Klekeke wth ungular song; catch vising & gouu.

…with the reader caught completely off-guard by a sentence that is happening, or perhaps already happened and is also happening, or perhaps neither, or both. Especially when the first two paragraphs bring forth words and phrases like penisolate, tauftauf thuart peatrick and sosie sesthers. There’s no dictionary or easy translation tool to uncover the meanings behind these awkwardly constructed, mismashed black and white characters – for, what else are these “words” without meaning but a series of random letters shunted together to form what seems like a real word?

It only gets worse. The third paragraph begins with “The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!)…” (Theall 1).

But all is not lost for the literary world, it seems, for the novel (or non-novel, non-narrative, non-nothing) has propelled, in part, the very theory I am using to talk about it (talk about a cyclic relationship!)

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, in their essay “Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature” reference the language (or non-language) used in the novel for it “the utilization of English and of every language… never stops operating by exhilaration and overdetermination and brings about all sorts of worldwide reterritorialization” (1454). Critics have noted that not only is the author using traditional English words and insane, fabricated constructs of letters, but also words from a number of other languages, in order to better stir in ambiguity to the book. Language, as Deleuze and Guattari explain, isn’t a perfect system for things always can mean something else. They compare language to nature, pointing out that “in nature, roots are taproots with a more multiple, lateral, and circular system of ramification, rather than a dichotomous one” (Deleuze 1456). The author of the particular novel in question can “accurately [be] described as having ‘multiple roots,’ [shattering] the linear unity of the word, even of language, only to posit a cyclic unity of the sentence, text, or knowledge” (Deleuze 1457).

And anyone attempting to read this particular book can easily see that the cyclic nature as described above works from start to finish. The novel starts off in the middle of a sentence and ends with the beginning of the sentence, in a sense, starting where it began. But no questions are answered. In fact, there seems to be the situation that both a LOT of questions are raised and yet no basis for the questions exist. The argument goes that there is no discernible plot, no identifiable characters, and all the typical structure of a novel is thrown out in favor of eccentric rambling and headache-inducing twists and turns of language. Again, Deleuze and Guattari note this in “A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia” as they describe the plateau being “a continuous, self-vibrating region of intensities whose development avoids any orientation toward a culmination point or external end” (Deleuze 1459). How can a novel truly end when it never truly began? How can a narrative solve the issues the characters have that arise during the plot when those things may not exist within the framework of the cover?

Jacques Derrida, who was greatly influenced by the author, is said to have written to his Japanese translator that “the question of deconstruction is also through and through the question of translation” (Leitch 1680). I posit that this particular book is a perfect example of a truly postmodern novel, for there is no true translation possible. When words are constructed as to make them ambiguous, foreign or unintelligible to logical minds, when there is no dictionary or repository of information in which to find “meaning” of the words – when even the words themselves can be described as complete and utter nonsense – what hope does a reader have in finding the “truth” in the text? This novel should be celebrated as an inspiration to all experimental, postmodern writers, encouraging those who are afraid to step out of the rigid confines of conventional academic study in order to express themselves. Words are nothing more than symbolic representations of ideas, so why not create new ones? In fact, with that in mind, who is to say that the title of this very blog post doesn’t make “sense”? Who can say those words don’t “mean” anything?

Which brings us to the end (or the beginning):

Finnegan’s Wake starts off in media res…

(709)

Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. “A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.” The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism, 2^nd. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 1454-1462. Print.

Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. “Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature” The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism, 2^nd. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 1451- 1454. Print.

Leitch, Vincent B. Introduction. Of Grammatology. By Jacques Derrida. 2010. 2^nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 1680-1688. Print.

Theall, Donald. Finnegans Web. Trent University, 2002. Web. 02 May 2011.

< http://www.trentu.ca/faculty/jjoyce/>

It's a Small (Fake) World!

---------------------------------

“To all who come to this happy place: Welcome. Disneyland is your land. Here age relives fond memories of the past, and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America, with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world.”

Walter E. Disney, July 17 1955 (ezmason512)

---------------------------------

Jean Baudrillard's critique of the postmodern world has referred to “the phenomenon of global financial speculation, ever-increasing tourism, and the frenzied stimulation of consumer desire through the media” (Baudrillard 1553). And what better example of all three of those things than Disneyland? In an excerpt from “The Precession of Simulacra,” Baudrillard discusses Disneyland as a simulacrum – an illusion or representation of something fabricated and somehow inferior to the original – was quite shocking to me. I never figured Disneyland in all its consumer splendor and flashing lights to be a false representation of the real world. Taking in part what was discussed in class, the concept that each of the “worlds” in Disneyland – Tomorrowland, Adventureland, Fronterierland, Fantasyland and Main Street – representing places, times and histories that never existed makes the theme park seem perverse and twisted. Where is the roller coaster that tells us of how the frontier folk slaughtered the Native Americans? Why aren’t there dead bodies piled up on the banks of the Jungle Cruise ride to represent the thousands killed by transmitted diseases from European conquerors? If Tomorrowland is the optimistic vision of the future, have the dystopian fiction writers like Huxley and Orwell been lying to us? Main streets exist in small and large towns all over the country, and yet none of them blend the home-grown, small-town feel with Victorian-esque attire that Disneyland’s Main Street has. As Baudrillard says, Disneyland encompasses American ideals, an “idealised (sic) transposition of a contradictory reality” (1565). Having Sleeping Beauty’s castle looming in the distance as visitors enter the park casts an unrealistic setting on the area, as if to say “here is where your boring real life ends; welcome to the fantastically wonderful and exciting dreamland of discouragement and unreal expectations!” for the perfect world that Disneyland claims to represent can never exist in real life.

Each cast member – and yes, this is what the park employees are called; they use show terms including backstage, on-stage and audience – is expected to be “on” all the time in order to keep up the illusion that this is how Disneyland is all the time. Last year, there was controversy when a Muslim park employee who was told she couldn’t wear her head scarf in observance of Ramadan because it wasn’t “part of the costume… [of] somebody in an on-stage position like hers” (Flaccus 1). While the Disney company is held in high esteem by mass culture, they have often blatantly ignored their own employees’ rights and individualism. I would argue that this directly opposes the Disney concept of a world of inclusion, equality and happiness, and thus voids the power that Disney holds. By identifying Disneyland as a simulacrum, we can understand that it is a fabricated, constructed and meticulously deliberate portrayal of worlds, cultures and people that never existed, as well as concepts (like equality) that are good in theory but much harder to put into practice.

If Disneyland is presented as a representation of American life, culture and values, what does that mean for reality? Because the truth of reality is covered up, toned down - there is, for example, no piles of trash blocking ride entrances from the overflux of overweight stroller-pushers - then Disneyland isn't based in reality at all. 

And don’t even get me started on the “It’s a Small World” ride!

(554)

Baudrillard, Jean. “The Precession of Simulacra.” Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 2010. 1553-1566. Print.

ezmason512. “Walt Disney Speech.” YouTube.com. YouTube, 3 May 2009. Web. 18 April 2011.

Flaccus, Gillian. “Muslim Disneyland Employee: Park Banned My Scarf.” HUFFPOST: Los Angeles. The Huffington Post, 19 August 2010. Web. 18 April 2011.

"People who claim they're evil are usually no worse than the rest of us. It's people who claim that they're good, or any way better than the rest of us, that you have to be wary of.”

- Boq (Wicked)

-------------------------------------

There is something so intriguing, familiar and almost scandalous about reading a well-known children’s tale that has been re-told and adapted for adult readers, for that is where simple legends become complex examinations of society. That’s exactly how I feel about Gregory Maguire’s Wicked (1995), a parallel novel to L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900) and the story of the “life and times” of one of the most popular evil figures of literature. Each time I read the novel, I find myself greatly enjoying the story from the Witch’s perspective, but I have also noted with great interest and surprise the level of social and political commentary that Maguire has added to the land of Oz.

It is by reading Maguire’s story with a Marxist mindset that allows me to delve deeper into the story’s subplots involving the authoritative, controlling and manipulative Wizard (so different from the beloved ole softie from the movie!) and the laws passed restricting animals from holding jobs and political standing. Or, rather I should say Animals, for in Oz, there is a difference between the drooling farm animals and the intelligent, personable, anthropomorphic Animals. One such Animal is Doctor Dillamond, a Goat who teaches at Shiz University and a ardent supporter of Animal rights against the Wizard’s “Banns on Animal Mobility… [restricting] in their access to travel conveyances, lodgings, and public services. The Mobility it referred to was also professional. Any Animal… was prohibited from working in the professions or the public sector. They were, effectively, to be herded back to the farmland or wilds…” (Maguire 114). These Animals, while obviously expressing human characteristics, are what Marx would deem the “subordinate graduations” (Marx 657) of Oz’s society. Elphaba (later known as the Wicked Witch of the West) and her friends take a small part in the fight for Animals, and this in turn generates some of the ill will the Witch has towards the Wizard at the end of the story.

The Banns push the Animals - some of who were teachers, philosophers or workers – even further down the social ladder, to the part of mere cattle, laboring for nothing more than a little hay or feed, the proletarian class of OZ. It is strange to read a fictional novel and then think about the cows, sheep and other livestock that provide a great deal of our food stuffs, products and livelihoods in real life, and wonder what would happen if they could talk! Would they demand equal rights, or suffer as they continue to be suppressed as the labor class of our society? For surely cattle in our society is considered to be the silent, un-acknowledged and vastly inhibited labor power of our society, toiling only for others' benefits – namely, ours.

Unfortunately in Wicked, Animals never climb back up the social ladder. Doctor Dillamond is murdered, ostensibly because of his vocal support of Animals and sometime later in the novel, the main (human) characters note that there are no longer any Animals in Oz after the Banns. As noted before, it is the Wizard and his supporters – the bourgeoisie in Oz – who help mold Elphaba into the Witch and push down Animal proletariats.

(532)

Maguire, Geogory. Wicked. New York: Harper, 1995. Print.

Marx, Karl. “The Communist Manifesto.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 657-660. Print.