Madame Bovary: Part 2

Is it odd that I still have little to no sympathy for Emma? Blame my upbringing, blame my personality type, but I still could careless for her as a character.  In all seriousness  even after the surgical blunder I still favor Charles, I mean these kind of medical accidents were commonplace and he just so happened to give my future field of occupation a little push in the right direction. Yes he attempted the procedure with the wrong intentions but many factors could be to blame, I mean Madame Bovary was finished around 1856, however aseptic technique only came into the eyes of the medical system around the late 1860's, before that discovery nearly 80% of people who underwent surgery contracted gangrene. Therefore I was surprised that Hippolyte just lost the leg and not his life, but I digress! That is just my opinion based on my background. I really found no sympathy for Emma except that I felt for her being trapped in the time period she was in. She made poor financial decisions with her innocent husbands money, had affairs on his dime while he stayed at home worrying, became a hysterical mess to her own delusions, and ultimately ruined their household and daughters future. Yes, its a lot to blame on one woman but she really didn't experience the consequences of any of her actions except for the fear of being found out when the debt collectors came knocking. I was less impressed by her affair with Rodolphe, she pines over a man who is just using her and cares so little about her that he wont even cry on her dear john letter and pretends to go on a trip. Great life choices Emma. While Rodolphe is a tool and uses her, shes not the first and we learn about this in the letter box scene. The box of letters and trinkets symbolizes a trophy case for Rodolphe, sure he doesn't even remember some of his conquests but he darn well has proof of all of them. Like any good misogynist women are objects to Rodolphe and they simply exist to entertain him and when he grows bored of them he'll throw them in a box and carry on. Now reflecting on the events that led up to Emma's suicide its interesting that this was one of the few times I felt sympathy for her, she ran out of resources and saw no solutions to her situation. I should have been able to predict her suicide but instead I was banking on her simply being so overcome by the situation that her heart gave out, or perhaps paying some homage to Melibea by jumping off the roof. Everything that lead up to her suicide including the ending of two affairs and her mad dash for money all made sense, it was as if her illusion had finally been shattered and the cold harsh reality was slowing seeping into her. When Emma was finally woken up out of her delusional life she came to the realization that the desire that fueled her was being cooled by the reality of her situation, she couldn't afford her borrowed life style that made her existence bearable, her suitors couldn't whisk her away from all her troubles and for the most part they didn't care about her. When all of this came crashing down upon her head Emma could only see one escape from the life in which she would have to face the reality of her decisions and in which she had nothing left to desire. Her choice of poisoning would have been my third guess at how she was going to off herself, women are prone to such a thing because generally speaking we don't like to die unattractive deaths if we can help it. Overall I'll still declare myself a Charles fan, I felt like the poor fellow was constantly getting walked upon and bowled over, whereas Emma in her defiant pseudo-feminism went about things in entirely the wrong way and as a result everybody suffered including herself.

Madame Bovary: Part 1

To begin I would be lying to myself horribly if I said that this text did not alienate me, Therefore in all efforts to be an honest person I'll put it out there bluntly: I could not relate to a majority of this text at all. However that being said it does not mean that I did not find Madame Bovary to be interesting. Personally I derived a unique form of entertainment from this first half of the book because I found myself so far removed from Emma that she became a novelty to me. Now Charles on the other hand I could find more to relate with from the mild frustration and distraction during his professional studies, to his almost naive approach to relationships. To put it simply Charles does not have an original bone in his body, and if he did he would not have the chutzpah to do anything with it. As a boy he is described as being ordinary with very few defining features except for one of his possessions: His hat, which to put it gently is something that I imagine to look like Parisian runway fashion crossed with a monster of Dr. Frankensteins, but to each his own. From the narrators point of view the hat seems to represent a misfit, something that was put together with the best of intentions but falls flat when it comes to a cohesive execution, somewhat like Emma herself. Even if it is a stretch of the imagination I saw a connection from that hideous hat to the staring attraction herself, consider the fact that her father sent her to be well schooled in a convent and that she was taught all of the skills a lady needed to possess in those times: reading, singing, playing the piano, painting, sewing, ect. However when the time came for all of those skills to be executed in such a manner that it might make her husband happy she falls short due to her own personal disinterest in Charles and eventual disdain for his presence. Emma is a complicated creature for the majority of the time she is incapacitated from doing much of anything useful due to her self invented boredom. By dreaming up lives of grandeur she progressively grows discontent with her normal lifestyle and fails to find anything of valuable interest unless it is a newly attentive male party. Her discontentment with normal life comes to a climax of sorts at the La Vaubyésssard ball, where she experiences her first real taste of "the good life".  The experience at the ball while told through her Vaseline lens whets her appetite and fuels her desire for an upper class existence that she may very well never obtain (I guess we'll just have to see how the second half goes). Although Emma feels as if she was born to live in that sect of high society I felt that while she has a certain stateliness about her she tries too hard, after all most high society ladies probably wouldn't dance with the same man twice in a row lest anyone start an unsavory rumor about the pair. A nice growing theme throughout the first half of this story is the excitement that she derives from new men in her life, in the beginning she got a certain amount of pleasure out of Charles but soon grew bored of him because he wasn't rich, good looking, or very interesting. Then she moved on to the Vicomte, a dashingly handsome fellow of high society but his attention only lasted an evening which she would fondly look back upon as if it were a pleasant dream. After the ball her attention becomes focused on the young Leon, who is also handsome but more importantly has the talent of engaging her attention for long periods of time which for Emma is something that can make her days go faster and her step feel lighter. However perhaps the most aggressive of all is Rodolphe, the new bachelor in town who refuses to take no for an answer, and maybe that is what irritated me the most? The fact that shes willing to ignore her husband for most of their marriage and to all together hate his presence for no good reason but when a man she barely knows forces his company on her she just takes it. 

Celestina: Part 2

The second half of Celestina was in a way just as dramatic as I was hoping it would be, the whole plot charged through to the end in quite the Shakespearean fashion providing both closure for the audience as well as a cathartic tragedy all in one. In act 11 the "small chain" as Calisto puts it is one of the most obvious symbols in the whole story, on many levels it represents a binding. To Calisto the chain represents him relinquishing his enslavement to his own misery and heartache that originated from his love of Melibea which he has been freed from upon learning that his affections are returned, it also represents what he might have believed to be his last tie to Celestina herself being that their "contract" was finally fulfilled. However that being said to Celestina the chain represents Calisto being bound to her in favor for presumably an indefinite period of time. A woman like Celestina is respected for two reasons, the first being for her age, talent in her trade, and wisdom, the second being out of fear. Celestina has power over people because she knows their most intimate secrets such as clergy violating vows of chastity, brides who did not maintain their true maidenheads for their husbands to take, and husbands who sought woman besides the wives they took in sanctity. The moment that Calisto enlisted the help of Celestina she knew he would be indebted to her and the payment to Celestina in the form of a chain represented that to her. For Parmeno and Sempronio the chain bound them to Celestina, in the text it literally was the payment they wanted and their desire for their share of it drove them to kill her and ultimately to their own deaths, but on a deeper level it represents the desire that all people experience. It is the powerful force that binds us to destiny and drives us to our fates much like in the case of Parmeno and Sempronio they were powerless to their own selfish desires as was Celestina. In act 14 Calisto finally is able to experience Melibea the way he yearned for the entire story up until that point, while I had assumed his happiness would be apparent that was not the case. Calisto is disappointed by the encounter for its brief timing and the shame that he has brought upon his household. He claims his passion is cooled and now he only feels the pain from where fate has left him at the early hour. His two closest servants were killed ultimately because of his tie to Melibea and he spent relatively little time mourning them, he also feels the shame of giving into his desires and the deep dishonor he has brought upon his ancestors. The theme of these darkened desires is also played up in the interactions between Calisto and Melibea in the way that the only meet in the twilight hours. By society's standards what the two lovers are doing is engaging in immoral behavior, things that could only occur by the dark of night, but the way it is portrayed absolves their passion of sin. The lovers only bathed in reflective moonlight seem pure and entitled to give into their desires, and Melibea being a source of this light in Calistos life is almost a validation of his desires, he is powerless to her and subsequently to his desires like a moth drawn to a flame.

Celestina: Part 1

The opening to Celestina was a wonderful parallel to Adam and Eve but more so it set the tone for a personal intrusion. In literature gardens are often seen as somewhat tamed forms of nature, both beautiful and revered yet private, and by having Calisto stumble into the garden of Meliba is represents the unapproved intrusion of a man into the private sector of her life. While it is not the most subtle of imagery it matches the characters and their attitudes on sex, love and desire which are often frankly put and brutally honest. I do not read Meliba as being totally offended by Calistos intrusion, more so she is disillusioned to his lovestruck manner, and having had a preview to the end she is better for this attitude. While the dialogue between Sempronio and Calisto is comical and biting at the dynamic between the master and conniving servant I can still see him as being a long suffering friend, otherwise I assume he would have just robbed him outright. As a reader I am amazed at the quick onset of Calistos love sickness, normally while love sickness is a well documented phenomenon both in medicine and in creative works the onset is generally post heartbreak but it seems poor Calisto has a weak constitution when it comes to his love for the unattainable image of Meliba, which thankfully is put to good use fueling the plot line. Enter Celestina, the war-profiteer when it comes to human desire, or as she is portrayed by Parmeno "Who could tell you what the old crone did? And all of it was mockery and lies." (26).  She is a woman who earns her living by manipulating people using their desires to breed fear, longing, anguish, and desperation. She draws out this process, as we will see in the case of poor Calisto, for her own benefit.  From a literary point of view Celestina represents the control that desire has over our lives, she is the dark side of love and she knows just how to use it. At first she comes across as a harmless quack who makes a living off of poor saps but soon proves to be the puppeteer of the various human desires that the audience sees coming into play. Parmenos dramatic monologues on Celestina serve to foreshadow, he acts as logic which is always extremely under-voiced in dealing with love, and therefore he will remain hopelessly unheard by Calistos heart yet on occasion as logic will he can validate certain actions of his master unwittingly. The dynamics of the first 10 acts tie in beautifully to the readings on sex regulation. Not only did that provide historical insight and background to Parmenos views of Celestina and her various "professions" both past and present but it also aided in reinforcing just how seriously Celestina could offend the sensibilities of that time (and yet Calisto hopelessly pursues her for "knowledge").

"The Obscure Object of Desire" Continued.

"The Obscure Object of Desire"
On a personal note I loved the complexity of this film from the passion emanating from Matthieu to the mirrored disdain from Conchita. The obscure object was not just desire, nor was it everything Conchita represented to Matthieu but it was something much more subtle represented throughout the undertone of the film, much more akin to the need of self completion through an imaginary source. Conchita was as much of an unattainable mirage to Matthieu as the reflection to Narcissus and yet in the end they both knew better but ultimately met their demise due to being constantly drawn back to this thing that had them both so caught up. Lacan also noted strongly on the false sense of self we can obtain through the illusion of control of things outside of ourselves, and this is exactly the trap that Matthieu fell into. He was enraptured by Conchita a woman outside of his reach, whom he could never control yet he was determined to try anyways, because he was driven by a force that was so beyond his own control yet he was totally unaware of it. Conchita being played by two different actresses was perfect, the first representing the "good girl" and the second representing the "bad girl", throughout the movie it was almost exciting to predict based on the mood of the scene who was going to appear, such as in the scene where they are at the country house, The bad Conchita arrives and is playful, flirtatious, and demanding but once it comes time for the demands of Matthieu to be met in comes the good Conchita who is noble and often frigid to his advances. Yet this act only drives Matthieu further down the rabbit hole of his own undoing. The constant use of terrorism in the background of the film was intriguing, based on the timing it often seemed to be a way to practically emasculate Matthieu rendering him helpless many times and showing that he was "too noble" to admit the he was scared and taken advantage of by men often younger and rowdier then himself. The ending of the film was a nice modern line drawn between to "tragic" love stories, yes it pays homage to Tristan and Isolde but to me more importantly it is playing on the tragic faults of Matthieu and his insatiable need for Conchita. Even after he has forsake her he still comes back for more, which perhaps puts him in the right place and the right time for a terrorist attack, a sign that Matthieu is not the one in control of his life.  

Thoughts on Zizek, Bernard, and "The Obscure Object of Desire"

While reading "Courtly Love or Woman as Thing" I was intrigued by the writers prospective of women having the upper hand in love, however this was not unwelcome. In the passage on page 90 Zizek notes that "the Lady functions as a mirror on to which the subject projects his narcissistic ideal" this only reinforces the ideas we discussed in the Mirror stage about about how we desire completion of self that can only exist outside of ones self. Prior to that Zizek noted that "the Lady in courtly love loses concrete features and is addressed as an abstract ideal, so that 'writers have noted that all the poets seem to be addressing the same person'"  this feelings ring true to the idea that we carried away from the myth of narcissus that perfection that can only be desired and found outside of ones self is merely a tantalizing  mirage that we all can experience the same sorrow of never being able to obtain it because this object of desire does not exist. Now while Zizeks essay presented the reality of love I enjoyed the parallel I saw between that and the troubadour poems by Bernard. Bernard stated that "A man is really dead when he does not feel some sweet taste of love in his heart" (127) The new human perspective that Bernard is writing from shines a light on the ideas stated above, to put it bluntly we desire what does not exist in hopes of achieving completion of self that comes from outside of ourselves but we still need that desire to fuel us no matter how bleak the outlook is in terms of successful completion. To further expose this consider the differences in Bernards own writing, specifically between the first quote on 127 and this quote from 133 "I bear more pain from love then Tristan the lover who suffered many sorrows for Isolt the blonde", In this Bernard himself is exposing both sides of the story to the reader, Love as the life drive for all men, and Love as the eternal tormentor.

Thoughts on Narcissus, Song of Songs, and Lacan...

Song of Songs:

This poem strongly plays on the control of ones desire for completion through another yet it parallels these images with that of wild uninhibited nature. Strong comparisons are made between sensory stimulation such as the intoxication of wine(2), the scent of perfume(3), or the beauty of flower blossoms(14) and the somewhat opposing controlling actions such as her ardent requests(4), the herding of a flock(7), and the lavishing of gifts(10-11). To further expand those ideas look to the location of the poem itself, within the Old Testament, which I often regard as the “rule book” of the bible. Although seemingly out of its element the placement is quite deliberate in the way that it produces a parallel between the power of raw human desire and governing body of religion. While one element tries to overpower the other, it ultimately fails to do so completely, yet the two can coexist. Powerful human emotions like desire have a need to be addressed in our lives, even in biblical texts, because they have existed longer than the religious institutions themselves.

The Myth of Narcissus:

Like any etiological myth the story of Narcissus delves into how an echo came about but it also serves to personify a once unexplainable phenomenon. Echo is able to manipulate the open ended questions of Narcissus to enable the reflection of her true feelings towards him; however her presence also serves to foreshadow the demise of Narcissus much like the prophecy of Tiresias. Echo is a complex representation of what is to come but also of the impossible goal of total self-completion.  Narcissus is confronted by the love echo harbors for him and rejects it, yet he comes to be “rejected” by his love for himself. Both the lover and the beloved in this story have unattainable goals and face their own tragic demise in a curse of incompleteness. I believe that Narcissus falls in love with the idea of self-wholeness, meaning that while many people who fall in love or enter relationships are inherently searching out a sense of wholeness that they believe they can only find through another Narcissus was doomed or perhaps enlightened enough to realize that the form of completion we desire comes from lacking something in ourselves. Therefore when falling in love Narcissus could only see that within himself yet had no way of accessing that, quite similar to Echo seeing her completion within Narcissus. Both sides were driven by powerful desire yet were never able to achieve the end goal. “The thing you are seeing does not exist: only turn aside and you will lose what you love. What you see is but the shadow cast by your own reflection; in itself it is nothing.”(85).That passage from the myth spells out that desire is the ultimate trickster, yet it powerfully compels us to create our own illusions and then to pursue them endlessly.

Lacan:

In a sense it appears as if Lacan is suggesting that by only entering the “Mirror Stage” that a developing child can have its first confrontation with its comprehension of “self” and “I”. By having this encounter the child feels falsely completed upon the realization of its own reflection, and derives pleasure from this discovery of newfound self-awareness. While it is true that stimulation of all the senses is key to a child developing its true sense of desire the idea of self-awareness is a strong combination of previously separate events such as motor manipulation, touch/feeling, and sight. Therefore it is a defining experience. While I do see parallels between Narcissus and Lacan’s theoretical Mirror stage, it is important to point out that this is not a complete theory in my eyes.  Developmental theory is normally concluded with possible negative results of not completing the experience, and while Lacan alludes to those possibly unfortunate end results the theory becomes quite gray in that respect. Both the Mirror Stage and the myth of narcissus illustrate the desire of self-image completion and false fulfillment found outside of ones self.