If the child is going to work for a day, the child is taking out one day, to look at somebody else’s lifetime. By: Rachelle Beuk
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Love Is All You Need
--> The first couple of lines in “We the Poor Who Are Always With Us”(84) by Margaret Avison imm
ediately reminded me of downtown Vancouver. The part of downtown where people are sick and hungry , on East Hastings street, too many of them. The characters in this poem start of sounding very lonely and stranded. Avison explains that they are “The cumbering hungry / and the uncaring ill…”(1-2). The people have no one to care for them, no one to fix their illnesses, and by the way the author makes it sound, most of them don’t care: “and the uncaring ill…”(2). Many of these people are just sick for the simple fact that they are starving, or even just severely depressed.
-->By the third stanza the poem seems to shift tones to give the characters a hopeful feeling. Avison says “It is not hopeless. / One can crawling move / too there, still free to love…”(10-12). Avison is giving the characters who have nothing at all something to be hopeful for. This thing that Avison is giving them is the idea of love. Although these characters seem to have had a rough run at life, Avison is telling them that there is always a chance for love. Avison mentions that this chance at love is a cure for their illness, a cure for their depression. Avison states “And there is reason in / the hope that then can shine / when other hope is none.”(14-16)
-->The last stanza in the poem is a contradictory idea from the first stanza. This poem i
s interesting because of the way it flows from very depressing to hopeful. The characters that are described go through a revelation in the middle of the poem, and by the end they are told that if they have no hope of doing anything in their life there is always love. Even if they are on the street, hungry, and ill, love can be their reason to stay hopeful. The main idea of this poem is that love conquers all, if you stay hopeful and find it, your hunger and illness will fade because you will be filled with something new.
By: Rachelle Beuk
ediately reminded me of downtown Vancouver. The part of downtown where people are sick and hungry , on East Hastings street, too many of them. The characters in this poem start of sounding very lonely and stranded. Avison explains that they are “The cumbering hungry / and the uncaring ill…”(1-2). The people have no one to care for them, no one to fix their illnesses, and by the way the author makes it sound, most of them don’t care: “and the uncaring ill…”(2). Many of these people are just sick for the simple fact that they are starving, or even just severely depressed.-->By the third stanza the poem seems to shift tones to give the characters a hopeful feeling. Avison says “It is not hopeless. / One can crawling move / too there, still free to love…”(10-12). Avison is giving the characters who have nothing at all something to be hopeful for. This thing that Avison is giving them is the idea of love. Although these characters seem to have had a rough run at life, Avison is telling them that there is always a chance for love. Avison mentions that this chance at love is a cure for their illness, a cure for their depression. Avison states “And there is reason in / the hope that then can shine / when other hope is none.”(14-16)
-->The last stanza in the poem is a contradictory idea from the first stanza. This poem i
s interesting because of the way it flows from very depressing to hopeful. The characters that are described go through a revelation in the middle of the poem, and by the end they are told that if they have no hope of doing anything in their life there is always love. Even if they are on the street, hungry, and ill, love can be their reason to stay hopeful. The main idea of this poem is that love conquers all, if you stay hopeful and find it, your hunger and illness will fade because you will be filled with something new.By: Rachelle Beuk
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Rachel is to Topaz as a Wall is to Ivy
-> In Ethel Wilson’s book, “The Innocent Traveller”, one of the most heart-warming and perplexing relationships is that of Topaz Edgeworth and her niece Rachel. From her entrance to her exit in the novel, Rachel plays the role of mother and care-taker to the elderly and wild Topaz.
-> She first steps into the story after the death of Topaz’s step-mother, who, up to this point, was the one that looked after Topaz. Topaz is invited to join Rachel and Annie, Topaz’s sister and Rachel’s mother, on their journey to Vancouver. This is the first sign of Rachel’s relationship to her aunt for, when Topaz accepts, Rachel “slid by nature ... into the Stepmother’s place.” (Wilson 82) Rachel is, by nature, maternal and caring, which suits the role she must now play in taking care of the child-like Topaz.
-> Throughout her life, Rachel continues in this new role of “wife and mother of her household.” (Wilson 143) Rachel even thinks of herself as “the good bread upon the table, as the steadfast light upon the stair.” (Wilson 143) This is the perfect description of her. She is the one who runs the household, keeps it going smoothly, and is the reliable one upon whom everyone could trust. Rachel even enjoys her life, never regretting what she gave up in order to be there. This is shown when she thinks to herself one night, “‘Only this life that I lead is tolerable to me. I could not endure to be other than I am.’” (Wilson 161) Rachel is happy, not only with her life, but also in her role as a mother of sorts to her own mother and aunt.
-> Even once her mother is dead, Rachel continues to look after and care for Topaz. Even after Annie’s death and the reduction of Rachel’s burden, it is still “upon Rachel that the brunt of arrangements fell.” (Wilson 192) When Rachel dies not much after her mother, Topaz feels abandoned. She feels that “Rachel had left her” (Wilson 193)
-> The sad ending to this part of the story is that the memory of Rachel and all she did for her aunt does not last long for Topaz. Even though she “spoke often of Rachel” (Wilson 201) after her death, “as time went on ... [Topaz’s] memory reverted and reverted until she spoke very seldom of Rachel,” (Wilson 201) Rachel dedicated her life to Topaz, who can barely remember her beloved niece once she’s dead.
- by Brianne Coffey
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Miss Umple Has a 'Do'
-> All of Ethel Wilson’s characters in “The Innocent Traveller” are extraordinary. They have peculiar traits or exceptional personalities, all-in-all not people one would meet while walking down the street. However, there is one who seems the most “ordinary” of all: Miss Umplethwaite. Her extraordinary name hides the most normal person in Wilson’s book and her experience therein is a situation like one an average person would have.
-> Readers meet Miss Umplethwaite near the end of the main character, Topaz’s, life. She takes over as Topaz’s care-taker for an afternoon and meets with more difficulty than expected. Personally, being asked to take care of an old, seemingly bed-ridden, woman invokes thoughts of long, boring, and one-sided stories. Since Miss Umplethwaite has experience looking after elderly women, she is probably expecting this. Perhaps stories of the infamous Topaz Edgeworth reached her and Miss Umplethwaite is expecting a little more, maybe mildly interesting stories even if they’re repeated several timesr. However, what Miss Umplethwaite gets is quite different.
-> The visit begins as expected: “[Topaz] and Miss Umplethwaite are dewy with the happiness of shared memories of loved places and names.” (Wilson 229) Miss Umplethwaite then offers Topaz tea and the mischief begins. Instead of tea, Topaz, who “stops short and ... has thought of something.” (Wilson 229), declares she wants ice cream and that they shall walk to the drug store to get some. Topaz, the bed-ridden old woman, has turned into the mischievous child that no babysitter wants. Miss Umplethwaite, being unsure of what to do, allows it in the face of Topaz’s indomitable personality. Wilson even says that “innocent Miss Umplethwaite is at [Topaz]’s mercy” (Wilson 231). The walk to the drug store goes surprisingly well. Ice cream is enjoyed and the two women turn toward home. However, the heat and the exercise have taken their toll on Topaz. In fact, she declares that there’s something wrong with her legs and, as any babysitter would, Miss Umplethwaite immediately begins to regret allowing the expedition. Topaz begins to complain: “‘It’s paralysis ... I can’t feel me legs ... I can’t even use me feet! Miss Umple, Miss Umple!’” (Wilson 229) When Miss Umplethwaite looks down at Topaz’s legs, she finds Topaz’s drawers wrapped around her feet. This is the source of Topaz’s “paralysis”. Once the drawers are removed, yet another ordeal, Topaz finds that not only do her legs work again but being drawer-less is “‘a deal more comfortable’” (Wilson 232) She declares she’ll nev
er wear drawers again and that she, of course, knew it wasn’t a stroke or anything serious. -> Once returned, Topaz begins telling her great-niece Rose all about the “‘Do’” they just had. Miss Umplethwaite is not quite so exuberant. She feels “a little offended” (Wilson 233) Like any babysitter who experienced such an incident, she feels foolish and upset over the whole situation. A simple little thing like a fallen set of drawers caused all that trouble. What makes her feel even more foolish is how Topaz is not even fazed by the incident. However, also like a normal babysitter, Miss Umplethwaite cannot stay angry in the face of her charge’s enthusiasm. By the end of the story, Miss Umplethwaite too begins to “regard the whole thing as simply a bit of a Do.” (Wilson 233)
- by Brianne Coffey
Friday, January 26, 2007
A Treatise on the Character of John Edgeworh in Relation to his Vivacious Sister Topaz Edgeworth
John Edgeworth is portrayed in Ethel Wilson’s novel “The Innocent Traveller” as a character with many facets to his personality. The most interesting, and most frequently seen, facet is the side of his character which surfaces in his dealings with Topaz Edgeworth, his sister.
John and Topaz’s relationship is first seen in-depth when John takes Topaz on his trip to the Continent. As is seen throughout the novel, Topaz has a very childish view of life and a childish way of acting, thus prompting John, who is always very correct in his actions, to take on a guardian-like role while Topaz is his responsibility. By the time of their arrival in Paris, “[John] often wished that he had left [Topaz] at home to deteriorate.” (Wilson 61) Throughout their time together on the Continent, John has small fits over Topaz’s inappropriate behavior, such as when John wanted to descend the Eiffel Tower and Topaz wanted to stay at the top. The climax of the trip is when, once in Italy, Topaz lies down on the floor of St. Peter’s Basilica to get a better view of the ceiling. John becomes so angry that he “nearly started back home in a fury.” (Wilson 63) Topaz had to console him “until at last John spoke to her again and there was peace between them.” (Wilson 63) John and Topaz’s relationship is a difficult one. John enjoyed being thought of as the “lordly and distinguished Englishman” (Wilson 61) when he went abroad and was always very conscious of his behavior. Topaz is the exact opposite, doing whatever she pleases whether it’s appropriate or not. This was embarrassing to John and put him “in many uncomfortable situations in which he felt that he was conspicuous .... as the brother of an irreverent and carefree youthfully middle-aged sister” (Wilson 61). To make matters worse, Topaz could not be chastised when her behavior did surpass acceptability. Many times, John tried to correct her, sometimes angrily, and Topaz merely did not listen or did not care. Wilson even mentions that “John ... tried to sneap Topaz whenever he thought it good for her, which was often” (Wilson 139).
The relationship between the siblings only becomes close once Topaz moves to
Vancouver with Annie and Rachel. Now that Topaz can no longer impede his appearance or ruin his reputation through association, John frequently writes to her: “[his] letters flew with a lover’s frequency,” (Wilson 139) Topaz is not John’s responsibility anymore and he can now savor their relationship as siblings without obstruction.John and Topaz’s relationship is, at first, a difficult one that is trying for John. Only once Topaz was six thousand miles could the relationship blossom into one between two happy and close siblings.
- by Brianne Coffey
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Yow: The Displaced Person
-> Behind the scenes of the unusual Edgeworth family of Ethel Wilson’s “The Innocent Traveller”, readers find an equally unusual character: the family cook, Yow. Yow is a Chinese man, whose history is unknown and, until Chapter 16, is rarely mentioned.-> In the story, Yow is portrayed as a distempered and ill-mannered man whose ego is bigger than it should be. He is rude with all of the Edgeworth women, except for Grandmother Annie, and acts in a manner he knows is unacceptable to his paying employees. However, all of this merely masks an unhappy and displaced person. Yow is a man far from home, in an alien country with alien customs. He does not fit in and his rudeness is a product of this feeling of being an outsider. At one point, when Topaz is speaking to Yow, Yow proceeds to vent his frustration of loneliness: “China people more different. Last February China New Year my family have large party seven hundred people. All my kah-san. All my generation. You no care.” (Wilson 145) Yow feels like
a foreigner in what is supposed to be his new home. He blames this on those who make him feel this way, people such as the Edgeworths who fit into Canadian society. Thus, he is rude to them because of how they make him feel. Wilson even mentions that he chooses, and even likes, being rude: “Yow did not stand up, because he enjoyed being ill-mannered.” (Wilson 145)-> On the surface, Yow is a rude man whose only contribution to the story seems to be as a foil to the kindness of the Edgeworth women. However, when looked at as a human being and not as just a minor character, readers can see that Yow is merely an unhappy man lashing out at the world who made him an outsider.
- by Brianne Coffey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)