Journal 2

 

1/26/2001

Carnival by Isak Dinesen

“The de Cats Family”

               This goes back to the sacrificial lamb, but the question is was it on celebration plot by Jernais to gain money.  It could have been.  Goes back to the idea of sacrificing the one for the many.

 

“Uncle Theodore”

               “To describe the joy of reunion, as reunion wherein the mother had not seen her son for eight years, the sister had not seen her brother for fifty years, nor the brother the sister, the daughter-in-law had never seen the mother-in-law, and the judge had never seen the dog would almost be impossible.” (54).

               Like hos she plays with the idea of an invented  character coming to life so to speak.  This fiction that they have been living with comes to life so suddenly.  Jacques becomes quiet toward the end of the story.  He quiets down after the trial.  Prior to the trial it sounds like her almost was relived, not the way he originally thought it would be.  Is it because the comfort of his life is disruptive that he comes so quiet or is it because he is no longer the center of attention?  That his mother has come out from the background?

 

“Carnival”

               Slighltly confusing in the descriptions at the beginning of for Dinesen is describing the characters in the terms of their costumes.

               “A pensive black figure in the white surroundings, like a fly which has fallen into a pot of cream” (60).  Or the insect or skull in a Dutch still life of flowers.    Death in the midst of life.

               The main characters have no idea about life.  They wrap themselves up in this fame of love and monterary loss.  Their willingness to wager on  such an absurd lottery is a clue.  The title of the story not only refers to the masquerade but also the to the mindset, the nature of the inhabitants of the story (why did I use that word) with the exception of Zomor.  Camor represents the everyman, the common man, who resists the carnival but succumbs to it for a moment, a very crucial one as he stakes the lottery.   But why didn’t he resort back to the gun?  I don’t understand.  He gives in completely, becomes to every real degree the shadow he is accused of being.  He trades one mistress for the other.  He say he has killed one, why cannot he kill again?

               Power of Carnival to affect everyone?

 

“The Last Day”

               Last day for Viggio and Johannes as both are giving up on something.  It seems that though Viggio is trying to move toward something and finish.  Away from mankind and to a somewhat higher power.  Joannes cannot understand the story of the parson’s daughter because he cannot see women that way.  He knows two women well.  His finance whom he is disconnected with .  He has not seen her in two years and the prostitute whom he largely ignored.   He is wary of knowing her well and that’s why he refuses to see her again after the gift of the dog.    He has stepped over that line between customer and lover/friend.  He has complete betrayal of his vow to his finances  to an great degree than his personal sexual transgression.  He cannot see women with the at much power.  He seems them in terms of sex, money or even in a formal relationship.  He cannot see them outside of those spheres.  Ideally he should as a parson to be, be able to see them as something more than wife/lover, but it shte sailaer who sees that addition, that god like quality in the parson’s daughter.

 

“Uncle Seneca”

               She seems to accept this reveal of his true self too calmly.  Romance seems limpid.  But that  To e desire to a name immortalized.

 

“The Fat Man”

               Like the absence of surprise and shock that gives him away.  That derivation from the norm.  But the desire not to act takes away the fear of close that the girl’s parents could use and need. 

               That desire to be uninivoled, to not read anything to exist solely for look (study) and work is a trap that everyone must deal with .  This desire to insulate oneself from the world to not let us be touched with it.  But once a sentence gets .  . .The barest fixate on it so much because it is the first new sofa ht oursie that world that he has let in for a while.

               Both in the bartender and in this story and the girl from “Seneca” are like the exotic girl in The Angelic Avengers.  Too exception or too sudden a change – a girl in Seneca determining her love and desire for the rich life without much reason.

               On Lady Helena’s will, “ . .  .  I understand that this little girl while still in her mother’s womb, has managed to kill off her papa and because I myself have always disliked papas” (218-219).           

               The story ends in the middle.  Anna herself seems to represent different things.  The beauty of dancing, a saint, a servant.  She is faceted  the dancing and her professed lever for Alexsander are the only things that the reader knows for sure about other then her life story.  She is a mixture of Mother Agape, Pia and her own father.

“The Ghost Horses”

               What is the attraction of death and dumb.  Children that are special in some way.  Is it because they are seen as being in their own world?

               The ending is chilling.  For how does Nanny define well?  Does she mean she will call him up as we she did the carnation or that he will die and join Billy?

 

“The Proud Lady”

                Interesting how sympathy begins to shift to the old lady because of her change in behavoir.  Good not eh women pulle dover handyman.

 

“The Bear and the Kiss”

               Joshua and Lawler like and old married couple and characterization.

 

“Second Meeting”

               Prophecy, knowing something without knowing about them.

 

1/30/2001

Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley.

Reread

               Couldn’t get all the way though it this time, the problems got to me.

               For one, why use Celtic and Druids and old religion but stick so faithfully to the Malory pilot with all its French influence.  It is so heavily drawn upon Malory.  The difference between Bradley and [Court away] Jones, is Jones admit he is basic retelling of Malory.  But Bradley does not do this.  Why not make Lancelot, Bedwyr like Steward and others have done to go back to the old myths.  Even Karr [Phyllis Ann] who kept it Malley based referred to these old tales.

               Also Bradley ignores the fact that the Saxons would win and the Briton would have to be reconverted.  But what makes Avalon so much better?  It seems that Avalon’s viewpoint is the one we are supposed to be partial  to considering the narrator and viewpoints.  Avalon is more women friendly, especially in the sense that women control the power in the Avalon structure.   But they act no better than the men of camlet.  Viviane marries both her sisters to far older men.  She gives them away.  But when a man does this to his sisters or daughters the book showcases it as wrong.  At least, Kevin is willing to seek a degree of compromise.  Neither Lady of Avalon is willing to do so. Yet Kevin pays for it , even if one could see the lighting as  a sign from the Goddess.  But the whole idea around marriage seems very confused.  The priestess of Avalon do the same thing.  Morgaine is guilty of it twice over with Nimule when she taker her from her mother and then when she sends her to seduce Kevin. It is order the re is there is not choice in the matter.  Isn’t the “sin “ greater  when a woman condemns another to such a father as marriage with an older man?  Or childlessness?>  Because the women knew what their compatriots go thought.  The cruelty of Viviane who always wanted ag girl, to conspire to make Gwen barren is too much worse.  Gwen is not very likeable but Viviane is showing herself to be just as controlling as any man.  (evidence with the whole Arthur/Morgan great marriage).   Avalon seems to not resent Arthur’s endorsement of Christianity but his refusal to be controlled.  Avalon’s priestess are constantly saying that it was Avalon that put Arthur on the throne, therefore Arthur  owes them loyalty.  Followers of the old religion did fight with Arthur but Avalon gave him an endorsement, sword, and sheath.  Their claim seems too entitled.    

It could almost be that Bradly is condemning this unmanageable structure or philosophy of Avalon but it seems not. The majority of female characters are from Avalon and lead Avalon.  Gwen is the only woman who is not and wea see hear as a pious hypocrite.  We have to be sympathetic to Morgaine and therefore the cause of Avalon or the book is lost.  The problems it that when you ask questions and did not follow blindly, you begin to question Avalon and therefore lose sympathy.

               Morgaine herself is a hypocrite.  She arranges for Elaine to wed Lancelot, taking away Lancelot’s free will in the matter.  She justifies this by telling herself that it is for the good of the kingdom.  (Of course, then why not act earlier?).  But that seems iffy.  She herself considers herself to be trapped or forced into her marriage with Urines.  She was given room for refusal.  She did not take it.  She was perhaps pressured about the marriage but if she had gone to Arthur he would have let her back out.  He does ask her, unlike Gwen’s father who commands.   Ut because Arthur is male he is condemned  for having done even that.  It makes no sense.

               Bradley, at times, falls into a habit of not making likable male characters in the book.  The only likable male characters seem to be Taliesin and possibly Kevin.  The reader does not really get to know Arthur but sees him as someone who breaks his vow to Avalon and is controlled by is wife.  Lancelot is in no way worthy  of Morgan.  He seems to love Gwen only because she is Arthur’s and is beautiful.  Glorious is portrayed as a tolerate husband but then becomes abused when Igraine’s affections shift.  So we are not invited to feel sorry for him.  Yet Uther was just as much a traitor to his view as King as Gloria was to his as vessel.  Making eyes at the wife of subject is a no-no.    But only Glorious is seen to be at fault. 

               Uther himself is seen as a great  man but his relationships with Marianne and Vianne lowers him         

Urines is a good husband whose only fault was to stop his wife from making a serious mistake and seeking compromise.  True, he bruised Morgaine’s wrist but if had stood and up and denounced Arthur it at the feast table it would been worse and would have ruined the peace Arthur was making with the Saxons.  Is that abuse?  He had to keep her from raising, she was fought him and if he had not put the pressure one she would broken his grasp.  Would that have been the right thing to do.    After Acorn’s death, he speaks from grief and his charge does have some truth behind it.  Kevin is seen as fine until he disobeys Avalon and then his is a traitor.  Both Mordred and Galahad have their serious faults  Mordred’s control and acts, Galahad’s piety.  Lot is a leacher and disloyal  Lamarck who do the reader does not really know is palpable.             

The other male characters are minor and not fully characterized.

               The only two men who are not cognomina dare Talesin who dies an old man and is the father figure,  And A colon.  A colon, however, is totally under the control of Morgaine.  .  He obeys her, so he is therefore okay.

               In essence neither Christian or Avalon is attractive in the book.  Though it seems that Avalon is more hypocritical.