In the lesson we spoke about the character of Mephistopheles; audience expectations of a devil (trickster, shape-shifter, liar), his character traits and messages e.t.c. Two words that stick in my mind when thinking about M are 'tormented' and 'deprived' and, I have to admit, I do sympathise with him a tiny bit when he's talking about hell being to have known and lost what heaven is. Firstly, I think that's a wonderful way to describe hell - In the play, someone (I can't quite remember who!) refers to the fact that you can't know or describe hell until you've been there...yet Marlowe attempts this through Mephistopheles. Mephistopheles, I think, is an interesting character because he can be compared to Faustus (almost like a foil) ... One could argue that Faustus lives up to audience expectations of a devil more than Mephistopheles as, at least M values souls, seems to have learnt his lesson and is, in a way God/Devil-fearing in a way that Faustus is not ('O Faustus, leave these frivolous demands/Which strike a terror to my fainting soul!'
A couple of things that got me thinking when we read through the opening scenes...when Faustus' blood congeals, it's almost a signal that his body is urging him not to continue with the contract (signing his soul to Lucifer) - as if his body is God's and God is urging him not to continue but his free will that is, according to the Bible, his own allows him to continue with the deal. Also, the fact that Mephistopheles fetches fire to dissolve the blood is interesting as it brings in the 'traditional' image of hell...fire, flames e.t.c. as if the fire (the product of hell) is destroying Faustus' God-given life force.
Something else that dawned on me when we were reading was that, the fact that Faustus is constantly trying to work things out logically and rationally is just like it is in Dracula and The Bloody Chamber - a key gothic theme. Although Faustus chooses to believe in magic and devils e.t.c. he dismisses ideas that he doesn't want to be true, finding logical solutions as to why they cannot be (when he thinks he sees the warning written on his arm, he says 'My senses are deceived; here's nothing writ'.
I also just wanted to blog about some of the things I found out about the history of the production seeing as we didn't really discuss it in class - I discovered there have been 49 amateur productions, 54 professional productions, 4 film productions (one of which stars Elizabeth Taylor as Helen of Troy) and, suprisingly 14 radio productions (to me, it seems quite a visual play) I was also interested to find that in an RSC production of Doctor Faustus (where Ian McKellen made his RSC debut in the title role) puppets were used for the good and bad angels and life-size puppets were used to portray the seven deadly sins! Even Helen of Troy was a puppet! It seems that puppets have been used in one way or another in a few of the productions.
I also found out that between 1594 and 1597, the play was featured in the repertoire of Lord Admiral's Men (a drama society) and was performed at the Rose Theatre...this was at the same time that Shakespeare was writing plays to be performed at there - 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and 'Romeo and Juliet'. Also...from one extreme to the other, I discovered that there's been a musical adaptation of Doctor Fautus called 'Doctor Foster' which involves the modern female equivalent to Doctor Faustus buying a spellbook on eBay!!
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Doctor Faustus...Lesson Blog
One of the first things we dicussed last lesson was theatre (seeing as Doctor Faustus is a play!) and, for fear of waffling on, I'll make a conscious effort to keep this short...theatre is my very favourite art form...of them all. Ok - maybe I need to justify that a little bit. With theatre, you are there...in that moment, in that scene, with those people. No performance is ever exactly the same which, I think, is why each theatre-going experience is so special...and why I go and see some of the same shows repeatedly. Theatre and the gothic genre almost go hand in hand because in theatre, you are watching real people (admittedly playing roles) in the way that you could watch people in 'everyday life' (who, most of the time, aren't playing roles) therefore the bounds between reality and fiction are blurred (a key element to the gothic). Also, I think the gothic genre is about personal experiences - especially when it comes down to the psychological impact that the gothic genre has and there is, a lot of the time, an element of mystery and intrigue...theatre, unlike cinema, I think is a very personal experience - you can look where you want to look, at who you want to look at as opposed to being forced to look at one person or one thing on account of a camera shot...this gives a lot of freedom and allows the audience to work things out for themselves without being directed (as obviously as in film) making the 'piecing together of the mystery' all the more enjoyable.
We spoke also, in the last lesson and the lesson before about the character of Faustus - what opinions we have on him, what his personality traits are, what his motives and dreams are. The lesson before last, I questioned whether Faustus was simply arrogant or whether some of his faith in the potential and power that knowledge and learning offers was being misconstrued as arrogance...now I think he actually is just arrogant! Ok...I do think he values greatly what education can offer him (and what power it can give to him) but I also think that he's just plain arrogant...and, in some ways, for good reason...the point that he is intelligent is repeatedly emphasized and his friends Valdes and Cornelius do little to suppress his mighty ego and ambition ('Faustus, these books, thy wit, and our experience/Shall make all nations to canonize us'. Another thing I intend to refer to in my essay plan is the fact that, although he goes along with Valdes and Cornelius as if he's a member of a team, when they're not there it's all about him and he seems to be out for himself...which gives a huge insight into his personality - the way characters are during their soliloquies and solo moments in contrast to how they are when they are alongside other characters always fascinates me...that's where you get a glimpse of the multi-dimensional nature of characters...how they are on their own/how they change when other people are there.
Going back to how Doctor Faustus works well as a stage play...I think I spoke in one of my first blogs on the texts about the scenes that would be very interesting to see realised on stage...I'll check to see if I did talk about that...if I didn't...I've still got a bit more theatre-related waffle to blog about! To my mind, Doctor Faustus is one of those plays that you have to actually see to get the full impact of...there are scenes that aren't that impressive or thought-provoking to read that could be amazing on stage...which really is the mark of a good play...although it is very well written...it's written with a purpose behind it that can only be exposed when it's consumed in its intended form...theatre!!
We spoke also, in the last lesson and the lesson before about the character of Faustus - what opinions we have on him, what his personality traits are, what his motives and dreams are. The lesson before last, I questioned whether Faustus was simply arrogant or whether some of his faith in the potential and power that knowledge and learning offers was being misconstrued as arrogance...now I think he actually is just arrogant! Ok...I do think he values greatly what education can offer him (and what power it can give to him) but I also think that he's just plain arrogant...and, in some ways, for good reason...the point that he is intelligent is repeatedly emphasized and his friends Valdes and Cornelius do little to suppress his mighty ego and ambition ('Faustus, these books, thy wit, and our experience/Shall make all nations to canonize us'. Another thing I intend to refer to in my essay plan is the fact that, although he goes along with Valdes and Cornelius as if he's a member of a team, when they're not there it's all about him and he seems to be out for himself...which gives a huge insight into his personality - the way characters are during their soliloquies and solo moments in contrast to how they are when they are alongside other characters always fascinates me...that's where you get a glimpse of the multi-dimensional nature of characters...how they are on their own/how they change when other people are there.
Going back to how Doctor Faustus works well as a stage play...I think I spoke in one of my first blogs on the texts about the scenes that would be very interesting to see realised on stage...I'll check to see if I did talk about that...if I didn't...I've still got a bit more theatre-related waffle to blog about! To my mind, Doctor Faustus is one of those plays that you have to actually see to get the full impact of...there are scenes that aren't that impressive or thought-provoking to read that could be amazing on stage...which really is the mark of a good play...although it is very well written...it's written with a purpose behind it that can only be exposed when it's consumed in its intended form...theatre!!
Monday, 21 September 2009
''Doctor Faustus'' - Class Discussion
Something I think our last lesson indicated was that religious issues are still a talking point today. Although views have changed since Marlowe’s day (if anything, people in England now are presumed to be atheists unless they tell you otherwise) from our discussion in class, I got the impression that the people who didn’t believe in God and souls and the things we were talking about were quite passionate about the fact that they didn’t believe and were confident in their views. I thought it was quite interesting how strongly people don’t believe and if you look at the context in which Doctor Faustus was written, questioning religion, in the way that we were able to do in class, would have been quite daring and unusual. Basing a play on religious themes is probably, in many ways, a sure-fire debate-starter and is sure to provoke a strong audience reaction as even at a time when religion isn’t perhaps as important to as many people as it once was, everyone has their own opinions and some response to it. Religion is something that you can’t really get away from and in order to either believe or not believe or have a faith, one must have weighed up the ‘facts’…in the way that Doctor Faustus weighs up the facts in his opening soliloquy. One thing I love about this soliloquy is the fact that, true to the gothic genre, it’s steeped in history and has many cultural references (which are interesting and somewhat confusing at first, seeing as they’re old cultural references!)
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Finished Doctor Faustus...
Well...as the title indicates, I've finished reading Doctor Faustus (hopefully the correct version!) It sort of lived up to the expectations I spoke of last time, though it wasn't quite as dark as I was expecting it to be and found that some of the more gruesome moments were tinged with humour which lessened their dramatic impact somewhat (for example, when Faustus rises after having his head cut off, Frederick says 'Give him his head for God's sake!'...whether Marlowe's intention was to make the situation humourous, I am unaware and although the scene could be acted deadly seriously, the fact that it's so far-fetched and over-dramatic, to me, makes it humourous. I realise that there were moments when humour was obviously intended as Robin, Dick and the Horse-Courser could be deemed to be comic characters but seeing as I was expecting a dark gothic novel, I found it rather strange that there was so much comedy within it.
Robin and Dick are characters that I wanted to discuss actually as they seem to be the 'jokers' of the piece (Robin, for example, is the clown) and are almost put into the 'uneducated' bracket - on the other end of the scale the 'scholars' that are in the play are criticised somewhat by Marlowe for buying into Faustus' schemes and his magic - With the scholars being criticised for being over-ambitious to teh point of going against God and the 'uneducated' characters being presented as the fools, I'll be interested to find out about Marlowe's background and circumstances regarding education.
One thing that struck me about Doctor Faustus was that it really would be an excellent piece of theatre - and something that I'd be really keen to see it the form that was intended. Marlowe has written into Doctor Faustus so many visual elements that would be interesting to see realised on stage and that would be really dramatic...for example, the thunder and lightning when the devils enter, the changing shapes of the devils, the portrayal of the seven deadly sins and the transformation of the characters (who are turned into dogs, are given horns e.t.c.)...not to mention when Faustus' head and then one of his legs are cut off only to grow back (I had to laugh at the stage direction 'enter Faustus with the false head' as if Marlowe was making doubly sure that everyone knew the actor's head wasn't really to be cut off!) Something I love about plays of this period is that they are clearly written with the audience and the masses in mind, for example, the foreign settings would have been of interest to the people (as of course the religious subject matter would have been also) and the art form of theatre itself is glorified ('Then in this how let me an actor be'). Reading Doctor Faustus has made me think that the gothic genre is a good one to be presented through the medium of theatre as the whole 'is it real?/is it not real?' debate that the gothic genre often throws up is encapsulated in the theatre going experience...the devil spirits that are brought about are no more real than the other characters, for example. It's all a show, it's all theatre...though when you see something with your own eyes, it's difficult to deny the truth of it.
A link between Dracula and Doctor Faustus is the idea of the soul. I've spent a while trying to work out what I think 'the soul' actually is...and it seems to be the spiritual element to ones self...the essense of being, almost. As you can gather...I've found it difficult to describe what I imagine the soul to be without sounding as ambiguous as simply saying 'the soul'. However difficult it is to describe, however, it must be rather important to the gothic genre, with all its religious overtones, as it's mentioned several times in both Dracula, Doctor Faustus and I think in the Bloody Chamber occasionally, also. It's definately something I'll have to do research on. It's something that the evil presense in Doctor Faustus wanted and something that the evil presense in Dracula didn't want (Renfield, at least, was very adament that he wanted lives and not souls)
Something else in Doctor Faustus that stood out to me was the occasional rhyming...after a while of thinking it was comepletely random, I realised that the rhyming occurred when spells were being cast, when a sense of 'doom' was being created and when someone was making a dramatic exit...also, some of the highly ranked characters spoke in rhyme. As I say, it took me a while to grow accustomed to it but, I have to admit, I did find it increased the drama at times when it needed to be increased and again, stayed true to the theatre format of that time in that it was clearly a play and not trying to be absolutely naturalistic.
It was probably me being stupid (and I need to do a lot more research of the context) but the section involving the Pope lost me a little bit. I lost track around that point and was sort of questioning why the Pope was being mentioned seeing as Elizabeth I was Protestant. I couldn't quite work out whether the Pope was being criticised or praised?! I'm going to have to read over that section again.
My favourite part of the play was when Faustus was first attacked by Frederick, Benvolio and Martino as, I felt that's when the drama properly kicked in and at the end of those two scenes (4.2 and 4.3) Benvolio had an awesome exit rhyme ('Sith black disgrace hath thus eclipsed our fame/We'll rather die with grief than live with shame')
A quite specific link between Doctor Faustus and The Bloody Chamber that I found was something reagrding human nature and the fact that when you're specifically told not to do something, the temptation to do it becomes unbearable...for example, in The Bloody Chamber (I mean that actually story as opposed to the book in general), the husband gave his wife all the house keys and specifically told her not to use the key that led to the Bloody Chamber...he did so as if he was testing her and, as he expected, she did use the key and was subsequently punished for it. Similarly in Doctor Faustus, the title character tells the Horse-Courser not to take the horse he sells him into water...and of course, as Doctor Faustus suspected he would do all along, the horse is taken into water and Faustus is able to scam the man.
Doctor Faustus, as a character, I didn't think was a very 'solid' character...if that makes any sense?! I couldn't quite believe in him on account of him being so easily swayed by Mephistopheles and the good and bad angels e.t.c. His first soliloquy reflected the rest of the play in that his character flitted from one idea to the next at a rapid rate. He was so flippant and indecisive to the extent that I didn't believe he was tormented (even when he knew he was doomed) as I half felt he'd stop feeling guilty for selling his soul to the devil in the way that he had done numerous times before the end. I felt like the play was too short and as a consequence the character of Faustus lost the depth that he needed. On account of this fault, I felt that this out of the three texts, was perhaps the least 'typically' gothic...well...at least the idea of 'gothic' that I have in my head...I'm sure we'll be told it's one of the first gothic stories now and so it's the definitive gothic play but...I don't know...compared to the other two texts, it wasn't what 'gothic' means to me. I didn't feel any real emotional or psychological attachment to the characters but would go to see the play performed for the sheer spectacle. The only real emotional impact that the play had on me was the sad fact that, although throughout Faustus seemed to be seeking love and respect, it was only when his death was imminent that love and respect was shown to him...in that his scholar friends wanted to stay with him and protect him. It was that idea of him being lonely that also tied Doctor Faustus to the gothic theme.
A few last little points...in my last post I spoke about Marlowe being daring and ambitious attempting to explain what hell is like - the 'old man' in Doctor Faustus says 'No mortal can express the pains the pains of hell'...well, Marlow tries through the devils in the play.
Also...the other links I found with other texts - 'false friends' - the devils and bad angel that tempted Faustus didn't stay true to him once he had given in...just as, for example, Lucy was a false friend in Dracula when she had been bitten (in her Undead form, she tried to tempt Arthur)
Robin and Dick are characters that I wanted to discuss actually as they seem to be the 'jokers' of the piece (Robin, for example, is the clown) and are almost put into the 'uneducated' bracket - on the other end of the scale the 'scholars' that are in the play are criticised somewhat by Marlowe for buying into Faustus' schemes and his magic - With the scholars being criticised for being over-ambitious to teh point of going against God and the 'uneducated' characters being presented as the fools, I'll be interested to find out about Marlowe's background and circumstances regarding education.
One thing that struck me about Doctor Faustus was that it really would be an excellent piece of theatre - and something that I'd be really keen to see it the form that was intended. Marlowe has written into Doctor Faustus so many visual elements that would be interesting to see realised on stage and that would be really dramatic...for example, the thunder and lightning when the devils enter, the changing shapes of the devils, the portrayal of the seven deadly sins and the transformation of the characters (who are turned into dogs, are given horns e.t.c.)...not to mention when Faustus' head and then one of his legs are cut off only to grow back (I had to laugh at the stage direction 'enter Faustus with the false head' as if Marlowe was making doubly sure that everyone knew the actor's head wasn't really to be cut off!) Something I love about plays of this period is that they are clearly written with the audience and the masses in mind, for example, the foreign settings would have been of interest to the people (as of course the religious subject matter would have been also) and the art form of theatre itself is glorified ('Then in this how let me an actor be'). Reading Doctor Faustus has made me think that the gothic genre is a good one to be presented through the medium of theatre as the whole 'is it real?/is it not real?' debate that the gothic genre often throws up is encapsulated in the theatre going experience...the devil spirits that are brought about are no more real than the other characters, for example. It's all a show, it's all theatre...though when you see something with your own eyes, it's difficult to deny the truth of it.
A link between Dracula and Doctor Faustus is the idea of the soul. I've spent a while trying to work out what I think 'the soul' actually is...and it seems to be the spiritual element to ones self...the essense of being, almost. As you can gather...I've found it difficult to describe what I imagine the soul to be without sounding as ambiguous as simply saying 'the soul'. However difficult it is to describe, however, it must be rather important to the gothic genre, with all its religious overtones, as it's mentioned several times in both Dracula, Doctor Faustus and I think in the Bloody Chamber occasionally, also. It's definately something I'll have to do research on. It's something that the evil presense in Doctor Faustus wanted and something that the evil presense in Dracula didn't want (Renfield, at least, was very adament that he wanted lives and not souls)
Something else in Doctor Faustus that stood out to me was the occasional rhyming...after a while of thinking it was comepletely random, I realised that the rhyming occurred when spells were being cast, when a sense of 'doom' was being created and when someone was making a dramatic exit...also, some of the highly ranked characters spoke in rhyme. As I say, it took me a while to grow accustomed to it but, I have to admit, I did find it increased the drama at times when it needed to be increased and again, stayed true to the theatre format of that time in that it was clearly a play and not trying to be absolutely naturalistic.
It was probably me being stupid (and I need to do a lot more research of the context) but the section involving the Pope lost me a little bit. I lost track around that point and was sort of questioning why the Pope was being mentioned seeing as Elizabeth I was Protestant. I couldn't quite work out whether the Pope was being criticised or praised?! I'm going to have to read over that section again.
My favourite part of the play was when Faustus was first attacked by Frederick, Benvolio and Martino as, I felt that's when the drama properly kicked in and at the end of those two scenes (4.2 and 4.3) Benvolio had an awesome exit rhyme ('Sith black disgrace hath thus eclipsed our fame/We'll rather die with grief than live with shame')
A quite specific link between Doctor Faustus and The Bloody Chamber that I found was something reagrding human nature and the fact that when you're specifically told not to do something, the temptation to do it becomes unbearable...for example, in The Bloody Chamber (I mean that actually story as opposed to the book in general), the husband gave his wife all the house keys and specifically told her not to use the key that led to the Bloody Chamber...he did so as if he was testing her and, as he expected, she did use the key and was subsequently punished for it. Similarly in Doctor Faustus, the title character tells the Horse-Courser not to take the horse he sells him into water...and of course, as Doctor Faustus suspected he would do all along, the horse is taken into water and Faustus is able to scam the man.
Doctor Faustus, as a character, I didn't think was a very 'solid' character...if that makes any sense?! I couldn't quite believe in him on account of him being so easily swayed by Mephistopheles and the good and bad angels e.t.c. His first soliloquy reflected the rest of the play in that his character flitted from one idea to the next at a rapid rate. He was so flippant and indecisive to the extent that I didn't believe he was tormented (even when he knew he was doomed) as I half felt he'd stop feeling guilty for selling his soul to the devil in the way that he had done numerous times before the end. I felt like the play was too short and as a consequence the character of Faustus lost the depth that he needed. On account of this fault, I felt that this out of the three texts, was perhaps the least 'typically' gothic...well...at least the idea of 'gothic' that I have in my head...I'm sure we'll be told it's one of the first gothic stories now and so it's the definitive gothic play but...I don't know...compared to the other two texts, it wasn't what 'gothic' means to me. I didn't feel any real emotional or psychological attachment to the characters but would go to see the play performed for the sheer spectacle. The only real emotional impact that the play had on me was the sad fact that, although throughout Faustus seemed to be seeking love and respect, it was only when his death was imminent that love and respect was shown to him...in that his scholar friends wanted to stay with him and protect him. It was that idea of him being lonely that also tied Doctor Faustus to the gothic theme.
A few last little points...in my last post I spoke about Marlowe being daring and ambitious attempting to explain what hell is like - the 'old man' in Doctor Faustus says 'No mortal can express the pains the pains of hell'...well, Marlow tries through the devils in the play.
Also...the other links I found with other texts - 'false friends' - the devils and bad angel that tempted Faustus didn't stay true to him once he had given in...just as, for example, Lucy was a false friend in Dracula when she had been bitten (in her Undead form, she tried to tempt Arthur)
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Doctor Faustus
Ok, so I finally got my hands on a copy of Doctor Faustus...the book I'm reading from has two versions of the play in it though so I hope I'm reading the correct one!
When I began reading, I freaked out slightly because I thought it was going to be a real challenging read...as in, difficult to make sense of the language, let alone explore the themes e.t.c. however, as I've gone on, I've found it easier to make sense of and have even begun to enjoy the language and writing style (I love the phrasings that today seem odd, for example 'I know, but that follows not') I've only just started reading so I can talk about what I had expected (and still expect) from the play - Firstly, I was expecting it to be challenging! Secondly, I guessed from there being a character called 'Mephistopheles' that there might be magic involved and thirdly, I expected it to be quite dark and deep, with religious issues being addressed. Obviously, I've only been reading it for a short time so I can't really say whether it's lived up to my expectations quite yet however...it's looking good...it's challenging, there's certainly magic involved and I think it's about to become dark (he's just signed his soul away in blood).
I was worried I wouldn't have anything to blog about because I'd be too caught up trying to make sense of it all to spot gothic features e.t.c. however, I have spotted a few. I love the soliloquies that Faustus has as, because, you're listening into his thoughts, you really get an insight into his mind set...in the way that you could with the characters in Dracula through the diary extracts and you could in the Bloody Chamber through the first person narrative...which really draws out the psychological side to the gothic (which seems to me to be the most important feature of gothic texts)...you get inside someone's head. Also...a common link between all three texts (that I've spoken about before with reference only to The Bloody Chamber and Dracula) - the fact that, in the texts, a warning is given not to dismiss superstition, fable, fairytale e.t.c. as not everything can be explained by logic...I was interested to see that this happens in Doctor Faustus too...for example, when Faustus says 'I think hell's a fable', Mephistopheles replies 'Ay, think so still, till experience change thy mind' (p201) Also...Faustus speaks of the stories of hell as 'trifles and mere old wives' tales' though Mephistopheles is, apparantly, speaking from experience. What I like about this feature, and why it's stood out to me in all three novels is that it almost glorifies itself as literature by saying...'you might think this play/novel is fictitious BUT you can never dismiss a tale/superstition because one day, when you least expect it, you might realise that it can come true...and by that point...it might be too late!!' Others themes that have stood out...pride and a burning desire (Dracula had that too...when Wagner was talking about wanting Robin to be his servant and commanding him to call him 'Master Wagner' it reminded me of the part, at the start of Dracula, when the Count is going on about his victories that span centuries...influence of history and pride creeping into both texts)
I've just read that we'll be talking in class about Marlowe's life which I'm quite pleased about as I've come to the conclusion that, in writing Doctor Faustus, he was being very ambitious and brave! Ambitious, in the sense that he's trying to explain things that can't really be explained (for example, through Mephistopheles, he speaks of hell as a certainty and attempts to explain it ('Within the bowels of these elements...') and brave in the sense that, like Faustus himself, he's almost defying and challenging God at a time when that wasn't the thing to do!! The fact that the play was first published after his death makes him slightly less brave however (though I presume it was performed while he was still alive)!! But...I still think he's brave for being that daring and risky with regard to the subject matter...though I suppose the moral of the whole thing might end up not being controversial at all as in 'so...don't sell your soul to the devil...it's bad' ... but I'll just have to wait and see.
When I began reading, I freaked out slightly because I thought it was going to be a real challenging read...as in, difficult to make sense of the language, let alone explore the themes e.t.c. however, as I've gone on, I've found it easier to make sense of and have even begun to enjoy the language and writing style (I love the phrasings that today seem odd, for example 'I know, but that follows not') I've only just started reading so I can talk about what I had expected (and still expect) from the play - Firstly, I was expecting it to be challenging! Secondly, I guessed from there being a character called 'Mephistopheles' that there might be magic involved and thirdly, I expected it to be quite dark and deep, with religious issues being addressed. Obviously, I've only been reading it for a short time so I can't really say whether it's lived up to my expectations quite yet however...it's looking good...it's challenging, there's certainly magic involved and I think it's about to become dark (he's just signed his soul away in blood).
I was worried I wouldn't have anything to blog about because I'd be too caught up trying to make sense of it all to spot gothic features e.t.c. however, I have spotted a few. I love the soliloquies that Faustus has as, because, you're listening into his thoughts, you really get an insight into his mind set...in the way that you could with the characters in Dracula through the diary extracts and you could in the Bloody Chamber through the first person narrative...which really draws out the psychological side to the gothic (which seems to me to be the most important feature of gothic texts)...you get inside someone's head. Also...a common link between all three texts (that I've spoken about before with reference only to The Bloody Chamber and Dracula) - the fact that, in the texts, a warning is given not to dismiss superstition, fable, fairytale e.t.c. as not everything can be explained by logic...I was interested to see that this happens in Doctor Faustus too...for example, when Faustus says 'I think hell's a fable', Mephistopheles replies 'Ay, think so still, till experience change thy mind' (p201) Also...Faustus speaks of the stories of hell as 'trifles and mere old wives' tales' though Mephistopheles is, apparantly, speaking from experience. What I like about this feature, and why it's stood out to me in all three novels is that it almost glorifies itself as literature by saying...'you might think this play/novel is fictitious BUT you can never dismiss a tale/superstition because one day, when you least expect it, you might realise that it can come true...and by that point...it might be too late!!' Others themes that have stood out...pride and a burning desire (Dracula had that too...when Wagner was talking about wanting Robin to be his servant and commanding him to call him 'Master Wagner' it reminded me of the part, at the start of Dracula, when the Count is going on about his victories that span centuries...influence of history and pride creeping into both texts)
I've just read that we'll be talking in class about Marlowe's life which I'm quite pleased about as I've come to the conclusion that, in writing Doctor Faustus, he was being very ambitious and brave! Ambitious, in the sense that he's trying to explain things that can't really be explained (for example, through Mephistopheles, he speaks of hell as a certainty and attempts to explain it ('Within the bowels of these elements...') and brave in the sense that, like Faustus himself, he's almost defying and challenging God at a time when that wasn't the thing to do!! The fact that the play was first published after his death makes him slightly less brave however (though I presume it was performed while he was still alive)!! But...I still think he's brave for being that daring and risky with regard to the subject matter...though I suppose the moral of the whole thing might end up not being controversial at all as in 'so...don't sell your soul to the devil...it's bad' ... but I'll just have to wait and see.
Friday, 4 September 2009
Finally finished Dracula...
I'm not going to waffle on as much as I usually do because I'm unsure as to whether I'm making a new post correctly...being the simpleton I am, I'm finding it hard getting to grips with this blogging malarky. I still can't work out how to follow more people :(
Anyway...Dracula...I finally finished it and, to be perfectly honest, was slightly shocked at the ending...it was far more 'happily ever after' than I expected (despite the fact that quite a few people had died throughout) and I thought the final attack against Dracula would be a bit more graphic...like the 'Van Helsing cutting the heads of the 'vampire women' bit was...the fact that that part was so detailed and graphic made the actual ending a bit of an anti-climax, to my mind. Also, I always think it's a bit of a cop out when people say that novels are 'too long' as sometimes it's just another way of saying you found something boring but, I'm going to have to say it...I thought it was too long. It was certainly too long for my liking and it wasn't because I found it boring...for the most part, I was really into it but there was a time, towards the end, when I felt things could have happened a bit quicker.
There were a lot of things connected to gender that I found interesting when reading Dracula - there were some parts that I thought were quite sexist with regard to the representation of women (the fact that women weren't told of Van Helsing's findings as soon as the men were as they supposedly couldn't handle it, for example) however, at times, I thought there were very postive images of women being presented - Mina, for example, was, especially when we first meet her, a strong, independent woman. I started thinking about the role of women in the novel after the 'vampire women' in Dracula's home appeared...they had a power over both Jonathan and even, at the end, Van Helsing and although that in a way is quite a significant thing (as the people 'in charge' of the rest of the novel's action are male), it can be argued that the 'vampire women' and Lucy, after she is bitten, only have power because they were given that power by Dracula...a man. Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree thinking of the novel in terms of gender but I couldn't help but think about it - the fact that the characters in the novel kept generalising with regard to gender in an 'all men...' 'all women...' type 'sweeping statement' way.
Going back to the length of the novel (sorry!) - because it was long, felt like things were repeated when they didn't need to be which gave the impression that the reader wasn't trusted to pick up on little clues themselves and were being subjected to the same piece of information repeatedly in order to get the idea...for example, when it is implied that Mina had been visited by Dracula in the night for seemingly ages after, there were references made to her being pale before it was actually revealed for definite that she had been bitten...after the first couple of mentions of her being pale I'd thought 'oh oh...I know what's coming' but rather than just getting straight onto what the reader has already been led to think...the hint was dropped, to my mind, several more times than necessary, as if the writer wasn't confident enough that the reader would pick up on subtle clues.
I'm going to end it there as, I think I've started repeating things myself!...I haven't said what I was planning to say at all so hopefully I'll get more to the point next time...in the meantime, I can't find a copy of Doctor Faustus anywhere...but I shall keep looking.
Anyway...Dracula...I finally finished it and, to be perfectly honest, was slightly shocked at the ending...it was far more 'happily ever after' than I expected (despite the fact that quite a few people had died throughout) and I thought the final attack against Dracula would be a bit more graphic...like the 'Van Helsing cutting the heads of the 'vampire women' bit was...the fact that that part was so detailed and graphic made the actual ending a bit of an anti-climax, to my mind. Also, I always think it's a bit of a cop out when people say that novels are 'too long' as sometimes it's just another way of saying you found something boring but, I'm going to have to say it...I thought it was too long. It was certainly too long for my liking and it wasn't because I found it boring...for the most part, I was really into it but there was a time, towards the end, when I felt things could have happened a bit quicker.
There were a lot of things connected to gender that I found interesting when reading Dracula - there were some parts that I thought were quite sexist with regard to the representation of women (the fact that women weren't told of Van Helsing's findings as soon as the men were as they supposedly couldn't handle it, for example) however, at times, I thought there were very postive images of women being presented - Mina, for example, was, especially when we first meet her, a strong, independent woman. I started thinking about the role of women in the novel after the 'vampire women' in Dracula's home appeared...they had a power over both Jonathan and even, at the end, Van Helsing and although that in a way is quite a significant thing (as the people 'in charge' of the rest of the novel's action are male), it can be argued that the 'vampire women' and Lucy, after she is bitten, only have power because they were given that power by Dracula...a man. Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree thinking of the novel in terms of gender but I couldn't help but think about it - the fact that the characters in the novel kept generalising with regard to gender in an 'all men...' 'all women...' type 'sweeping statement' way.
Going back to the length of the novel (sorry!) - because it was long, felt like things were repeated when they didn't need to be which gave the impression that the reader wasn't trusted to pick up on little clues themselves and were being subjected to the same piece of information repeatedly in order to get the idea...for example, when it is implied that Mina had been visited by Dracula in the night for seemingly ages after, there were references made to her being pale before it was actually revealed for definite that she had been bitten...after the first couple of mentions of her being pale I'd thought 'oh oh...I know what's coming' but rather than just getting straight onto what the reader has already been led to think...the hint was dropped, to my mind, several more times than necessary, as if the writer wasn't confident enough that the reader would pick up on subtle clues.
I'm going to end it there as, I think I've started repeating things myself!...I haven't said what I was planning to say at all so hopefully I'll get more to the point next time...in the meantime, I can't find a copy of Doctor Faustus anywhere...but I shall keep looking.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
The Bloody Chamber
I'm still wading through Dracula (I'm enjoying it but it's so long!!) but I've finished The Bloody Chamber so I thought I'd blog about that.
I spoke in my last post about liking the way in which The Bloody Chamber was written (with the rich metaphors e.t.c) and although I felt like that throughout, I must admit that the story 'The Bloody Chamber' was my favourite and felt a little lost with certain stories towards the end. In the 'fairytale' sort of style you get the sense that, because things at times are very metaphorical, there's a deeper meaning to the stories and I like the way that at the end of each story I felt the need to sit for a while and think aout what I'd just read and take it all in...however, some of the last stories in the book I just ended up writing a question mark afterwards because I just couldn't work out what the heck they were on about!! The Erl-King, for example.
There were a lot of things I liked about Carter's writing style - the way she stated certain things that characters did but didn't explain them leaving the reader to question the motives ('I shivered to think of that' p12)- the imagery...there seemed to be a continued metaphorical theme of women as meat ('cuts on the slab', 'lamb chop')
I liked the fact that although some of the plots were rather obscure, there were signifiers throughout some (namely 'The Bloody Chamber') that gave an indication of what was to come - for example, the fact that the husband in The Bloody Chamber had the wedding ring of his ex-wife despite the fact that she had apparently been lost at sea and her body hadn't been recovered raised suspitition regarding his part in his wife's death. Also - although the stories were 'out there', I found that in most of the stories, because the plots are driven by deep emotions as opposed to events, that characters could be empathised with. What I mean is - although the events of the stories may be wildly unrealistic, they're rooted in real human emotion which, to me, ensures a connection with the reader.
The way in which speech was documented interested me as direct speech wasn't used very often (in the typical sense), however, references to what people had said were made all the time. The stories seemed to be more like streams of consciousness than actual written interpretations of stories and, although this style of writing allowed the reader to feel closer to the protagonists, I found it difficult at times to get to grips with the jumps in speaker e.g. from first person to third person.
The links between Dracula and The Bloody Chamber I've found intriguing too and again, I've found myself looking back over the notes made in class as there are evidence of the different 'gothic features' in both texts - asleep/wake, dead/alive, light/dark, influence of the past e.t.c. When I finally finish Dracula, I'll probably blog on the similarities between the two texts as I think they share significant gothic elements...one element that I'm finding really interesting at the moment is the fact that both texts talk about things that could be dismissed as untrue or exaggerated (fairytales in The BC and superstition in Dracula) and both directly address the issue that fairytales and superstitions should not be dismissed so readily as not everything can be worked out with reason...again throwing up the gothic idea of what's real and what's not...interesting stuff.
P.s. I don't think I'm following everyone...I can't quite work out how to follow people so if anyone could tell me that'd be great :)
I spoke in my last post about liking the way in which The Bloody Chamber was written (with the rich metaphors e.t.c) and although I felt like that throughout, I must admit that the story 'The Bloody Chamber' was my favourite and felt a little lost with certain stories towards the end. In the 'fairytale' sort of style you get the sense that, because things at times are very metaphorical, there's a deeper meaning to the stories and I like the way that at the end of each story I felt the need to sit for a while and think aout what I'd just read and take it all in...however, some of the last stories in the book I just ended up writing a question mark afterwards because I just couldn't work out what the heck they were on about!! The Erl-King, for example.
There were a lot of things I liked about Carter's writing style - the way she stated certain things that characters did but didn't explain them leaving the reader to question the motives ('I shivered to think of that' p12)- the imagery...there seemed to be a continued metaphorical theme of women as meat ('cuts on the slab', 'lamb chop')
I liked the fact that although some of the plots were rather obscure, there were signifiers throughout some (namely 'The Bloody Chamber') that gave an indication of what was to come - for example, the fact that the husband in The Bloody Chamber had the wedding ring of his ex-wife despite the fact that she had apparently been lost at sea and her body hadn't been recovered raised suspitition regarding his part in his wife's death. Also - although the stories were 'out there', I found that in most of the stories, because the plots are driven by deep emotions as opposed to events, that characters could be empathised with. What I mean is - although the events of the stories may be wildly unrealistic, they're rooted in real human emotion which, to me, ensures a connection with the reader.
The way in which speech was documented interested me as direct speech wasn't used very often (in the typical sense), however, references to what people had said were made all the time. The stories seemed to be more like streams of consciousness than actual written interpretations of stories and, although this style of writing allowed the reader to feel closer to the protagonists, I found it difficult at times to get to grips with the jumps in speaker e.g. from first person to third person.
The links between Dracula and The Bloody Chamber I've found intriguing too and again, I've found myself looking back over the notes made in class as there are evidence of the different 'gothic features' in both texts - asleep/wake, dead/alive, light/dark, influence of the past e.t.c. When I finally finish Dracula, I'll probably blog on the similarities between the two texts as I think they share significant gothic elements...one element that I'm finding really interesting at the moment is the fact that both texts talk about things that could be dismissed as untrue or exaggerated (fairytales in The BC and superstition in Dracula) and both directly address the issue that fairytales and superstitions should not be dismissed so readily as not everything can be worked out with reason...again throwing up the gothic idea of what's real and what's not...interesting stuff.
P.s. I don't think I'm following everyone...I can't quite work out how to follow people so if anyone could tell me that'd be great :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)