1 down, 2 to go

Humanities Core, oh how far the journey has been and yet there's still more to go.

At this point in time, reflecting on this past quarter it has been both ups and downs. A lot of times during lecture I would feel like....

But then I would go to discussion and suddenly I'm like..

Overall the most prominent thought I'm leaving this quarter of humanities core with is that there are many types of writing that can have different influences on the meaning of the text. I would never look at HOW the text was written before, I would simply just read and get the main point or story. As a reader I had never thought about how everything the author wrote had a purpose for being in the story, even more, I never realized that even the things that are not written are also important to notice. My favorite example of this was in Memorial by Alice Oswald. Just the way she subtracted the glory of killing presented in the Iliad was really interesting to me because it really did become a powerful anti war piece overall. 

As far as my definition of war, it hasn't really changed for me, due to the fact that I've always viewed it as a complicated negative situation. One point that really struck me that correlates to war is when Professor Izenberg said that in the Iliad the warriors, specifically Hector, had to strip away the same values he's protecting to fight for his city. To protect their culture, peace, and home the soldiers must against those very beliefs in order to save it for others. That point was just an eye opener for me because I had never thought about it that way. It just increased the amount of respect I have for our soldiers fighting for our freedom here in the US. 

After experiencing Humanities Core for 1 quarter, I can truly say that I am excited to move on and learn new things in the quarters to come. Even if it does mean I have to read all night. 

When words come to life...

...the power lies in the expression

Mother Courage is a play written by Bertolt Brecht. The pictures on the right show both of the most recent translations and presentations.

Although the text is written for performance, the interpretations from the reader directly reading the text versus the viewer watching the play can be very different. To put this into perspective, a lot of book lovers get really frustrated after they see the movie. What happens in these situations is that the individual mind has it own "picture" of what the characters look like and how they sound and such. The movie is then someone else's viewpoint of how THEY interpreted it. So when the Divergent and Maze Runner fans feel upset that "THE MOVIE IS WRONG" because there were changes made, know that it's someone else's representation of what they feel it is. The most recent outrage I've heard about is the Maze Runner: Scorch Trials movie. I remember my best friend after seeing the trailer, "WHAT. Why is TERESA WITH THEM?!! That's not what happened in the book!". Or my own rage when in The Host they took out a major character whose death seriously  affected the plot!! Ultimately, us viewers and readers have to realize that movies are someone's interpretation of the book. That the words in pages can be expressed in many different ways because words can have different meanings to different people.

Cover of the most recent edition of the book

However, those examples have to do with novels turned to movies. In reference to class,  Brecht wrote Mother Courage as a play, its' purpose is to be performed so the changes are minimal in comparison.

The focus scene I'm going to compare is the very first scene of both the play and the book. It features an army recruiter, sergeant, and it introduces Mother Courage and her three kids; Swiss Cheese (the honest one), Kattrin (the mute with compassion), and Eiliff (the brave one)

For a focus point to let you know how it should look in the play, CLICK HERE TO WATCH  . This isn't the one with Meryl Streep, but it gives you some insight as to how it's acted.

For the most part the text is similar to the play with what occurs within the story. But the difference lies in the power of the actor's performance. They way they make the audience follow their every movement and every word.

One of the prominent moments in the play is when Mother Courage pulls a knife and then yells, "We're friendly people!". The irony there shows the disconnect between her actions and her words. In the book it's also noticeable but not prominent or as funny to the reader as it is to the audience. While reading the book I was personally more focused on what would happen with Eiliff rather than picking up on that disconnect.

Due to the fact that the text was meant to be performed it shows that there's inherent value in it being spoken and the audience visualizing the actors. There's always a difference between writing for dialogue and writing for only reading purposes. Dialogue has slang, it often has more voice, and it's easier to get straight to the point with what the characters are stating. But performance shows how they feel, it presents Brecht's ironic satirical tone more outwardly which is the point of the text.

Altogether, the play itself gives a better representation of the purpose of the text. It allows the audience to more simply grasp how they're supposed to feel rather than reading and then thinking about it after.

When words come to life,
the power lies in the expresssion.
                                                                       

The Eye of the Beholder

When you hear the word 'History' what do you think? Do thoughts of war, culture, industrialization come to mind? What about the images that flicker in your mind as you think about the word itself?

When learning about History these topics are often covered by teachers and textbooks. One important aspect of learning history that I was taught in high school was the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. A primary source is an actual artifact from the occurrence of the event. While a secondary source may be an interpretation or summary of that source. Often times, most of the information we read comes from secondary sources.

With this notion in mind, let's think about HOW we get our info. In lecture we learned about two terms to describe the text giving us history, which are res gestae and historia rerum gestarum,

According to Chapter 9 of the Humanities Core Writer’s Handbook, 
          Res Gestae is latin for the 'things' themselves that have actually happened.
          Historia Rerum Gestarum is latin for the 'story' of the 'things' that happened.

So basically Historia Rerum Gestarum is the story of Res Gestae.

Painting of the siege
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_(Magdeburg)_Hussars

In Bertolt Brecht's Mother Courage and her Children there is a section in Act 5, pg 58 where the characters are experiencing the siege of Madgeburg. To know ALL about the siege, click here! <- that link is very in depth but if you read the beginning parts it gives the main idea.

On the other hand, there is also a source where (Otto Guerick's Recount of Events)
it's Otto Guerick, the most famous eyewitness of the events, where he tells the details of the siege.

After reading both of these pieces, I stand on the position that Brecht's Mother Courage is a historia rerum gestarum, and Guerick's recount is closer to a res gestae. In other words, Guerick's recount is more like a primary source. HOWEVER, unless we were there to witness what happened (which unless you are a time traveler you probably didn't) all readings of history are essentially historia rerum gestarum. This is because we are always reading what other people interpret as what truly occurred. MOVING ON to the true analysis of the pieces of text!

Mother Courage Play
https://www.berea.edu/thr/mother-courage/

Mother Courage follows along with the main character being Mother Courage herself, and her role in this siege. But we also get to read about how the soldiers had one hour to plunder the city and the harm found on the farmer, his wife, and child. Because Mother Courage refuses to help them, the reader tends to feel sympathy for the poor family and what happened to them. Due to the fact that this type of writing is satirical, Mother Courage and her focus on her stocks over the lives of the farmers makes us realize how important it is to feel for others and their predicaments. Mother Courage's lack of sympathy then causes the reader to feel sympathy in her place. Oh humans, how we love to empathize. However in reference to the actual events of the siege, all we get from this piece of text is that the soldiers ruin the city after an hour, many people were brutally injured and Mother Courage is all out of bandages because of this.

Now focusing on Guerick's recount, reading this gives off the feeling of hearing a news broadcaster telling us of the events. Detailing what was happening as they watched it. Which is why Guerick is one of the most famous eyewitnesses because that is exactly what his recount of events is, an eyewitness report of what exactly happened. Unlike Mother Courage, this reading goes into the deep details of the brutality and provides information about the war itself. The imagery provided is spot on to the point that the reader envisions the horrid brutality.

Overall after reading both texts I feel like I have got the full experience of what happened on that day, Guerick provides the detailed imagery for what the sights are and Brecht gives the personal feeling of what it was like to be there. Putting these together it's like watching a movie of what occurred on that tragic day. Both pieces make the anti-war notions very prominent. Guerick does this most directly, which Brecht has the reader thinking deeper to find it.

The lesson learned in this situation is, don't focus on one piece to get all your info about what happened in one event! Difference forms of literature provide different perspectives and ultimately results in different views on what occurred. Make sure that you view history through all the perspectives before you judge a situation!

Blink

"Don't blink. Blink and you're dead. They are fast. Faster than you can believe. Don't turn your back. Don't look away. And don't blink. Good Luck."

Some of you may recognize this quote from a popular BBC TV series, Doctor Who.

(Season 3, Episode 10) 

In this episode the Doctor is fighting the weeping angels who are statues that can only move and attach when they're not being looked at. 

Its absolutely terrifying! If you want to watch the episode, Doctor Who is on Netflix, and the info for the specific episode is HERE!

Now for the deep stuff. When thinking about what I should write for this post, I found myself with writer's block. Should I analyze another piece of art? nah. But I looked at war art anyway, and for some reason Dr. Who popped up on my google web search. (oh internet, how you never fail to creep) 

And bam! I realized that in almost every episode the Doctor is at war with someone, something, or even himself. His fast paced life is always filled with complications and he always must fight. Then I thought about some of his most difficult enemies, and definitely the weeping angels have been such a hassle for him. 

But the quote that I started this post with, that quote that every Who fan knows, is what really moved me to write about this. To combat the weeping angels one must face their fears, literally, look them in the eye. 

"Don't blink. Blink and you're dead. They are fast. Faster than you can believe. Don't turn your back. Don't look away. And don't blink. Good Luck."

Now, remove the image of crazy statues chasing you. Think of a soldier walking towards the trenches. Shrapnel fighting...comrades left and right dying..and the enemy straight ahead. 

A soldier has to keep his head up high look forward and continue fighting. Like the quote says "don't turn your back", the soldier must not run and hide leaving his comrades, his country, his hope. 

This is the imagery I see when I think of this quote. I think of an army general grabbing a young new soldier and holding him by the shoulders, yelling these words over the blasting of shots, the screams of men, and the stench of war. 

In all honestly, writing this post and thinking about how strong a few sentences can be, how words can create such images in one's mind is truly beautiful and that is why I shared this moment today. 

Don't blink but see beyond. 

An Abstract of Sorts

               

                 http://en.artoffer.com/Oliv-Cugurovic/Der-Krieg-War-Abstract-art/119076

"Der Kreig" is an abstract piece by Oliv Curgurovic. The words "Der Kreig" are German for "The War" This piece, created in 2009, is an abstract acrylic canvas painting. If you do not know what abstract art is, never fear! I have a helpful video here: LINK!

This piece of art, in my opinion, signifies the inner mind and emotional turmoil during war and maybe even during battle. The first thing I felt when I saw this picture was a feeling of frustration. It just looks confusing and has no straight point. The strokes are very rugged and mixed everywhere causing it to have no pattern or print. Initially the whole artwork made no sense, but since I liked the color pallet so I kept examining it. In doing this, I noticed more and more details that made me grow to understand the painting in my own way.

Since the color pallet is what really attracted me to this piece, I'd like to discuss why it is so alluring. The brightest color of the entire artwork is a light gray leading all the way down to a charcoal black. This fading and irregular scheme between the two and the lack of any other colors gives it a sense of opposition, light vs darkness. It almost seems like the two colors are "war-ing" to be the prominent role in the piece. In reference to the topic of war, my opinion is that war is a dark matter, something with an internal force of darkness naturally within it. On the other hand, I see light as life, bright and prosperous, shining as one experiences all and feels alive. The piece of artwork in my perspective, seems like that black color is almost coming back into the picture, slowly and gradually consuming the light.

The second most important aspect I found interesting was the rugged strokes and the lack of pattern. Initially, this caused me to negatively view the piece as a mess and confusing creation. Realizing that this is abstract art I then thought maybe this is the point of the piece, the confusion. It makes the viewer feel like they're lost in a maze. Which I then connected to a soldier in the midst of war filled with conflict and confusion inside, but it can also connected to the sights of battle where the vision is impaired by the clashing of people and the shrapnel. This is the view I conceive in my mind while looking at this piece of art and I feel that this is a very strong moment to feel when thinking about war.

Overall I feel like this piece shows the viewer a sense of the feelings of someone directly influenced by a war or even just the feelings of war itself. One cannot exactly know what the artist meant for it to be, but this is my interpretation of the piece.