I'm supposed to be comparing existentialism and the importance of individuality in Catcher and 1984, I'm completely stuck. Anyone have any ideas?
Printable View
I'm supposed to be comparing existentialism and the importance of individuality in Catcher and 1984, I'm completely stuck. Anyone have any ideas?
As I understand it, existentialism basically is belief in the importance of individuality--that life has no meaning except what each individual makes of it. So, if you have some information on existential philosophers (Jean-Paul Sartre is one), you can demonstrate how this philosophy is used in those novels--how the characters make their own choices about what their lives should be like. I know that's not much, but does it help at all?
Simone de Bouvoirs another existentialist philosopher that's worth checking out. I don't know much about it and it's been a while since I read Catcher in the Rye but I remember the book focusing on the individual character and his inabilty to fit in to the structures around him.
Maybe that's a starting point for you.........
That's it! Existentialism was partly a response to the pre-WWII fascination with Ferdinand de Saussure's Structuralism (in which each identity takes on its meaning on the basis of a relationship with other parts of an overall structure). The Existentialists spear-headed the movement that the Postmodernists (or, more precisely, Poststructuralists) became famous for. Jacques Derrida (Deconstruction), Jacques Lacan (Psychoanalysis), Michel Foucault (New Historicism), and Judith Butler (Queer Theory), as well as William V. Spanos (Postcolonialism) are some of the big names in the field of Poststructuralism. Here's a brief explanaton of the three different schools and their relationship with each other:Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy
Structuralism preaches the doctrine that signs (words, for example) operate based on a system of differences. Words correspond to certain ideas . . . obviously we couldn't have just one word to capture every meaning, because the word would be too vague and would, subsequently, become useless. On the other hand, we could not have 1,000 different words that all mean the same thing, because, practically speaking, it wouldn't make any sense to use so many different signs to represent one idea. So we generally have a system of one idea per corresponding word . . . sometimes words share many different meanings (e.g. 'dull', 'grace', 'fly') and other times one meaning is signified by many different words, but the whole system is generally balanced. Those are the bare bones of Structuralism. You can apply this theory to anything that has an identity (this theory has been applied to everything from Economics to how the Human Mind operates).
Existentialism rejects the notion that meaning exists out there somewhere, and that the words (or any other sign, be it audial, visual, sensual, &c.) we use are nothing more than little doorways to the presence of those meanings. Existentialists are individuals who are willing to live their lives both within and without the system that frames their identity. They accept the truth that life is absurd and that no prior meaning can be found . . . in that sense, they operate within it. However, as individuals, they construct their own meanings--their own fates--outside of the system they are operating in from day to day by creating their own moral code and living each day as if it were the last. Existentialism is a way of soothing the anxiety that transpires when everything you have known up to a certain point becomes a lie.
The Poststructuralists point out a few of the major flaws in both Structuralism and Existentialism: That signs are thought of as gateways toward meaning . . . and that meaning exists out there somewhere beyond our reach, is founded on a very poblematic set of concepts. First of all, I have said that Structuralism is based on a 'system of differences'. The Poststructuralists pointed out that Saussure still presupposed that meaning was 'out there' somewhere without adequately explaining the nature of the signs, which are the revealers of the presence of meaning. After all, 'meaning' is a word . . . it is a sign that operates just like all of the other signs . . . founded on the principle that differences precede identity. It forms its own particular identity (just as all signs do) because there is another sign out there that is opposed to it and it alone: 'absence'.
Consider this question: Can there be a 'derivitive' without an 'original'? Of course not. So, likewise, there cannot be an original without a derivitive to make it 'original'. If there was never a derivitive, then the idea of originality would never have been there to begin with . . . the two are co-dependent. It works just the same with other dichotomies such as Male/Female, Good/Evil, Father/Child, Being/Nothingness. If difference does indeed precede identity, then meaning of the sort that Saussure imagined is illegitimate since it exists outside the system of signification (the collection of all signs).
But what is a structure? It is a relationship of signs. For example, when I (an American) say 'yes', I am converying a very specific meaning. Perhaps I am responding to a question, or maybe I am just letting someone know that I am ready to listen. Regardless, I am using a certain sound to represent an idea. At the same time, Jean-Charles in Strasbourg, a Frenchman is saying 'oui' and conveying the same idea that I am . . . but why the different word? Why do I say yes while he says oui? Because yes has a different placement in the structure of the English language. Oui means the same thing, but its placement in the French linguistic structure is not the same as ours. Yes means 'yes' because it is not the word 'less', 'mess', 'bless', 'blast', 'past', or any other word for the matter. And, of course, the same goes for jean-Charles. The identities of words are the same as the identities of people . . . read the French Neo-Freudian, Jacques Lacan, if you want to know how peoples' minds work in a linguistic system. You are the reader because I am the writer. I am AbdoRinbo because I am not Chrissy, nome1486, Zooey, or anyone else for that matter, which comes as a slap in the face to the Existentialist theory of the 'autonomy of the individual'. Check out any of the authors I have listed above for a more thorough and articulate description of Poststructuralism.
Thanks! I'll try and use some of the stuff you guys said.
ok, let's get a discussion going. What did you think?
I have heard the name, And have heard that it is a good book, but I have never read it. What is it about.
*showing off my ignorance:(*
This guy, Holden Caulfield, gets kicked out of another school. the stuff that happens after that.
one of my fave things about it-it makes fun of Dickens.[delightful]. Anyone want to discuss Salinger's writing style? At first I really liked it, but halfway through I got pretty sick of it. It was killing me, it really was. The continuous double negatives, repetition in the sentences, and millions of sentences ending in 'and all.' I started going nuts. I know he did in on purpose, but I got sick of reading things like 'they didn't hardly ever.' [maybe I'm just pedantic. should I be the new grammer nazi?]
*reading it now*
I agree that the grammar part gets pretty annoying at some point but on the other hand - it`s an average teenager...what did you expect?
in general, i like the book so far - its very funny; the way he describes everything, and all. (c) =]
Holden is a non-conformist, has his principles...
i pretty much agree with the phony-people/world idea but
lets see how it goes on.
And the author has been true to his art - the book's cover, his hermitic existence, etc.
In a world where so many artists 'sell out', kudos to him for writing 'the assassin's favourite novel'.
His other published work is excellent too - I do hope he has been writing all these decades and not just masturbating or something.....;)
:eek:
You should give it a try. I'm positive you'll like it.Quote:
Originally posted by Stanislaw
I have heard the name, And have heard that it is a good book, but I have never read it.
I actually enjoyed it. As you say, it's part of the vocabulary of a 16 years old. It can be tiresome, I'll admit that (not for me, though :D ).Quote:
Originally posted by fayefaye
Anyone want to discuss Salinger's writing style? At first I really liked it, but halfway through I got pretty sick of it. It was killing me, it really was. The continuous double negatives, repetition in the sentences, and millions of sentences ending in 'and all.' I started going nuts. I know he did in on purpose, but I got sick of reading things like 'they didn't hardly ever.' [maybe I'm just pedantic. should I be the new grammar nazi?]
About that new occupation, I wouldn't apply for the job if I were you. There's too much of that already ;)
Double negatives??? Good I read a translation.... I'll tell you a secret...if you ever want to get me very confused, use a lot of negatives in sentence :D
most sixteen year olds have better vocabulary than that. Or at least, I would hope so.
You're far too optimistic on that Faye. I believe most 16-year-old, at least British ones, have a far worse vocabulary than that, and I'm talking about spoken language, cos when it comes to writing they would spell correctly 1 word out of 5.
I think you're way off-people in england are far better at english than people here, and excellent spellers to boot.
I'm an american who lives in England. I live in a city called Bracknell. It's a disgusting city full of disgusting people. Back in the US, I live in a little redneck town called New Market, VA. And lemme tell ya, average joe New Market could out grammer average joe Bracknell with in his sleep. People here are illiterate.
oh my god
All around... you have my sympathies. ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by IWilKikU
I'm an american who lives in England. I live in a city called Bracknell. It's a disgusting city full of disgusting people. Back in the US, I live in a little redneck town called New Market, VA. And lemme tell ya, average joe New Market could out grammer average joe Bracknell with in his sleep. People here are illiterate.
I live in England and there are many plebs here.
Part of the problem is the dumbing down of society which is encouraged by our dear leader Phony Blair.
Most plebs only read The Sun newspaper or if they are feeling adventurous, Heat magazine.
Don't get the wrong impression - I'm not feeling superior because I read - I just get angry at how people get fed crap and accept it.
I should add that where America leads, we follow - culturally as well as militarily.
Whereabouts do you live Dick?
Beautiful South London.....
As a 16-year-old, I object. I have, like, a big vocabulary, dude!
By the way... Catcher in the Rye is a wonderful and inspiring book.
While the writing style may grow tiresome for some people, I believe it adds to the tone, as well as defining the style of the writing. It helps create the image of a teenager who doesn't give a **** about tradition or conformity. In fact, he hates all the phoniness around him. All the high-horsed freaks who talk like Harding from One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest display phoniness in their language whereas Holden shows that we needn't use words no one understands to appear smart.
Oh... P.S. I love his ideas on Phoniness... it REALLY IS all around us.
Koa, I love your signature.
I KNOW that your average sixteen year old's vocabulary and grammer's got to be better than that. Aside from that, Holden was supposed to be 17 when he wrote it, recounting things that happened when he was 16. And I'm definately sticking up for British spelling ability. Just cause I love that country.
I once saw on tv a debate about which book better represented the voice of American rebellious youth - Catcher in the Rye or On the Road. Just wondering what you think about that.
Dick Diver, do you know any really good used book stores anywhere near central London? Or at least near an underground stop? If so can you give me directions? I'll probably get into London at least once more before I go home for the holidays.
Charing Cross Road is lined with used book shops. Also outside the National Film Theatre on the South Bank there are open air book stalls where you can just walk around and browse away to your hearts content.
Thanks Johnny
I can only concur with johnnyb7 - I'm so poor at the moment, it's either the library or shoplifting.:)
Sorry...I can't help it...I believe it's 'grammar', not 'grammer'...
I'm almost sure cos in my mind English words are listed using Italian reading rules...therefore I know how I'd read them if I didn't know English... therefore I remember how to spell them.
I've noticed how many little spelling mistakes English speakers do, because of the irregularity of the English spelling rules... At first I was shocked, then I realised how it works in their mind and noticed how easy it is to get it wrong
*throws fireworks to wake people up after this speech*
Hey about Holden...I once lent the book to a friend of mine, he read it all (quite rare for him), and liked it...and he's still wondering where the hell the ducks go when the lake is frozen (or whatever that question was ;))
lol Koa, it indeed IS "grammar" ;) :D
lol lol, still awake and with you there, and I got to the same conclusion myself, but without the Italian thingy, I know maybe ten or less Italian words
Does anyone know where the ducks go when the lake is frozen? ;) :D
or where the butterflies go when it rains?
the ducks fly south for the winter [I think. Maybe they just disappear into some weird parallel universe?], and the fish stay in the pond, but it's only frozen at the surface, of course. Maybe butterflies just search for shelter somewhere? i dont' think Judas is in hell either, but maybe I shouldn't say that. (?)
I have a friend with a pond. They feed thier ducks year round so they never fly away. Sometimes they are flying around and try to land on the ice and just splatter and skid across the lake. hehe. They dont really get hurt, it just looks funny.
But seriously, Ducks, along with most songbirds, fly south. They ususally end up in Mexico or souther US, depending on how cold it is that winter.
that sort of takes the wonder out of it, doesn't it?
sorry :)
that's ok. I like his idea of pretending to be mute. Sometimes I like to pretend I can't speak English. :)
LOL Faye :D, sometimes I don't even need to pretend :D ;)
It's pretty funny.. until they start getting desperate and giving me weird looks, then I go and TALK and they realise I can understand them. which sucks, because then I'm drawn into a -oh-no- conversation.
That's fun... I know some guys that stopped people asking for directions pretending to be tourists, and after the person struggled to explain for a while, they just said 'Ok guys, that way', in our dialect... :D
Sometimes I wonder how I'd feel if I couldn't read, and all these signs were nonsense to me...