Captive

I chose to illustrate this because the forst thing that came to mind when I first began to read Gulliver's Travels by Johnathan Swift, was the character from one of Disney Pictures' most recently successful films, Pirates of the Caribbean. I almost immediately made a connection between these two characters because I thought they found themselves under very similar circumstances, being taken as captives by a group of very peculiar people they have absolutely no idea about. I tried to find an image that would more clearly show Jack Sparrow's captive condition, where he is tied to a large wooden pole, but I couldn't find one. In that way he would more closely relate to Gulliver, who wakes after an exhausted, nine hour sleep to find himself fastened to the ground by ropes. I thought they would both share that feeling of uneasiness and confusion, of not knowing when it will all end and they will be free. Not knowing when they will escape and cease being captive.

Abstract Meaning

The second piece is what I believe to be Miro. I think this is a very interesting piece because of the way in which the shapes appeared to be distorted. A while ago I learned that Miro stood out for, like most artists, a certain technique. He enhanced his work through the use of organic shapes. As it is evident in this piece, Miro would take shapes or objects found in nature and distort them, making it hard for the observer to decipher what was being shown exaclty. In the case of this piece, the observer's attention tends to be drawn towards the large, white figure in the center of the painting. Due to the evident contrast in color, their eyes tend to shift towards the bright blue shapes, which in reality mean nothing. I noticed that the big person who draws the most attention is actually playing the guitar, and that bellow them is a spotted dog. The rest I wasn't able to make out. They appeared to be only figures too small to actually depict in detail. Miro isn't one of my favorite artists, for I am not a big fan of abstract art. However, his pieces leave plenty of room for interpretation, and that is what I love about them. That you can endlessly derive from them some sort of meaning, although it may not be evident right away. Miro's work is mestyrious and somewhat confusing, and the fact that it is difficult to understand makes it far more fascinating.

Shades of Truth

The first piece I found to be quite captivating. It captured my attention mainly because of the artist's amazing use of color. It appears to be an abstract piece, but as I looked closer I found there was a possible subject around which the painting revolvs. As I mentioned earlier, colors are varied and one could say vital, and along with these contrasts, the artist brings in shading. I noticed the shades appear along the borders of the painting and those of the objects within it. I believe that in this way, the artist means to make the objects in the picture stand out. Almost immediately, my eyes were drawn towards the red circle that is nearly towards the center of the picture, for it seems to be quite different from the rest. As I looked closer, I realized it was a lightbulb. The red is also a brilliant shade. It catches the eye and draws attention to itself. It surprised me that the artist would choose this color for a lightbulb, and this is what led me to thinking about what the light bulb meant and what the artist meant to communicate to the observer by emphasizing on it.

When it comes to lines, they seem to enmarc the light bulb. The other figures appear to be somewhat connected to each other, but the bulb escapes from this connection. This is basically why I believe it is the center of the painting. In my opinion it is a truly excuisite work of art. The use of all these elements: line, color and shade is magnificent along with what the artist tries to communicate to the observer, which could be the importance of ideas and how everything revolves around them. How are world is moved by ideas and how they slowly shape our lives.

Reaching for Smoke

This was a very unusual story. I think I never really got to figuring it all out. As I have begun to notice, Carver's stories rarely have a point, but they all seem to hold some kind of meaning beyond what we allow ourselves to believe. As in Chef's House, it seems like the husband is the one who's in need, the one who has a problem. While Wes was an alcoholic, Sandy's husband is unemployed and does nothing but sit around all day on a couch, staring at the TV, wasting away his life. This story seemed to shift around quite a bit. From Sandy's preocupation for her husband, to the damaged fridge and thawed food, to the meaning of auctions, I thought it all held what was merely a thread of connection, but it all brought me once again to the same question. What is Carver trying to tell the reader? Does it really mean anything or is it all sygnifying nothing? I wonder if this is really the point of his stories. That they are meaningless. That there is no point at all. Yet I believe his stories require far more depth of thought than I am able to provide. I feel there is more to them than I think, yet I am not able to grasp it. Its as if I tried to catch smoke with my bare hand, looking for meaning where there seems to be none.

Praise or Mockery?

I noticed that through his writing, Flaubert often emphasises his descriptions on the aesthetical beauty of the church, and therefore, religion. "It was covered with a lace cloth and draped with green wreaths. In the middle stood a little frame containing relics; at the corners were two little orange-trees, and all along the edge were silver candlesticks, porcelain vases containing sun-flowers, lilies,peonies, and tufts of hydrangeas." (Flaubert, A Simple Soul). This is, in my opinion, a truly stunning description. It shows us through the depiction of the altar, Flaubert's belief in the frivolity and triviality of the church. It appears to be more of an ornament than a symbol to him. Its like some kind of costume meant to fool people, to make them belief in something that isn't really there. The faith and the hope we beileve it inspires is not real. It does not exist. It is all just a petty scenario meant to dress and image up, making it look convincing to those who worship it. As the story comes to and end, the final lines proved to me that Flaubert's purpose is definately to mock God. "...and when she exhaled her last breath, she thought she saw in the half-opened heavens a gigantic parrot hovering above her head." (Flaubert, A Simple Soul) Why would Flaubert choose Loulou as a representation of God? He is obviously laughing at Him. In this way he is all but saying that we can take God as seriously as we can a parrot. Parrots are seen as creatures that entertain, make people laugh, make fun of people. This is why I believe that Flaubert's purpose in these final moments of the story is to make fun of God and the whole idea of Him and what He brings to our lives.

Looking for Inspiration

Whil reading A Simple Soul by Gustave Falubert, I wondered why he would choose such an ordianry being to be the story's main character. There is nothing particularly special about Felicite. She appears to be plain, ignorant and at times even stupid. I would say she doesn't capture the reader's attention at all. There is no reason for us to feel drawn to her. There is nothing inspirational or exceptional to be found in her. However, I believe that in some way, Felicite's dull characteristics are somewhat a result of the suffering she has been exposed to. I would personally expect the opposite from someone like her, who has faced such degrees of pain. From personal experience, I find that those who seem to have suffered the least are those who think less about what really matters. They tend to value things a great deal less. This is why I find that perhaps what appears to be Felicite's ignorance and stupidity are really a reflection of naiveness and innosence. From being heart broken, to having death at such proximity, I believe Felicite became numb to the pain. She grew distant from the excrutiating ahcing she had once experienced and instead became fond of those small joys life seldom offered her. Loulou, the parrot, is an example I find to be significant when it comes to this. The bird appeared to remind her of what she loved, it was something she thought resembled her good memories. This is why I think she holds on so tightly to the idea of this pet. Aside from it being an exotic creature she had never before been close to, she saw in its image the reflection of her deepest desires. As the story develops I found that Felicite was not exactly what I assumed her to be from the beginning. I found that perhaps I was mistaking stupidity for what in reality was good will. In my opinion these are the characters that inspire us the most. The ones we cannot read right away. The ones we don't quite get at first. Felicite was one of these characters. What I assumed to be emptiness was in reality a shield against the pain the world had brought upon her. Felicite brought me inspiration. She gave me an idea of what I want my characters to be like. I want them to surprise the reader, to show them what they never expected. And to inspire them further more.

What Does it Mean?

I really liked this story. Carver draws out the situation in a truly magnificent way. Style comes in once more to make an important influence upon the writing. I noticed how Carver avoids the use of quotations for the characters' conversations, and I believe this is done with the porpuse of having the reader figure out for himself the difference between what is being said and what is being thought. However, the use of continuous relatively short-lenght sentences are what I think Carver stands out for the most. "Our kids kept their distance. Cheryl lived with some people on a farm in Oregon...She kept bees and put up jars of honey. She had her own life, and I didn't blame her." (Carver, 29) I find this passage to be a significant example of Carver's style. I don't quite know what it is he means to communicate to the reader through this strategy, but by simply making us wonder adds substance to the writing. We find ourselves trying to figure out whether it has something to do with the meaning of the story. We ask ourselves what he is trying to tell us, whether this all ammounts to something in the end, or if after all, it is only signifying nothing.

Wes

The character around which the story revolves around, Wes, was a character that reminded me a lot of some of the books I've read in the past. I remember, a book I read a while back. It must have been about two years ago. There was also a character named Wes. He wasn't at all like the one in Carver's story though. He was perfect. Yet, I couldn't help but relate these two characters. It surprised me how much I remembered from this character. As soon as I saw the name printed on the paper it all came rushing back. It was almost as if he were real, and as if this appearnce of he name proved to me his existence. Although I am well aware they have nothing to do with each other, and that Carver's Wes is an alcoholic who has trouble with letting go of things and moving on with his life, I still pictured him in the same way which I pictured Sarah Dessen's Wes. Perfect. Beautiful. Unreal.

Interpreting Style

What I noticed from this first short story is that Carver's style is somewhat similar to Pynchon's. It is humorous and it seems to me that like Pynchon, Carver has a way of making his writing particularly descriptive. I have noticed he stands out for the use of short sentences to add some sort of emphasis to what is going on. This I think is the opposite of what Pynchon does, for he uses long sentences containing thoughts within thoughts, instead of a group several short sentences. But both strategies amount for the same purpose, to capture a moment. Something I also noticed about Carver's style is that while reading him, it is as if you were actually hearing him speak. The way in which he writes is colloquial and unusual. Straight forward, hardly any wordy embellishments are found within his pieces. It's as if you were listening to the conversations rather than reading them. This is something I admire in his style, for I think this helps the reader get more involved in the situation, making himself a part of what is happening, and therefore making it easier and more enjoyable for him to read. In this way, the story comes to life, along with everything in it. In my opinion, this is an incredibly important element in writing, the authenticity of it and how close it comes to making the reader believe it is true.