[From Flow Chart by John Ashbery]
I never thought I’d say this but…exams are probably a good thing. Since I haven’t had any in three years, my recall is shot. I know I’ve studied this stuff before but I can’t recall them off the top of my head because I’ve never actually sat down and memorised it all for exactly that purpose. It’s all a bit in one ear and out the other. But hey, I can still recite Newton’s laws word for word, exactly as I recorded it for my study notes in Year 11. But what I did last semester on poetics? Not so much, no.
POETICS – Greek poiesis [making/creating] – language is used for its aesthetic and evocative qualitities instead of its apparent meaning.
Exams also meant I took way better notes. As opposed to the following stellar example of scholarly thought - “Truman Capote quote on why he doesn’t take notes – something blah blah truly own the idea blah blah.” How very eloquent and concise. And this is a writing class? Sigh. Then I’ve also scribbled stuff like “Does the artist ‘shape’ the idea, or does the idea ‘shape’ the artist? What came first, the poet or the idea? Raises interesting questions re: inspiration, the psyche/subconscious, and how this influences language and art – Heidegger, Husserl w. reference to Celan and Cixious.”
Riiiiight. [Come to think of it, that was my final essay…I got a distinction for that. Huh.]
My notes are further helpfully sprinkled with various song lyrics *shakes head*
Nietzsche! ‘Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.’ I am particularly fond of that…mostly because it applies to my everyday escapades. How often am I looked at as being a bit mad, but I know it’s only because the people don’t “get” it. In the company of those of similar inclination, it’s not mad at all.
Speculative Rousseauism – the form of the modern state must be overcome in order to establish moral society.
Which is all well and good but what exactly does this have to do with poetics?
And of course I have to study Marxism for Cultural Studies. I will never be free of that man! As long as they don’t make me fold paper airplanes with my eyes closed again, that was just ridiculous. [In case you’re wondering, it was meant to illustrate exploitation and the destruction of traditional skills]. Two of the readings also appear to continually make reference to ‘time’ and ‘space’, and the relationship between them. This is greatly detrimental to my concentration since all it makes me want to do is play the class a Doctor Who clip. “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.” It is relevant. I insist. I’m playing it next week. I don’t care. They already think I’m crazy after I had to stifle a laugh when a guy used “conglomeration” yesterday.
Anyway, I am actually looking for my notes on Aristotle cause if I see the term ‘logos’ one more time, I might hurt something. That is Aristotle, right? Ah yes. Argument from reason. Relates to pathos (persuasion by emotional appeal) and ethos (persuasion by moral competence). And, in case anyone wants more Greek terms – mythos [plot], dianoia [theme], lexis [speech/diction], melos [melody], opsis [spectacle].
Joy.
Oh I’ve just discovered I am predisposed to a teleological school of thought – “one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.” Or maybe not. I mean if you ask me “Why do you see?”, I would answer “Because I have eyes.” That’s form following function, isn’t it? So that’s more naturalistic. Teleologists would say “Because I need to.”
I think. I don’t know! All this theory hurts my head.
I realise studying Economics or such is hard, really I do, but at least you know there is a right or a wrong answer. In social sciences it’s all so bloody open ended and all over the place, as soon as you think you have a grasp of one thing, it slips away into something else. I think the key is to find one element that appeals to you and to stick to it, but I’m just not geared that way. It feels so limiting. I want to know everything. It’s more likely than not going to be my undoing.
On a completely different note, I cannot understand why anyone would see Ianto as a Mary Sue. Tropes Wiki have a ramble about it, summarising traits as :
The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of wish fulfilment. She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye colour, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — or her "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing. She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story. The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues [...] if anyone doesn't love her, the character who dislikes her will get an extremely unsympathetic portrayal. She has some sort of especially close relationship to the author's favorite canon character — their love interest, illegitimate child, never-before-mentioned sister, etc. Other than that, the canon characters are quickly reduced to awestruck cheerleaders, watching from the sidelines as Mary Sue outstrips them in their areas of expertise and solves problems that have stymied them for the entire series.
I don’t know if it even has a place outside of fanfic, but it has been said and used in context to Mr. Jones, so I’m just taking the opportunity to disagree. And it’s not just because Ianto is a guy that I don’t see him like this. If anyone in Torchwood is a Mary Sue, it’s Gwen. Every stray man and his dog are madly in love with her, and she can do no wrong. Her flaws are definitely meant to be “endearing”. So am I missing something? The only thing Ianto has is a dramatic back story…but they all have dramatic back stories. Except for Gwen, ironically. Actually, most of the people that take this view of him, tend to favour Gwen, which makes me think “if anyone doesn't love her, the character who dislikes her will get an extremely unsympathetic portrayal.” Ahuh. To be honest, I don’t see how this term would work in a canonical setting. It just doesn't seem applicable somewhow.
Aha! This is why I love this site. It really covers everything.
Mary Sue as Protagonist You Don’t Like:
An alarmingly widespread use of the term, and one reason a lot of people feel that the term has lost whatever useful meaning it once had. There are a lot of reasons why this usage is so common. Most obviously, as rants about and mockery of the Mary Sue phenomenon became increasingly well-known in fandom, it became increasingly easy to throw the term around as Flame Bait. The fact that so many of the other definitions are highly subjective doesn't help. And, finally, this usage is the (il)logical inversion of the counter-Sue defence that a character people like can't be a Mary Sue. People who accuse characters of being Mary Sues rarely admit that this is the definition they're using. The best way to tell is if their justifications for the character's Sue-hood are all based on shoehorning, Alternate Character Interpretation, misrepresenting the sources, and Accentuate The Negative. Describe any non-fanfic character as a Canon Sue, and you'll be lucky if no one accuses you of using this definition of the term.
I’m not nearly nerdy enough to really function in this sphere of life/fandom but that’s why Tropes Wiki is there to help me out.
But yes. Speaking of Gwen, I have a Gwen haircut now. Well, it’s always kinda been the same style, but I’ve gotten my fringe thickened and now it matches hers. Does this mean Jack will now love me too? I just want to steal his wrist strap, that would be dead useful. None of this stupid research necessary…
Which I should probably get back to...what am I up to? Leitmotiv? Sigh.
Music: Rugby commentary in the background somewhere
Mood: Working
No comments:
Post a Comment