Will O' The wisp

This reading was about suicide, life and drug addiction of Rochelle's friend Rigaut, Alain in the story. This story was a very dynamic portrayal of how drug addiction and a dependence on the female sex can control a persons life. I think that there is room for interpretation and the reader can develop their own story in concurrence with this one to make it their own. It is important to recognize that Rochelle's depiction of this drug addiction is a direct affirmation of his life and the lives of those around him. I specifically like how he is able to do this with many of his writings and ascribe actual events and create unique stories that contain many philosophical elements like the issue of morals, and right or wrong and literary elements such as anxiety and depression.

Will O' the Wisp

Will O’ the Wisp by Pierre Drieu la Rochelle was very hard to read, somewhat out of my reading level. The writing contained a lot of adjectives or adverbs to help its readers create a perfect picture of scenes, which made me hard to read on, I had to keep a dictionary as I read the novel. Within the story, Alain, the main, went through various emotional changes as the story progressed. His life seemed to start falling down more rapidly than before when he started to use drug, which finally made him commit suicide. He turned to drugs to avoid what is happening around him. He didn’t have guts to confront the problems he is facing and find the solution. He used drug to escape his miserable life to enjoy short momentary pleasure. Most of us want money and women in our life. More is better I believe. Alain had both of them. He achieved them so easily; it made him to treat them not as valuable as we normally. He didn’t appreciate them since he didn’t have to work hard to get them. The life of Alain reminded me of news I heard a story of a twenty year old British man who won about 15 million dollar. He spent all of his money on sex, drug, and gamble. He even had to go to prison for possessing of drug and false behavior. Now he is bankrupted and is on jobseeker’s allowance which is about 100dollars per week. The message Rochelle tries to send us through his novel, Will O’ Wisp, is that we need to appreciate what we currently possess and thank our life. And finally Will O’ the Wisp is one of the strangest and depressing novels I have ever read.

You can read a story of Michael Carrol at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249209/Lotto-lout-Michael-Carroll-dole-squandering-millions.html

will o the wisp

In my opinion, Alain was a wise man. Although he had no special abilities to start a "new life" on his own, he was intelligent enough to know that the only way he could really give up drugs was to find someone who inspires him to live life to the fullest. During his lifetime, there was not a single person who stayed by his side regardless of how much trouble he caused. His parents eventually abandoned him, his wife left him, and his friends all turned their backs on him as well. Staying at the institution was not helping him. In fact, in my opinion, this was holding him back. Alain needed to get out in the real world, amongst normal people, and find someone that could push him to live a more respectable life. How could Alain find someone to help him amongst a pool of people who he thought were slightly crazy? Alain was not a very positive man. He knew that his addiction to drugs was the reason as to why everyone was leaving him, but he himself was not strong enough to overcome this. He needed guidance, not from a doctor, but from someone that could ensure him that no matter how difficult things became, that they would always be by his side. Eventually when Alain really felt that no one could help him, he committed suicide. Although drugs was the start of Alains life falling apart, I believe in the end, it was his lack of confidence. Even when Alain was young and attractive, he thought he was not good enough for his wife. He was popular amongst the ladies; however, he was always scared that one day women would no longer find him attractive. However, I believe his constant worrying about being alone one day was what really ruined Alain. If Alain knew that he did not always have to rely on someone and that he was fully in charge of his own life, I believe he could have given up drugs, found a job, and become a better person.

Will O' the wisp

Sorry I'm a little behind, my work schedule is crazy and I keep mixing up the due dates. Anyway, so the Will O' the Wisp... interesting read. I appreciate the comments that I am seeing from my classmates. They def put somethings in perspective. Like anything else in life people are going to interpret this piece their own way. I personally found Aaron's comments to be a bit insightful. I feel like they brought up some points that otherwise would not be thought of. Suicide does have a lot to do with self loathing and jealousy, but I do understand why others got the impression that the author (his name's a bit too complicated for me to spell right now) was glorifying suicide. But suicide is a phenomenon within itself. The causes are different across the board, even within homogenous groups, but that's neither here nor there. But I do like the spin on it, that the story is to show that suicide is absurd.

Will O’ the Wisp

Will O’ the Wisp is hard to understand what it is about. This novel is mysterious story and it is about addiction and self-destructive. This novel is based on actual suicide story of one of the Pierre Drieu's friend. The story is about Alain, the young drug addict, who has no hope or no target in his life, and wandering for several years. He lived in the clinic to cure his addiction, but he has always been the weak person who thinks he was all alone and tries to get away from the reality that he does not have any friends or acquaintances, even at the end of his life. So I think heroin and alcohol was one of the methods for him to turn his face away from the distressing realities of life. He maybe waited the last forty-eight hours for any answer or any argument to hold him in this world, and to give any direction. But he finds no such things, and he commits suicide in the end. I maybe expected some happy ending, just like many other novels, such as Alain finds a friend who would approach him and give him reasons to live the life, or he himself finds a way or some regrets over his life and get over the drug addiction and etc. But it didn’t, and as he questioned himself until the world’s end, this novel made me to question myself what the life is about, and leaves some aftereffect.

Secret journal’

The ‘Secret journal’ was written by Pierre Drieu la Rochelle. In the research, He has got major influence from WWI. He got despair and depression from the war, so his poem based on thought of suicide. He realized that does not need any more human existence. In ‘Secret Journal’, Pierre Drieu describes his various suicides from his childhood. The ‘Secret Journal’ was written in 1945 and he committed suicide same time. I understood why people do suicide. When people get depression they just decided kill themselves. Suicide is obviously a tragic occurrence but sometimes people just do suicide.

we always treat to women too well

The novel, 'we always treat to women too well' is a such a short reading and story moves quickly. the background of this novel sets in the 1916, dublin during the rebellion. As i read this novel, James Joyce has many characters and locales. Itsn't ironic? there are many names and images from a complex and serious literary work? i think it shows dryness in Queneau’s wit. This story is a very interesting on me. This is very funny and showing that the author does not afraid to take chances. This story is also very critical of the violence and luridness of the pulp. the author accused them of “glorifying fascism”, when Western countries are fighting against fascism. It makes me getting more interesting :) anyways, the spoof of the pulp novel seems as enjoyable as the pulp novels themselves. I would not guess his disdain for novels in this genre without reading it.

WILL O' THE WISP

As I read 'WILL O' THE WISP' and comments from the blog, i thought myself that the readers should think this book is almost in praise of suicide or seeking to explain the leads suicide and why it's logical. I think that's furthest meaning of this book. I strongly agree with it beacuse it does detail the pathology of suicide. The pride, the self-loathing, the jealously of other people. But it does so in a way that makes this pathology seem absurd. For example, there is a guy about to commit suicide and he is more with it and probably talented than everyone he is around. These people have just found a small niche to hide out in and survive and take small pleasures from life. These people are providing the blueprint for how the lead should proceed, but he is just too prideful and self-abusive to see this. I thnk that is the point of this story, in showing how absurd the suicide of the lead is it breaks the pathology of depression and suicide.

Will O' The Wisp

Again, this was another interesting and captivating read. While reading Will O’ The Wisp, Pierre’s language and descriptions throughout the text made it incredibly easy for me to imagine the characters and their actions in my head as if it were a play or a movie. I actually found the language, especially his descriptions very easy to follow. I found the overall tone of this piece dark, isolated and morbid. I didn’t have the opportunity to find the movie version of this novel, however, the way I imagined the story in my head, everything was dark and dreary. I can almost picture the movie to be shot in black and white.

From the very beginning of the piece, one can start making connections to Secret Journal. The way Pierre describes Lydia getting ready and applying makeup clearly reflects his ideas about aging and getting old. He describes it as, “Lydia had gone back to the bathroom to paint a strange caricature of life over her corpse’s face. White on white, red and black. Her hand was shaking. Without horror or pity she looked at the imperceptible decay which was tracing crow’s feet at the corners of her mouth and eyes.” (Page 11) The idea of aging as decaying, as if it were truly horrible. Also, in his descriptions of the people in the nursing, Pierre has the habit of using the most morbid and death-related terms to describe the characters, for example “worn-out carcass” (Page 17).

I think the lines in this novel which really stuck with me were those Page 14, “To leave this poor, charming boy was to place him at the mercy of his worst enemy, himself, it was to abandon him to the grey light of the Rue Cambon- with the mournful trees of the Tuileries at the end.” I feel as though these lines describe the entire novel and Alain’s character as a whole, a self-destructive, isolated, addict.

After reading Alexander’s post, I found it difficult to understand the connection between We Always Treat Women Too Well and Will O’ The Wisp. We Always Treat Women Too Well had almost and airy, comical feel, as opposed to Will O’ The Wisp which just has this dark undertone to it. Alain, who is living in the nursing home to come over his heroin addiction while living off of money given to him by different women, does not relate to any of the characters for me in We Always Treat Women Too Well.

Will O' The Wisp

I really found Drieu's style to be incredibly cynical but smart-two things I really enjoy when I read anyway. I liked how he continuously described scenes without really saying what was going on. For instance, when Lydia goes to the bathroom to put on makeup, we are told that she went to "paint a strange caricature of life over her corpse's face." This writing style is powerful because it does more than tell-it also comments and criticizes without being overly direct. I mean, that image says a lot more than "Lydia went to put on makeup." It describes the sad decreptitude of Alain's life and his cynical outlook on the world. He doesn't see finesse or beauty in the act of doing ones face, but instead, describes it with strange morbidity. I think this subtle style adds to the content of the novel and gives the reader a deeper look into the character's psyche.

I also liked the part where Alain is contemplating what he will do with the money from Lydia. Drieu seems to have a running theme throughout the work that comments on the cyclical nature of drug use and how that mimics the cycle between day and night. There's one point where he just says, "It was the night, it was drugs. It was no longer Lydia, whom the night, whom the drugs erased..." When I read this I got the sense that things would not turn out so great for Alain and his attempt to find a "cure.' I thought this subtle synonym between drugs and night points to the idea that regardless of what Alain does, he will continue to use drugs because it has become a 'natural' cycle for him, as natural as the day turns to night without any will of our own. To me, I think this is a style that is again, cynical, but is written to appear secretly cynical-as if there is some hope (which mimics Alain's entire predicament of drugs and hanging onto some idea of hope).

Will O' The Wisp

Rochelle's writing style in this novel is very indirect. An abnormal amount of adjectives are used to describe and set the scene. Yet with all of the descriptions, nothing is specifically stated, leaving the reader to try and piece all the clues together. Like most others have posted, I to also thought of Queneau's "We Always Treat Women to Well" in terms of writing style as they both are indirect. They are different in the way they were indirect, but still left the reader trying to put the story together and find out later whether they are right.

In the very beginning I got the idea that Alain would be able to break free from his drug ways. Once I read the "It was true that Alain had not gone back to drugs, but going to the lavatory had always been an alibi to justify his continual absence." (Rochelle, 9) A few pages later when he received the money from Lydia the hope was that he was not completely off of the drugs, but on his way to be clean. Human nature is to see the good in people, and Rochelle uses this well to keep the audience guessing and wanting more as Alain goes through his journey.

Will O' The Wisp

I found the stylistic qualities of Will O' The Wisp to be in stark contrast to any of the earlier writings that were assigned for this class. Although I feel it was most similar to Queneau's We Always Treat Women Too Well, it certainly was written in a completely different style. It was less straight forward and written with less obvious language than Queneau's story and had more of a poetic nature to it - but both stories were DIRTY. Dirty and grimey. Almost offensive to the point of being comical. However, I feel like Drieu accomplished this with a bit more style. Drieu wasn't really as overtly vulgar like Queneau was (at least by today's standards), and it was the way in which Drieu described things that made it a bit more slick. He used his words much more delicately and yet at the same time more brutally so than Queneau in We Always Treat Women Too Well. This is incredible because I found it to have a subversively filthy style, even considering the fact that I am reading it through the tinted glasses of today's jaded standards of vulgarity. However, I think that the fact that it had some class and was not just terribly offensive is what made it particularly special in this modern context. Its too easy to simply be over-the-top vulgar and its not enough to be provocative anymore. I could absolutely envision a return to fashion of more delicate language in our society, although at the same time I feel like our mainstream society is becoming less and less sophisticated, so maybe this will never be allowed to come to fruition. The way in which Drieu described things was very cutting and dry. It was what I imagined all Frenchmen sound like in their native language when they are talking filthily.

Both Queaneau and Drieu's stories had a biting sense of humor that I was particularly fond of, however I found that Drieu's sense of humor was a bit more subtle and sarcastic, whereas Queaneau's was a bit more irreverent. One of my favorite lines from this story was in the beginning when the narrator is introducing Marquis d'Averseau who possessed “a literary name since he had written A History of French Princes who were Sodomites.” This humor was a bit less obvious than a lot of the jokes Queaneau had used. It is also probably funny to a smaller selection of people. However the unique and obscure nature of this type of joke is what makes it so great. Often the less “mainstream” or understandable humor is, the funnier it is. Somebody once told me that at its heart, humor is simply the realization of incongruity in the world. This discrepancy between the funny and the obscure is what makes this particular style of humor so humorous because it adds to that of the original incongruity that comprises the joke.

Although my first instinct is to compare Will O' The Wisp with We Always Treat Women Too Well, it was more similar in complexity of language to Kierkegard's Fear and Trembling. This is in the sense that both works give a feeling of unraveling a mystery by virtue of the hidden messages and nuances in the language. Also, both Drieu and Kierkegaard spend a lot of time describing the motivations, emotional states, and internal milieus of their characters – much more so than Queneau (and the Focault reading we were assigned didn't really have any characters).

As for James Quinn's response, I happened to believe that Alain could save himself in the beginning of this story. At least I wanted to. I guess I just wanted to believe that anybody could change if they wanted to, which maybe isn't so true. I don't think it was that Alain didn't really want to change deep down inside, but that he was trapped in a self-defeating mindset. My favorite line in this story is “I only know myself. Life is myself. I, I am nothing; and death is nothing twice over.” Here his clash with the absurd brings him to a state where he cannot reconcile his feelings of nothingness. This is something that I believe everyone faces at some point in life. Some people choose to ignore it and bottle it up forever, others cannot. In my opinion this second group of people have to either find some sort of existential meaning or go the same route as Alain (not necessarily committing suicide, but remaining as empty, hollow people).

One final thing I would like to bring up is the name of Drieu's story – Will O' The Wisp. This was the name that the translator or publisher gave to to the English translation. The original title Le Feu Follet (meaning the fire within) was abandoned. I am really starting to wonder why the name was changed and also what other aspects of the story were changed in the translation of this story. The name Will O' The Wisp is interesting. I looked it up and it is a reference to a mysterious light that is said to be seen floating over lakes at night, retreating into the distance when approached by anybody. This, although fundamentally different accomplishes some of the same things as the title The Fire Within. They both are referring to some sort of inexplicable conflict of unknown consequence, a subject which characterized this book. However, I feel like a lot of meaning is lost in the name change. The Fire Within had more of a feeling of internal struggle, whereas Will O' The Wisp denotes more of a mysterious and haunting quality. Similarly, I wonder how the translation of some of the metaphors worked out. Surely some of the meaning was lost or changed in translation, but how much of the insight and depth differs between the original and the translation?

Will-o-the-wisp / The Fire Within

Again the story seems to reflect the thoughts of Pierre Drieu La Rochelle. Suicide being being the focus again. A writer, finding life empty turns to alcoholism, finishes rehab, then finds that still does not give him enough self worth to carry on. After secret journal, I'm sure this was a recurring theme in Drieu's work.
No convoluted thoughts, and again simple enough to interpret.

Found the film online, and it put images and sounds to the novel well. The piano every now and then captured the melancholic feel of the text. The introverted alcoholic was played better than I could have imagined. My favorite part being after he wakes up the day he's going to take his life, buys the two delivery men a drink, says he doesn't drink and they are confused. They want to know what is wrong with him. He simply says there is a problem with his heart, nonchalantly.

In both the text and film, it's clear from his point of view he'll be taking his life from the beginning. Dead man walking. A recovering alcoholic, masquerading as a changed man, I enjoyed the subtle interactions that are clear signs something is wrong, but no one seems to notice, only adding to the low self esteem, and contributing to the problem. Understanding this spiral downward is captivating.

Drieu la Rochelle-Secret Journal

Drieu la Rochelle suicide in 1944. In the book, It is described that he tried to kill himself many times from his young age. I could not understand his childhood. However, any of suicide was not successful. It makes me to feel that he was somewhat cowered. The era, he was living, was very cruel, which is hard to feel nowadays. During the war, his writing of secret journal was published in 1992. This book implies the life of Rochelle during the war. He tried to figure out the meaning of beauty of the French people. All of all, I couldn’t understand him and his life in the book.

Secret Journal

The Secret Journal by Pierre Drieu la Rochchelle was a short story about the author himself. Within the Drieu’s written piece he describes his various suicide attempts from childhood onwards, culminating in a full description of his feelings the day before his last attempt in 1944. As I kept reading on the novel, it gave me the feeling that he tried to justify his action, suicidal attempts or self-hatred, only from his point of view. I had the impression that he is just one of the psychopaths who has low self-esteem and feels the society abandoned him. In the page 11, he talked about the exam he took when he was twenty and failed. He said the reason he didn’t pass the test is ‘because of the authorities and not through any incompetence of mine.’ It cleared shows that he doesn’t want to take responsibility of failing the test on him; he rather blames the society for making him to fail the examination. And in my opinion it also let us to know that he is one of the very self-centered persons, yet with fancy mouth only to defend himself from everything works against him. And finally he talks about various suicidal attempts when he was young but didn’t actually commit those. I think he is just one of the cowards we encounter everyday life. If he really wanted to kill himself, he could easily jump off a building or shoot himself when he was at war.

We Always Treat Women Too Well

We Aways Treat Women Too Well by Raymond Queneau is a novel that a pulp erotical novel that was set in place in England around 1940. When I first encountered the novel, it was very difficult to read and understand what the author was saying, thus sometimes forced me to go back to the front of the page and read again to understand what was going on in the novel, I assume it was because of my lack of English reading skill or the not-the-best French to English translation. Thus it sometimes bored me to keep reading on. However it contained some sexual scenes and humor part in it to prevent me from stop reading(Who hates humor and sex?). During the scenes of the Irish rebels and Gertie taking a hold of her hostage within the Dublin post office, I especially can’t help myself to squirm and laugh uncomfortably at the same time. In page 78, there was a little script about the Gallagar’s reaction to a certain situation. ‘It’s her bootees that got on his nerves, every so often they made a noise, with their high heels’. I’m surprised to find that Gallagar still had some kind of sexual attraction to the dead body of a female when he tried to move the corps. In my opinion Queneau was spoofing a particularly low-class a particularly low-class style of sadistic and erotic thriller. I found this novel the oddest, yet a wonderfully bizarre piece of work.

A story as you like it

A Story as You Like it by Raymond Queneau is one of the unique piece of work I ever read. A story that the reader can chose to suit his or her taste is very clever and funny. By this way the reader can really enjoy as they read a story and create stories that end differently, yet satisfy its reader. Within the literature work by Queneau, readers can change the progress of how the story goes by selecting the given guideline. It reminded me of the uniqueness of the Korean soup opera. In Korea, when a soup opera made a huge hit and very popular, sometimes the script of the soup opera changes dramatically to suit its viewers taste. For example, let’s say if a main female character were to die of a cancer in the original script and, its viewers would say to let her live. The scripter of the soup opera would change the story and satisfy its viewers by letting her live. The graph in page 159 caught my attention, I guess it was because of my major in Binghamton University; Actuarial science. I calculated the ways that the stories can be created if an author chose the form shown in the picture. There were 16 stories can be created within the ‘tree’!!.

Secret Journal and other thigns

secret journal is very interesting and personal reading. As i read this there were interesting quotes from bible and i understood why authors quoted from it. However Drieu La Rochelle started Secret Journal two months after his second attempt to commit suicide and ended it some four months. In the author's diary, he was not afraid of death or suicide. he seems ready for it when we was in battlefield. After i read this i thought myself that why people commit suicide? what is putting them in to the death? i strongly believe that their family or people who loved must be more painful.. and people that commint suicide is must be strong willed and extremely determined as Wonjik said

we always treat women too well

Sorry for the late post but my initial thoughts are that it was a fairly slow read. I thought it was interesting the point that Queneau was trying to make about women. I believe Queneau was trying to adjust the viewpoint of women from the more frailer and gentler image that they have to the strong and confident image that he believes they can be. Gertie's change from frightened and helpless to strong shows what they are capable of and how he views them.

Secret Journal

Doing a little research, it became evident that 1945, the year this journal was written, was the year that Pierre Drieu la Rochelle died. He did ultimately commit suicide. he had failed another attempt in 1944, and maybe that is what inspired this dark reflection on the thoughts of what happened during his youth? I found it intriguing that this was a reflection on his entire life, his masochistic behaviors and depressed thoughts he had gone through and moved forward through up until the end of the secret journal. The same dark and introverted thoughts rang loud throughout his entire life but it wasn't until he was 52 before he had finally been able to end it. He ended up staying true to his youth afterall.

Secret Journal

I found this reading incredibly interesting. Early on in the reading, I really connected with the author and the emotions he felt. I understood what he said about wanting to die young because he didn't want to watch himself deteriorate like he saw his grandparents deteriorate. I have volunteered in multiple nursing homes, and at times the thought and desire of wanting to die young had also passed my mind. Watching people not being able to take care of themselves to the point that they needed to be fed, washed, and dressed. Multiple times through my experiences the thought had definitely crossed my mind that I wanted to die before I could no longer take care of myself. However, as the story progresses, it becomes terrifying yet intriguing where Pierre Drieu La Rochelle's "obsession" with dying young leads him to begin experimenting with cutting at the age of seven, which slowly turns into a habit. Although, La Rochelle becomes terrified at the idea of committing suicide when he tries to take this cutting too far, it becomes clear that the motif for killing one's self doesn't necessarily have to deal with hating one's life. Towards the end of the journal entry, I find it interesting how Rochelle describes his "strong wish for death" in religious terms. I have previously taken some theology classes, especially in Hinduism, so I found Rochelle's use of the concepts of detachment and karma fascinating. Although he wants to die, he isn't "detached" or "mature" enough to commit suicide and die. Also, he fears karma will cause him to relapse because again he was not "detached" from the natural world.

In terms of style, I enjoyed the casual, personal tone of this piece. Like what Anatasia said, there is something different about reading texts which are extremely personal. The text was definitely a easy read due to its tone compared to what it could have been if it was in a more formal tone.

On Secret Journal

I find it interesting how the main character does not believe in good or evil. I agree with the notion that nothing exists in isolation. So, to rule out the whole concept altogether really stood out to me. Nothingness is a prevalent theme in this piece and I like the proposed idea of the main character that the absence of consciousness is not what nothingness is. I think that what occurs to the main character is a normal event considering the qualitative capabilities of the mind. I believe that the mind is intrinsically related to history and the essence of our being which is to adapt, communicate and think. I think that once a person assumes that they know everything and that they are knowledgeable of all they need to be knowledgeable about, there is no other option but to desire the end of their life. what would be the point of existing as a human being if the essence of what is to be human is perceived to be virtually obsolete?

Secret Journal

After reading this passage, I thought suicide was just a pathetic excuse used to escape the real world. When the author learned that one could end his own life by committing suicide, he went to the kitchen and tried to poke himself a few times until he realized he could not bare the pain. In this diary it stated that he stopped stabbing himself once he realized the knife was against him, but to me, that just seemed like an excuse as well. He could not accept the fact that he himself could not take his own life. That in fact, rather than aging, or dying of disease, that commitiing suicide was a much scarier thought. The author of this narration states that he thought of suicide several times as he grew up, but everytime he just wasnt ready. After reading this I realized that if one has the power and strength to take their own life, there isn't anyone or anythign that could stop them from overcoming their greatest fears. I thought to myself, why does one decide to commit suicide? What could possibly be more painful and scary than putting an end to your own life? And my answer was nothing. People who actually commit suicide must be strong willed and extremely determined. If they were to put that determination into making their lives more successful and happier, I believe they could easily turn their lives around. Although the author of this diary thought about suicide and claims he was not afraid of death, but rather of aging, he seems to never be ready for it. In my opinion, the author thinks of suicide like a habit, but never will he actually be able to take his own life.

Secret Journal

The “Secret Journal and other writings” was a little bit more of an interesting read. I’m not sure who commented on it earlier, but I also got somewhat of a Holden Caufield vibe reading it. I thought the choice of mentioned readings before the secret journal, were interesting choices. Although they were parts of readings that were quoted, it was interesting, the various authors that were chosen from the Bible, to Montaigne, to Peguy. As I read them I wondered why they were selected. I suppose I missed the connection. Anyway, I found Drieu La Rochelle’s way of thinking about aging to be a bit fascinating for the lack of a better word. I understood his whole thought process but I never knew anyone really planned when they wanted to die. It was kind of amusing when he talked about his palm being read and how the “prophecy” came true. He had a good point that although people may not be extremely superstitious, superstitions still “color” our decisions. I feel like if people really sat and thought about their decision making process, they would figure out that this probably holds a bit true to them too.

On Secret Journal So Far...

I have read the first 11 pages of this and I am intrigued by the characters insistent desire to take his life. Initially, he states reasons why it is nonsensical and illogical for him to even fathom such an action but eventually attempts taking his own life several times. I think that him taking his life, or at least wanting to take his life is synonymous with the endurance necessary to deal with the struggles of life. What I mean by that is this; the main character apparently has issues and problems with certain events that occur in his life such as a meaningless war and stagnant relationships that result in adultery. He is simultaneously drawn to thought and desire of him taking his life and disturbed by the fact that these thoughts continue to persist while he has still not yet carried out his dark desires. I think it is also very important to consider his religious affiliation and the emphasis the author assigned to that information about the main character. His thoughts on an immortal soul coincide with his desires to kill himself because he realizes that his soul will still continue to be as his material existence because "what has begun must continue".

Secret Journal

I really liked Secret Journal. It has a Mrs.-Dalloway-meets-Catcher-in-the-Rye feel to it. I'm a sucker for stories which seem too personal, where reading them seems almost taboo (I mean, what’s more personal to a person than their Journal?) However, this was a good read. The beginning was very curious, as it sounded Freudian. the whole idea of not being a complete stream of thought, but a series of flashback was interesting. However, I was confused because, I was reading then I read a part about him cutting himself. I was confused, however it seemed perfect in the way the story was told. Even though the instances in his childhood seemed odd, such as the cutting incident. However, I liked how it transitioned and when the odd moments came up, it wasn't shocking. It just flowed. It really seemed to resemble 'Catcher in the Rye.' However, as much as I disliked that story, I liked Secret Journal J

We treat women well reading

Sorry I'm late with this post. This reading was a bit dry for me. The transitions were a bit um interesting for the lack of a better adjective. Like I said before some of the lines were amusing to me. I guess that's what kept the piece going. I agree with Matt, there was a character for every reader to relate to. As a female, I don't know I think its kind of funny how we're viewed by the opposite sex. How they underestimate us, but we're not as "ditzy" as they think. I noticed that other people were a little confused by the jumping back and forth point of view stuff, I definitely agree. It was pretty confusing, other wise the reading wasn't horrible, but still not my favorite.

We always treat women too well

We always treat women too well
I am sorry for the late response this week. The reading was little bit hard to understand to me, so it took too much time. The reading ‘We always treat women too well’ was kind of boring to me at first. However, this book attracted my interests of the war. The writing style was kind of confuse and hard to understand. The language was kind of new to me, and it showed some funny things. Queneaus’s word choice was not easy to understand, but it gave me a lot of interest of the rest of reading.

We alway treat Women so well

At the beginning of this book it appeared that Queaneau made Gertie to be some over dramatic female who would not be able to handle the encounter of the men. Knowing we can all relate to at least one person similar to ditsy characteristics of Gertie it allowed us to get the initial idea that she was hopeless. As the novel went on it became interesting to that Gertie actually had a brain and was quite intelligent, which was completely different than our initial thoughts. She was able to use her femine aspect to trick the guys and eventually saving herself.
The initial jumping back and forth from viewpoints started the reader out a bit confused as they were trying to kepe both stories straight and develop ideas for these characters. This helped with Gertie getting the hopeless idea in the readers mind as they were only given a brief section on her stuck in the bathroom. By jumping back and forth it was easy for the reader to know the paths were going to cross. However, what suprised the audience was the way hopeless Gertie was able to out smart the rebels. It was also interesting that at the beginning we are shown that the rebels are the heroes as they are taking unjust into their own hands, but at the end it is gertie who is the heroine by being able to basically disolve the rebellion herself.

we always treat wemen too well.

“We Always Treat Women Too Well,” by Raymond Queneau was both humorous, yet very witty. In the beginning, Queneau seems to portray the seven Irish rioters as the main characters of the novel; however, by the end of the story, you realize that the “sweet, innocent” character Gertie Gertrude is the actual hero of this fiction. Gertie Gertrude who was first seen hiding out in the bathroom scared to death, seemed so helpless and uneasy. But as the story goes on, she transformed to this confident, intelligent girl, who made a fool out of the seven men who have come to England to gain freedom for their country. Right before the end of the novel, the two remaining Irish men ask of her not to reveal the “dirty deeds” of their comrades. Although at first she seems to have some sort of sympathy for these men, you realize that the entire time she’s just been playing games with them. Once the English bombard the post office and her fiancée asks if these men had done her bad, without a second to think, she simply answers yes. And with that one word answer, the seven men, who originally came to England to become heroes of their country, become pathetic losers without any dignity. Queneau’s portrayal of women seems to be very positive. Through Gertie’s character, you see that Queneau views women as very conniving, yet very clever and powerful. The way he creates this story where a woman outsmarts seven men was very entertaining and original. (sorry its late)

We always treat women too well(?)

we always treat to women well by Raymond Queneau, this novel is very fun and interested on me. Is this supposed to be a comic spoof of popular novels? The novel contains Queneau's usual highly original and playful approach to language, so that helps with the humor part. In this book, any comic element was often lost on me. For example, chapter one, the post office is invaded, and the doorman shouts out "God save the King." To this reader, at least, the passage holds no humor whatsoever, and the depiction of violence entwined with comedy is an exercise in macabre bad taste that is ultimately very jarring and disturbing.
There are also many other examples of this union of humor and cruel horrific incidents. In another instance the British shoot a woman who worked in the post office when she arrives to retrieve her handbag. She lays sprawled out, legs apart with her skirts blowing in the breeze. Some of the IRA members want to cover up her body, and others feel strangely aroused by her position, which suggests sexual activity. I really like the language style in this reading and Queneau's humor. :)

Response to We Always Treat Women Too Well

Similar to what Anatasia had mentioned, there were points in this story story at which I had the creeping suspicion that it was written by somebody with split personality disorder. Much of the story is filled with intricate phrasing and creative descriptions that seem to simultaneously contort and clarify the meaning of the what was being conveyed, and at the same time there were many sections that were composed of short, powerful prose. For instance, Queneau spent about a page and a half just conveying the fact that Callinan had decided to screw Gertie, whereas he dedicated proportionally less time to other similarly meaningful events such as the death of the postmaster. So in this sense Queneau's style can be described as being polymorphic and not entirely unified throughout. However, this strategy seemed to break up the story in a way that made it a very interesting read. Perhaps the fact that he was writing this story under a woman's name somehow subconsciously (or consciously) changed the way he went about writing the story.

The way Queneau wrote this creates a lot of confusion. As I just mentioned, it is simultaneously a very busy piece of writing as well as a minimalist work. Aside from this though, the way he phrases things just causes a bit of confusion. For example, the last paragraph on pg. 45 where the narrator is using a series of synonymous translations of words from various languages to describe the actions taken by Caffrey and how his "intuition" led him to these actions causes the reader to do a double take.

The purposeful and “tricky” wording, however, adds a lot of depth to the writing. It makes the reader realize that there is more than one way to go about saying something and that no one way is really ideal. This idea can be related to the topic of this story, which is revolution. A revolution is not like any other type of war in that it is more random and less planned out than a “classic” war, but at the same time more passion goes into fighting it because its soldiers must have deep passion for it to exist in the first place. This randomness and disorder presents a great variety of options for the revolutionaries to take. This is much the same as how an author of an interesting work of literature has many options when describing events and ideas.

As Jazmyn pointed out, even the conflicts in this story seem to be split into two opposing factions, and the soldiers' need to be correct in the context of a rebellious desire is a great example. This represents the characters' attempts to make order out of the disorder that lies before them. The style in which this story was written brings up very similar dilemmas.

One of my favorite passages in this story was “During the whole of this time she had been thinking of nothing. Absolutely nothing. Next she reflected, in fragmentary fashion, on what was going to happen. She was at a loss for elements to nourish her fear. Therefore what she was experiencing wasn't exactly fear. Not precisely fear. She was aware that the near future would go far beyond her imagination.” To me this is the perfect description of the shock that accompanies impending doom. This is so true - when a person knows that something terrible is about to happen the first reaction is that everything goes blank and there is no way to even feel a fear response. However, this passage is also an example of the minimalist writing that Queneau did in this story. Nonetheless, it accomplishes the goal of description quite well. If it was more complex it would not convey the raw emotion that was felt as well, as this raw emotion itself was quite minimalist by nature.

Fittingly when Queneau is describing a more complex emotion such as lust, he switches to his abstract and ultra-descriptive style of writing. “As for Callinan, who was a bachelor, he knew little of the blandishments preliminary to the radical act, never having hunted anything other than fubsy totties, or slatterns harvested on piles of hay or tavern tables still greasy with everything. He found his caress hard to bear, therefore, and began to forsee that this series of gestures would lead to a quite different conclusion than from that of an honest refusal. But where would this conclusion take place? - that was what he was asking himself, now that he had found himself in extremis. He still had one penultimate scruple: the social level of his Iphigenia, and then one ultimate one: the girl's virginity.” Looking back at the scene with Callinan and Gertie it is clear that Queneau uses his varying styles with some purpose and this last passage was a great example. It was written with a much deeper level of language and emotion because it was needed to describe a situation that was inherently more complex than something such as the emotions that Gertie felt when she realized she had been discovered. Queaneau's style is not entirely as random and disordered as it may seem, and this is a large part of what made We Always Treat Women Too Well such an interesting read.

One last (semi-unrelated) thing I'd like to bring up is that I looked up the phrase "finnegan's wake." After a quick googling I found that it was a humorous literary work that was known for having a very enigmatic style - a characteristic that I think led to it being chosen as the catchphrase for the Irish Revolutionaries in this story. Does anyone know if this was an actual slogan that was used by the IRA or if it was something that Queneau made up? It wouldn't surprise me if it was made up as it lends itself well to Queneau's own style.

We Always Treat Women Too Well

This novel was definitely something new and intriguing. In my opinion the language was very fresh and casual, along with being undeniably funny, which actually made it a great read. I loved Queneau’s word choices, which only added to the overall humor of the novel, for example on the very first page Queneau describes the death of the doorman as a bullet being injected into his noggin. I am not going to lie, I did have an extremely hard time at the beginning on the novel, trying to understand what was happening between these extremely short chapters, however by chapter ten, I had gotten use to Queneau’s style. I cannot emphasize how much I enjoyed Quenaeu’s laid back use of language throughout the novel. Throughout the dialogue between the characters and the descriptions of all the events, the casual tone of novel only made it that much easier to imagine the story as if it were a movie or a play. I especially enjoyed the chapters in which Gertie tried to stay hidden in the ladies room. Everything she was doing and thinking was so ridiculously hilarious, for example, when she heard footsteps outside of the ladies room, the first thing she thought to do was fix her hair. She also thought that just because she was in the ladies room she would be safe because no one else would be allowed to come in.

Silence and Confusion

Silence was an interesting poem. It actually makes a lot of sense. The entire idea of the poem is that silence doesn’t really exist. Silence can never exist, unless everything in the world is dead. Everything has a sound. The insects walking around, the grass blowing, the wind moving around the room; it all has some form of sound. I like the poem because of the examples it uses to demonstrate the nonexistence of silence. I think the line which demonstrates it well was "Perfect silence is not, because all parts of like are vigilant and audible. A blade of grass emits an /enormous and menacing sound like a 420 which rises towards the heavens." I really feel as if that epitomizes the idea of the poem. However, I found it interesting the turn the poem takes in the last stanza. Finally, after describing that Silence does not exist, the first line is 'A Silence Falls.' Honestly, the last stanza confuses me a great deal. I'm wondering what the scene here was. I get the picture of a man wandering through a field looking for survivors, or surviving soldiers after some massive attack. Here is where I find myself confused, because, to me, its as if the two ideas are not cohesive. Up to the last stanza, the language is interesting, the poetic and the strength of the words. It pulls out odd references, such as grass and soil, and makes them powerful, but not in a mystical or unrealistic way. I think it does a great job with emphasizing the role of everything in life without personifying it, which can come across as cliché. It's a very in-depth analysis. I approve J

Queneau-we always treat women too well

This novel was a fucking riot and I enjoyed it a lot. The language is smart, witty and sharp-it definitely works to compliment Queneau's humor. I think it can be read as a feminist novel written by a man in that it pokes fun at the cultural double standards that we create based on gender. The Irish rebels are of a weak sort because they are constantly stressing the importance of being "correct," when their entire mission is to lead a rebellious violent uprising (which makes you wonder why gendered 'correctness' is even a priority in a time of war/conflict). On the other hand, we have Gertie, who uses her sexual power to control the rebels while fulfilling her own sensual desires. She is more of a rebel than the rebels themselves. I think that Queneau exposes the shortcomings of gendered thinking/generalizations by having the rebels fail their mission because they are constantly trying to 'treat Gertie correctly,' when Gertie herself is in no need of a man's idea of 'correct' treatment since she is not a powerless character or victim of the rebellion, but is rather, the empowered hero of the novel. The men's attempts to treat women differently (as powerless/victims/naive virgins) is exactly what leads to their ultimate demise. I really like Queneau's style because it is unforgiving and uncensored.

I have a few thoughts in terms of relating this back to Foucault's author function. Since this was first published in the 40's under the pseudonym of Sally Mara, readers believed the author was actually a woman, which must have stirred the waters. I wonder if readers initially dismissed the novel because they thought the author was a woman, only to later find out it was a man. It seems like an instance where relying too much on the author's individuality would unfairly/inaccurately determine what the reader thought of the material. I think it's interesting when the rebels are discussing whether or not Gertie will expose their 'incorrectness' and they say, "Those aren't the things a young lady can talk about. She'll keep quiet, or she may even say we're heroes...(139). I found this interesting knowing that the novel was initially published by 'Sally Mara,' but actually written by Queneau. I wonder of Queneau is purposefully pointing out that a woman could not actually talk about sex (which is why a man must pose as a woman)...and if so...the novel doesn't seem as powerful as I first thought in terms of being feminist...

We always treat Women too well :-) (or do we?)

'We always treat women too well' was a very interesting and unexpected read. Honestly it started off a bit boring to me. I hate war novels. I never read 'The Red Badge of Courage' because I couldn't stand the mundane nature of war novels. The I came to the part with Gertie. I liked the way she sounded, somewhat full of herself, when she describes the men never able to come into the Girl's bathroom. It sounded a bit ridiculous but in a very funny way. After a few more pages/chapters (the chapters were very short, weren't they?) It seemed more like one of those 'Lusty Reads' I find in my Cosmopolitan magazine. I was actually confused, because I was wondering where the story was going. Honestly, the wording was intense K Perhaps it's just surprising because I'm not used to that type of description in older books. However, the story read very well, like a play. The dialogue was very straightforward, very colloquial. However, when it came to descriptions, particularly the descriptions of the women. The first scene of intimacy with Gertie was almost poetic, almost romantic. However, it returned to coloquial quickly, when the other men were looking for him and they shouted "He's Fucking her?" It really was hilarious. I'm glad this wasn't a run-of-the-mill war novel. It was really sexual and hilarious; I have trouble believing this was not written before the 1980's. I find humor is everything, especially the whole "God save the King" then death. It's a bunch of satirical humor, the type that backfires and sounds like your smart-ass friend. It's almost as if the story was written by two different people, but yet flows amazingly. I like the balance of humor, sarcasm, and the sophisticated descriptive language.

Silence (Poem + Response to Dominic's post)

A Ha! I finally figured out how to get this posting thing right ( don't judge me please =o) ).

I just finished reading the poem Silence. I found it a bit thought provoking. At first when I was reading it, although I appreciated the descriptiveness of the poem I was not 100% sure as to what the author was talking about in some of his descriptions. I felt like he was speaking about the end of the world, and in some lines maybe war. " The fist of God is suspended over the drums of war: his skin is the heavens held over the edge of the horizon, and it resounds of all the depths of the world over the terror of men". I like this line, I feel like it references war and/or the end, or at least what we as humans/mortals may perceive it to be. But that may be a bit too obvious so who knows. I wasn't completely sure so I read some of my classmate's posts, particularly Dominic's.

While reading Dominic's post I can say that I found some similar thoughts about what the poem was about. I also got the impression that we both appreciated the descriptiveness of the poem. I was also kind of confused by the end of the poem about the " search for glory". My favorite part of Dominic's post was when he said that he interpreted the line I quoted above as the time when you decide to go to war or not. I agree that the author's method of description was intense and beautiful at that moment. I enjoyed it as well. My personal favorite other than that line was the second line of the poem; "We are at the time of a beginning, when the spirit of God flies over the chaos of our times". It reminds me of now, with all of today's current tragedies, "natural" disasters and wars, God's spirit is still ever present, everywhere ( I am a strong believer in God). Overall I enjoyed this poem and its descriptiveness.

Silence Poem

This poem is a very descriptive depiction of the authors perception of silence. The poem is an illustration of the sporadic dynamics of what the authors perception of silence is, and what it is not. There is a lot of religious references that suggest the authors spirituality. I especially like how the author attributes silence to a post end of the world existence or possibly a primordial earth that has not experienced noise. It was also enjoyable to read how the author then depicted what silence is not by conveying how the existence of life contributes to the absence of silence and the presence of noise. The author also includes how despite the presence of noise, there is still peace. I think this means that the harmony of life is peaceful even though it is not necessarily silent. The last section of the poem was initially hard to understand even after multiple reads but the think the author is expressing his personal source for inspiration in his "search for glory". When the presence of silence returns after the presence of noise, there is a sudden suspension and a period of time in between war and peace; the characteristics of how the author depicts silence and noise accordingly. My favorite part of the poem is when the fist of God is suspended over the drums of war. I think that this exemplifies the split second before the decision is made by a person whether or not to fight in a war. The split second where there is no peace and simultaneously no war; both have an equal possibility to occur (at least in the span of this second of deliberation).

We Always Treat Women Too Wellaga

Again I admire how descriptive he can be with words. In this book I enjoyed how he disguised some acts of the irishmen, which were brutal and gruesome at times, as a poet would. Sometimes I would read a passage and feel as though I had missed what actually happened to the characters. A few of these examples really jumped out. When they first stormed the post office, and every time someone yelled "God save the king!" they were massacred. Some of these deaths were described in a ways I didn't recognize as deaths at firsts. When the eighth orffice of an englishman was vomitting it took me a second to realize that was the gaping wound left from the bullet they just put into him

Another moment I found intriguing was during one of the firefights. The rebel staring at the girl dead in the street was getting turned on by the way she was lying there, and then the narration cut away from him until it cut back to him cleaning himself up. It never directly described what he had done, but the words chosen set the scene so well it was obvious what he had just done to himself.

Lastly, during the interrogation, the subtle descriptions of actions of charachters, before and during the interrogation and following firefight, made it so it was obvious they acted differently toward women. Rather then putting a bullet in her head or hitting her over the head with a guiness bottle, they chose to debate religous beliefs. Or when bicker about whether or not it was proper to find the woman's handbag, whom they had earlier spanked and kicked in the ass. They're such brutes the rest of the time I found their confusion in these moments, especially the confusion propogated by the one soldiers illiteracy rather comical. The sophistcated way it was written added to that.


P.S.
I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors. Writing this between layovers on a phone wasn't ideal lol

What is an Author.

After reading this passage, I beleive the author's main point was to state that all authors are writers; however, not all writers are authors. The author states,"A private letter may well have a signer - it does not have an author; A contract may well have a guarantor - it does not have an author. An anonymous text on a wall may well have a writer - it does not have an author. This statement in the text particularly caught my attention. I believe here the author is trying to say just writing something down on a piece of paper does not make a writer an author. To be an author, I believe you need to have an individual style. All great authors have some sort of consistency throughout all their pieces. For example, Edgar Allen Poe was a great writer of short stories. Although each and every one of his stories were different, they all consisted of morals for the readers to follow and were very dark, mysterious narrations. He was known for including dark symbols in his writing such as the raven, witches, and etc. Even then, when Poe could write about anything, in any fashion, he had a style of his own. I believe the author of this text also stated that although and author's name is very important, it is in a way meaningless. He seems to believe that the author's name could be decieving; however, I believe an author's name is very meaningful. Just by looking at the authors name, a reader can somewhat assume what to expect from their narratives. For example, by hearing the name Shakespeare, you know to expect tradgedies. By hearing the name Roald Dahl, you know to expect unrealistic events with very original, but descriptive characters. By hearing the name Poe, you know to expect dark short stories with unexpected endings. Regardless of how much an author tries to write in a style not of his own, I believe their style is actually what makes them who they are as an author. If you ask me what an author is, my definition is simple: A writer with his own, individual style.

A Story as You Like It

I found A Story as You Like It interesting, not because of its content, however the concept of how the reader has the ability to direct how the story comes out. The author on the other hand attempts to provide all the viable possibilities of how the story can come out. It's funny, but in a sense that is what we are going to be doing with our applications, resumes, etc. As possible candidates for graduate schools and jobs, we attempt to provide the selection committee as many "options" as we can to show our versatility and with that they decide how our stories go. Maybe it's because I have been staring at my graduate school applications for the past couple of days, however, while reading this piece, I couldn't help but making a connection between A Story as You Like It to my resume and personal statement that I have been drafting.

Comments

I have decided to comment on everybody's posts so far. If you want to add something please feel free to comment!


Jazmyn,

You are essentially correct in your interpretation of this essay, except that I don't think Foucault views scientific authorship as static or unchanging at all. Foucault indeed mentions that,

"Superficially, then, the initiation of discursive practices appears similar to the founding of any scientific endeavor.
Still, there is a difference, and a notable one . In the case of a science, the act that founds it is on an equal footing with its future transformations; this act becomes in some respects part of the set of modifications that it makes possible ."

What he is saying is that modern science is no longer a set of observations and rules that is blindly followed because a famous thinker proclaims them to be true. As you undoubtedly know, one of the reasons that the scientific method is such a good tool for discovering truth is that it is open to revision and change. A theory can be constantly modified to fit observations and this is the entire basis behind scientific writing. As Foucault puts it "In the case of a science, the act that founds it is on an equal footing with its future transformations; this act becomes in some respects part of the set of modifications that it makes possible." So in this case the author does not really influence how the work is received. However, I would have to say that this is not always true because certain scientists can bring on their own stereotypes and prejudices. Take, for example, Charles Darwin. Anything he has written will be assumed to have to do with the theory of evolution and therefore anyone who has strong opinions of him would get a slightly different meaning out of his work. He cannot escape this. This is where there is some overlap between scientific and discursive writers.



Annyrani,

I just re-read this and I believe Foucault is just saying that, for the purpose of this argument, authors such as Freud and Marx can be considered to be a different type of author because they founded certain styles of thought/writing by establishing "an endless possibility of discourse."

As for the idea of who is speaking not being important I think this is a bit of a misinterpretation of Foucault's essay. He is saying that who is speaking is in many cases overemphasized and that in an ideal world the necessary evil of pegging authors into various categories would not exist.

Hyounoh,

You are absolutely right that Foucault seems to think that repetition is something that has an almost negative connotation in literary work. This is in stark contrast to the idea that Kierkegaard brought up in Fear and Trembling, where he sees repetition as being the stuff of life and absolutely necessary.
I believe both authors have valid and complementary, though opposing points. On the one hand, repetition of literary ideas is something that is quite necessary. It provides a platform which we can use to develop new ideas, after all most new ideas were inspired from old ones. On the other, repetition of ideas often leads to stagnation and mental sloth. Its a "catch-22," much like the idea brought up by Foucault that the overemphasis on the author is a necessary evil, bringing about organization and a context in which to examine works, as well as type-casting authors into certain roles and making it harder for lesser known authors to be read.



Aaron Lee,

My understanding of this essay was that the author was actually both a flesh and blood person as well as a "voice" or as you put it "revealer" and it was the relationship between this flesh and blood person with his work that was problematic.


Prof. Rowan,

I was just wondering if Queaneau was the first author to use this "create your own story" style of writing.


Joseph LaSalle,

I like the idea you brought up that "Without the reader, there is no story, no book, for there is no one to interpret it; it merely remains a tome, the writings of a madman who no one will take the time to read." This is somewhat akin to the age old question of whether a tree that falls in the woods with nobody around to hear it still makes a sound. In my opinion the answer is yes and no, and this illustrates the importance of context. The story still contains the information, so it is still a story, but in the context of having around nobody to process it, so it has no significance alone - it is just words on a page. This is similar to Foucault's idea that different writings in different contexts will have a different significance depending on the state of the writer. The example brought up in What is an Author would be that seemingly insignificant work by somebody who is not considered "an author" would remain insignificant but that this is not the case with somebody who is an author – most of of the minute scribblings of an author would be considered to be works or literature.

____________________________________________________________________


One other point I wanted to bring up was that this idea of too much emphasis being placed on who wrote something carries over to many other arts and humanities such as music, preforming arts, and visual arts, and that the relationship with death is especially strong in music, so much so that the quote "If he was willing to die young, it was so that his life, consecrated and magnified by death, might pass into immortality; the narrative then redeemed this accepted death. Consecrated and magnified by death, might pass into immortality; the narrative then redeemed this " carries over to the musicians themselves.

Story as you like it

The choose your own story is one of the few forms of writing that gives the audience the power. They get to choose what they want and are allowed numerous stories within the one novel. The reader also gets the chance to renig a decision. If it turns out the way they want they can allows go back to where they went astray in order to get what they want. Giving the reader the option to choose helps allow the reader get into the story and make it feel like they are the character choosing their fate.

What is an author? - Foucault

I thought that Foucault brought up some very interesting points about authors. He points out that we have for some reason, elevated authors to some transcendent position and view them as more than just an individual writing some words. After thinking about this, I have to agree because many times, the legacy of a written work become associated with the author himself. Foucault brings up another very interesting point by talking about an author's "name." Would we view Shakespeare's sonnets in the same way if it were discovered they were not actually written by Shakespeare? Would Aristotle's theories have been revered as much were they not actually written by Aristotle himself? These questions that Foucault raises makes me think much more about what the "author function" really is.

"What Is an Author?"

In the reading, "What Is an Author?" written by Michel Foucault, he defined the author functions and telling us what we supposed to prepared to be an author. Foucault expounded the term of author and believed that it did not refer to a flesh and blood writter but more like a revealer. in this essay, foucault saw the role of author as maintaining stylistic uniformity and theoretical coherence. The ability to separate the author from the text and to place the author outside of the text itself was the beginning of the end of the author.

M. Foucault - What Is An Author

Sorry I am late. I just read M. Foucault - What Is An Author.
It is not enough to repeat empty slogans in ‘What is An Author’. Everyone like God or man and women dies equal. We should know and aware to the empty space left by the M Foucault's disappearance. And we should take a look at gaps and fault lines. It is made new lines and own places, and the allocation of this void. We should await the fluid functions released by this disappearance.
I just look to his own words in What is an Author?
Foucault shows that himself to be sensitive to the many problems of the self as writer. Later on he made a question of this literary sense of subjectivity against the more general question.

What Is an Author? Response

I think that the main point of this is essay is to convey that authors are not just writers of text or producers of a particular piece of writing. Instead, authors are an entity that is essential to the entity of the body of work that they produce. The point is that when an authentic author is concerned, the body of work represents more than just the labor of transferring one's thoughts from their mind to a sheet of paper. Additionally, an important theme that is explored in this essay is the question of authenticity and the process of attributing a body of work to a particular author and how the need for that process has evolved throughout history from not necessary at all to completely essential to the integrity of any published production. An author can be the creator of "theories", "traditions" and "disciplines" according to Foucault. An author is a dynamic word which acts as an umbrella to sub-categories of what an author CAN be; a novelist, artist, scientist, poet etc. As students, I think it is important for us to evaluate this perspective of what an author is in order to build the diversity of the works that we do and will produce.

What Is An Author?

I read the reading ‘What Is an Author’ written by Michel Foucault. After I read, I tried to find the information about the author’s life on the internet. He showed very variety of faces on his works. The topic of his writings was very funny and attractive. He did not use the difficult words, and it made people to read more of his book in current society.
The writing ‘What Is an Author’ was something telling us about the meaning of the author. That was like a formula that readers can understand who is an author, and what we need to be an author. He shows us how to write if I want to be called an Author.
I am not an writer, but I could little bit understand the function of an author. This reading would help me a lot when I write anything in my life.

On Queneau

The choose your own adventure feel of Queneau's piece is definitely something unique; however, while the piece does act to represent this in a basal nature, there is far more at play here than first meets the eyes. Queneau deconstructs this idea, and in doing so, puts the reader at the foreground of the story. In essence, he provides an opportunity for one to see that the reader always stands paramount. Without the reader, there is no story, no book, for there is no one to interpret it; it merely remains a tome, the writings of a madman who no one will take the time to read.

My Apologies, But I'm an Emersonian myself... The Speaker and Author ARE Important!

I know this is probably dangerous to say, considering Professor's specialty is Foucault. I'm hoping I get points for being brave and honest. I'm not a Foucault person. I don't like his theory on writing. I'm an Emerson junkie. The whole 'author is the epitome of the world' and all that jazz. I can agree that being an author is more than writing. It's about making a point, telling a truth (a real truth or created truth). I do not agree that Marx and Freud and Foucault were the first real authors. In terms of what? Were there no other good writers before? Writers with purpose? Someone please clarify, because this bothers me. I wonder about his question, which asked what difference does it make who is speaking? Really? there is NO DIFFERENCE? I cannot believe that. We all have a bias. we all view the world differently. To NOT consider the author is reckless. It's like looking at art without appreciating the time period, the context, and looking at it objectively and assuming it stands for a whole society or a culture. You MUST consider the author! of course, you need not credit nor discredit, but one cannot look blindly.

I can appreciate his breaking down of a paper/work philosophically. It makes sense. I'll give him credit (I'm not saying he isn't a smart and learned man, I just Have an issue with his idea of being an author). I disagree with his last paragraph in it's entirety. perhaps our bigger questions are 'What is the point, what happens' etc, however, today we still consider the author! The first thing we do when we read something new in a class is learn about the author's life, so that we are able to understand more. Would we have understood the Communist Manifesto if we had not known about Marx, or Utopia if we had not understood what brought on the book? How can he say it 'What difference does it make who is speaking?' I really did not like that line. I feel as though it does make a difference. I understand a work must be objective, in that we should read it and take the work at face value. We are human, we over think clearly. It would be nice to just think of a work objectively however, we are not all equal. We do not all think the same, act the same, or are exposed to the same thing. Therefore, I feel to understand the work, one must understand the person. therefore, it is imperative to ask "Who is the author" and "Who is the speaker?"

What difference does it make who is speaking?

I think Foucault raises some very interesting questions about the function of an author. On the one hand he presents the 'death of the author' in literary analysis, yet on the other, he poses the desire for readers to seek individuality in authors when dealing with texts. He concludes with Beckett's question, "what difference does it make who is speaking?" After reading Foucault's article I think that viewing the author function as a 'mode of existence' rather than a geneal point of origin for a text is important because it de-emphasizes the potential & problematic possibility of finding singularity or Truth in any one particular discourse/body of knowledge. I think this distinction is made when he compares science and discourse. Scientific authorship/knowledge is 'traceable' in a historical and linear sense, which makes scientific knowledge homogeneous, static and unchanging. Discursive practices tend to be more like an act of 'mapping' in that they produce plotted points with no real coordinates. Discourse is fluid and open to possibilities. It is a producer of change rather than a keeper of sameness. I think Foucault is trying to stress the importance of not relying on the individuality of the author in discursive practices because it forecloses the possibility of producing multiple/differing applications afterwards (which seems to be the function of discourse). If we valorize the author or single out her existence outside of the text, we run the risk of totalizing a discourse rather than seeing it in relation to other ideas/ideologies etc. By de-emphasizing the author as the originator of a text, i think it is possible for the reader to become a participant (even an author) in the text because every reading by an individual is in essence, a re-construction, re-interpretation, or re-visioning of the original that can produce different discourses by re-writing the 'original.'

On a different note, in some cases it seems important to take into account the individuality of the author...I'm thinking about certain discourses on ethics/ontology produced by Heidegger. How and to what extent (if any) should his work be evaluated differently knowing that he is a Nazi sympathizer? Does his work change (or get discredited) because of his mode of existence outside of the author function? This may be an example where it's difficult to be indifferent to who is speaking. Just a thought.

Michael Foucault- What is an Author?

Understanding philosophy has always been a bit difficult for me but this is what i grasped from the reading. Foucault basically points out that to be an author is much more than a simple title, or a name that can be given, it is a state. Foucault also introduced the term of "first" authors in that they, who he names a few as Marx and Freud, are the original authors from a historical stand point. He also refers to these authors as "transdiscursive," in that they produced the rules and possibilities of other texts and established in endless possibility of discourse (p14). I can agree with this statement in that authors who have come after these "first" authors have indeed shadowed these notable authors and have had something to model but that is not to say All authors since Marx and Freud have merely been imitations of them which have come before them. By the end of the essay i wasn't as confused as i started out, many of Foucault's ideas made sense. His closing sentence was one to certainly think about after all the ideas posed in the essay. He asked "What difference does it make who is speaking?" And i thought well, in many cases one would want to read a book written by a notable author, one who is known to write well on the given subject. Therefore in terms of notoriety there is a difference.

A Story as You Like It

The story itself here is bland; the idea though is rather intriguing. As I first read it, the format of the text reminded me right away of most programming languages’ if – else statements, and how annoying they are to read through and debug if you are unfamiliar with the code. Taking it for face value forever I read it a couple of times, putting up with the format. I made sure I made different decisions at different points just to make things different. This text instantly reminded me of those Goosebumps, choose your own adventure, books that I always seemed to die in by the fourth branch of the story, way back in the 3rd grade. It is a style that is different, but I would much rather prefer a cohesive and linear story to this any day.

Recently taking an introductory graph theory class, the figure shown on the last page of the reading, which represents the story as a graph, intrigued me. Breaking down possible paths, starting from the first branch statement and following the flows of decisions, and eventually ending, a reader has the potential to create a number of unique stories from such a small amount of written material. The story is simple, and boring to be blunt, but the idea of being able to branch off and develop stories unique to reader’s decisions the spot is mathematically fascinating.

Repetition :-)

This was indeed an odd article. I must say, a problem in my writing is I often repeat myself. I think this article helped me to understand why. When I repeat an idea over and over, it's usually because I am trying to convey the same feeling I have about it. However, it is difficult-near impossible- to dictate an emotion being felt. As this feeling of not being able to describe something makes us pause, we are forced to repeat it. However, the idea of the writing was interesting, that life is all about repetition. However, I will say there was a great deal of repetition in the essay. It reminds me of my writing; lengthy, but usually a repetition of the same idea over and over. His style reminded me of Virginia Wolf, and the whole 'Stream of Consciousness' type of writing. As you are reading the account of the opera, the narrator interjects with his own side-thoughts, which makes you very aware that it's a story being told. However, you can often sense his frustration at not being able to describe a specific feeling or thought. It is at these moments I fall into a dilemma. Is it good that I am able to sense the narrator's frustration as he struggles to describe feelings and emotions, or is it bad that I am unable to feel these emotions he does? Is it good writing or not? I like the writing, he gives great descriptions. However, it reminds me of another story I read which annoyed me a great deal (I know I shouldn't say this.) Anna Karenina seemed the same way; a great deal of descriptions of locations, metaphors and lots of other 'fillers'. I feel as if both authors are using lengthy metaphors and descriptions as a means of compensation for not being able to adequately describe a feeling. It's hard to describe a feeling. I know that. But Don't try to fool me and make me think you are actually describing it when you aren't. It's impossible, I can't feel what you felt an hour or so ago. It's interesting when he tries, but perhaps it's my frustration at going around in circles. Again, I write this way as well. Pot calling kettle black I suppose J