Time is Qualitative and Quantitative

One of the five themes of existentialism is time. It states that "lived time" cannot be measured the same way as clock times can be. Words like "almost" or "soon" are all interpreted differently by many people, thus contributing to the idea that everybody has a different perception of time.
Children in long car rides often ask, "Are we there yet?". The parent's response of "not yet" to the parent just means "a little while longer" while children interpret that to mean "not at this moment but ask again after we have been driving for another 1 minute". Since every child is bored, time seems to pass by ever so slowly, since they are not actually living.
Another very relatable example is the one minute before writing in in-class essay. Everybody always claims, "This is the longest minute ever!" even though scientifically speaking, each minute occupies the same amount of time. It's all about perception of what is going on at that specific moment and how people decide to actually utilize that time for actually living. So even though we are "fundamentally time-bound beings", we are not actually bounded by time. If anything, I think we are always doing activities that escape the constancy of time. Time can pass by very quickly or slowly and rarely ever seems to be passing by in a sustained manner. "Time flies by when you're having fun". Thus, time seems to have a direct correlation with living. Actually living.


Shrek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vUBsTJYK28

Sweet Ophelia

"Sweet Ophelia"- Zella Day

One of my all-time favorite songs is "Sweet Ophelia" by Zella Day. I never really understood it before reading Hamlet, but it all makes sense now! This song is about the loss of innocence, just like Ophelia's innocence was lost over the course of the play.

Lyrics (in short):
Believe me now, you're too young girl
Cherry pie and your gold curls
Growin' up like a grapevine
Wrapped around you in due time
Sweet Ophelia!
When young blood escapes
Vows that break go up, up away
Singing like it's a full moon
Careless now that he has you
Turns you on to the right songs
Promises that you're hooked on

The song begins to talk about how Ophelia is very young and innocent, but she gradually grows up and matures "like a grapevine". This could relate to our time motif and how it plays a role in the development of the plot over time, since so much happens in such a short period. Even watching Hamlet the movie, we can see Ophelia's change, as she was once a very jubilant character who takes on a more melancholy appearance. The "vows" mentions could also be Ophelia and Hamlet's vows of love to each other, as they once did proclaim their love for each other, that are broken off after Hamlet claims "I loved you not" (Act 3).
Then, the song and story-line progress to Ophelia singing her songs about Hamlet's old promises to love her in her crazed madness. The song that alludes to the Saint Valentine custom could be Ophelia woefully mourning as she drawls, "How should I your true love know from another one?" She was "hooked on" to the promises of Hamlet's affection, until they were broken, just as she was. Finally, the song then dies out, just like Ophelia did.

:)

:|

The Power of Omnisciencey

We all know that an omniscient narrator is the "all-knowing" person who reveals bits and pieces of every character's inner thoughts. But even though this narrator is supposed to disclose the entire situation form everybody's point of view, is it possible for this speaker to be biased and give the audience a skewed perception of the whole story? Can omniscient narrators have an opinion? It is a assumption that the 3rd person omniscient point of view gives us little bias as possible so that we as the readers can make an assumption for ourselves, but after some research, I realize that much of great literature uses a biased narrator, sometimes referred to as polyphony.

A Russian literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin came up with this concept that the narrator does not simply just show different points of view, but selects certain thoughts and opinions to reveal his own beliefs. This was shown widely in the classic works of writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who purposefully developed his characters unevenly when using the omniscient point of view.

While most people may not have heard of those works, another great contemporary example is none other than Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf. Even in our class analyses we found that the narrator described characters like Sir William Bradshaw and Miss Kilman in a very critical and disapproving manner.
Despite being used in many great works, it is difficult to say how effective an "unreliable" omniscient narrator can be. Should we even trust the ideas of such a storyteller whose background we don't even know? It's difficult to tell, though it has shown up in pop culture many times.

Shows like Gossip Girl and Pretty Little Liars both have an all-knowing character who slowly reveals the secrets and truths behind everyone in the community. How nice it must be to be able to have so much information and power to manipulate as you please.  >:)

A Measure of Analysis

Experiencing the Past, Bicycling, and by Cycling

On page 72 of the second book of Maus, Spiegelman contributes to the idea of Vladek constantly reliving his past in a cycle. In the first panel of the page, Vladek and another guy are working. However, Vladek is the only one out of the two who is holding a cylindrical tube as a car wheels by. These circular objects represent the constant loop that Vladek is experiencing as he loops in and out of his past and present. In fact, in panel three, the scene loops back to the present with Vladek talking about the present. He likens the past cremation pits to the current swimming pools. As he talks about the “train after train”- which is a repetitive, looping phrase- the scene cycles back to the past. The next two panels are formed out of a similar structure. There is, on top, a phrase and then the image with a text box inside of it. As the reader, we must jump from Vladek’s narration outside of the picture back into the picture to read the scene that is being described in the past. Once again, this contributes to the idea of Vladek constantly reliving his past horrific experiences as he drifts in and out of reality. This is even a sign of his PTSD, as one of the symptoms include “reliving or experiencing the trauma” (anxietybc.com). Unfortunately for Vladek, he is stuck in this never-ending loop of his past because it is molten in him just as strongly as burning of the bodies.

Mice run in hamster wheels. They always continue running and passing time, but they never go anywhere. They just have to keep staying in the same place all the time while reliving their little cycle. 

Like Vladek the Maus.

Maus is Inhuman(e)

Often when I read a book, I imagine what it would be like to be the characters and live in their time. For instance, in The Great Gatsby, I would imagine being Gatsby and living in an extravagant house trying to find Daisy. Or I would imagine being Myrtle and fleeing Wilson only to get ripped open by a car. It's morbid, but I can still imagine it. Usually these scenes can come easily to me. Nick and Jordan conversing at a party comes naturally to me. Gatsby's death was a bit more difficult because he was unaware of what exactly was happening to him. In the end though, I could still picture being in his place. However in Maus, I can barely imagine any of it. It might be the pictures the idea that everybody is an animal, but the events in the book are all so unimaginable. Of course this is a real story based off of real people and places and events, but just having characters like Vladek portrayed as mice, I can't even imagine the scenarios he describes himself being in. I'm unable to even conjure up the idea of a Nazi officer throwing my hat away and shooting me as I race to get it. It might be because I've already seen the comic picture and can't un-see the animal characters, or it's just too inhumane of an act to possibly even imagine. It really gives in to the idea that during this time, unspeakable and unbelievable things occurred. Seeing as how Animal Farm turned out, everything is in utter chaos when everybody turns into animals. The pigs in Animal Farm, parallel to the cats in Maus have created a vicious jungle. 

I can only see Art as he is on the top, not the bottom.

Heyyy Nacirema

Americans are strange. We have weird habits and are very hypocritical. In fact, we always judge other people for taking part in activities that are out of “our norm”. I searched up “cultural traditions around the world” on Google and every search result talked about “bizarre” or “weird” customs. Using these words to describe such traditions seems sort of disrespectful. Usually these words are connoted negatively and associate with oddities that might be in a circus, not a traditional custom. Why do these things have to be "weird" as opposed to being admirable or cool? Plus, who are we to judge these people for doing “strange” things? Americans gather in a city every December 31^st to count while people in Denmark throw utensils at their neighbors’ doors. We have no right to say that one thing is weird when we do some pretty strange things ourselves. After all, for 364 days a year, all children are told to not take candy from strangers. But suddenly, if it is October 31^st and you know how to say “trick-or-treat”, your parents encourage you to roam the streets at night going up to strangers’ houses. We can’t say that this is perfectly normal and that finger amputations in the Dani tribe to express grief at funerals are “bizarre”. Horace Miner, the writer of “Body Ritual Among the Nacirema” has already deemed that Americans express “the extremes to which human behavior can go”. It is believed that there is no way for anybody else to be more eccentric than us. Who else would keep “magical materials… for certain ills, and… real or imagined maladies”?

The only search results that came up had to be associated with something "weird" or "bizarre".

Finger cutting to express grief is normal.

Tongue piercing to show religious devotion is normal.

Not being able to use the bathroom for 3 days after marriage is normal.