From the Sand-man to Lines

I had heard of Freud before but had never read his work so this weeks reading was quite interesting to me. Freud is definitely very knowledgeable (as Lacan admits) and is also quite clear about what he believes. Something that stayed with me was the meaning of uncanny (heimlich) which can be both familiar and something kept out of sight or concealed. His example of Hoffman’s story The Sand-Man brought back memories of the Sand-man when I was a little girl. But, I can honestly say that this version of the Sand-man was very different than what I experienced as a child. My Sand-man actually helped us go to sleep by sprinkling magic sand on us, he didn’t come by, throw sand in our eyes, and take them out. Even when thinking about the Sand-man the song Mister Sandman by The Chordettes comes into mind:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcW0FNS1L8g)

Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream (bung, bung, bung, bung)


Make him the cutest that I've ever seen (bung, bung, bung, bung)


Give him two lips like roses and clover (bung, bung, bung, bung)


Then tell him that his lonesome nights are over.


Sandman, I'm so alone


Don't have nobody to call my own


Please turn on your magic beam


Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream.



(scat "bung, bung, bung, bung, ...")



Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream


Make him the cutest that I've ever seen


Give him the word that I'm not a rover


Then tell him that his lonesome nights are over.
Sandman, I'm so alone


Don't have nobody to call my own


Please turn on your magic beam


Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream.



(scat "bung, bung, bung, bung, ...")



Mr. Sandman (male voice: "Yesss?") bring us a dream


Give him a pair of eyes with a "come-hither" gleam


Give him a lonely heart like Pagliacci


And lots of wavy hair like Liberace


Mr Sandman, someone to hold (someone to hold)


Would be so peachy before we're too old


So please turn on your magic beam


Mr Sandman, bring us, please, please, please


Mr Sandman, bring us a dream.

In the song, Mr. Sand-man is asked to bring about a lovely dream about a boy. This “new” version is definitely uncanny to me and its interpretation by Freud is as well. I would hate to think what kind of eyes The Chordettes boy would bring….I suppose what struck me most about Freud is that he believes that most things refer back to a sexual nature which I am not so sure about. In the Sand-man, I understand but in the other examples sometimes I think he is stretching it a bit.

As I continued my readings, Deleuze and Guattari then led me to the wonderland (or maze…) of lines and plateaus. I understood where they were coming from in saying that a book was an assemblage but then as they went into lines, rhizomes, and plateaus, my mind went into Math mode where I was basically visualizing a plane with lines going everywhere and then this plateau. The lines are said to be concepts. Ok, I get that. But I feel like I need more examples to truly understand the whole thing because they believe that the rhizome has no beginning or end but something had to have started everything….so what about that? 

Oh to dream....

Near the end of Derrida's Of Grammatology, he delved a bit into Rousseau's idea of dreams ending  with a quote (on page 330) from Rousseau’s Book of Nature :

  

            “…the dreams of a bad night are given to us as philosophy. You will say I too am a dreamer; I admit it, but I do what others fail to do, I give my dreams as dreams, and leave the reader to discover whether there is anything in them which may prove useful to those who are awake. (76)”

The dreams of a bad night…. those are normally the ones people remember, right? They are clear, vivid, and don’t leave your side. I personally feel that dreams tend to linger on and perhaps Rousseau also felt that way. The lingering feeling causes you to then think of what caused them and why (leading to philosophy). I have tried to rationalize my dreams and have even had friends who kept a dream journal to see what to make of it but most of the time, I am (and they were) left with more questions than before.

We do know that dreams occur in the subconscious normally during the REM stage of the sleep cycle. You can’t control them, you can’t change them, in your mind they are present, real, and in the now. (Freud did a lot of research on dreams so if he were here he would probably be a better spokesperson than I but no worries.)

I did find it interesting that Rousseau thought that he only recounted his dreams as they were therefore leaving them up for interpretation. But how can we be sure Rousseau was able to do this successfully? Each time a dream is told, and retold, I feel that either you lose a bit of it or you seem to add to it… even when keeping a journal. It is very difficult trying to keep track of everything that occurred. So, I’m not sure if Rousseau was really able to do this in the end...but I guess I will leave that up to you guys…those who are awake.

Oh Mon Dieu....I mean Bourdieu,

After the discussion last week regarding signified and signifier, the meaning of a work, and even beauty…..(anne-claire J ). It was interesting to see the different take this week. It delved into much of what Moustapha was saying in that yes there may be an underlying meaning behind certain things but in the end it is us, the audience, the people buying the books, the people reading the works, that interpret it as we see fit. The view that we take on is not only influenced by our experiences and knowledge but lack there. Not many people, including myself, may understand the works of many well-known authors in literature. It is not for lack of trying but perhaps lack of previous experience (in my case… I will own up to that), lack of education, or even lack of interest.

Either way, it is us who decide what is great and what is not….of course, one could argue that there are other external factors that come into play, especially now of days. With all the hoop-la in the world, it seems that many authors have gained a large amount of exposure and fame due to their financial benefactors and supporters. Such attention can turn the sales of a book from 100s to 1,000s to millions in little to no time at all. Of course, this then leads to the questions: Do the sales of a book determine its value against other books? Which then leads to…what is the value of a book and how is it truly established?

I feel that Bourdieu would say that the value of the book relies on people’s tastes, which are sometimes shaped by the social order they have created for themselves or have come to accept as truth…. or am I way off?

I found his take on social order to be very interesting. I can admit that I myself have come to seeing things in certain ways due to personal experiences within society. For example, while working at a private school in Houston, I came to learn what real “designer” bags, shoes, and clothes looked like and meant to the mothers of the children attending our school. And, I even witnessed many instances in which parents spoke differently to one another after looking at artificial things such as one’s attire, car, etc. They seemed to have categorized other people into social classes lower than their own. All I can say is that I hope never to be a member of such a group…or am I part of one and don’t know it Bourdieu? 

Theory's first test...

After having completed the readings, I must say that I was a bit overwhelmed with so much new information. New being the key word…but little by little some topics began to make sense where as some did not. I now understand what Professor Frelick was referring to about trying on new “lenses”.

The most difficult part for me was understanding the complexities and intricacies of the text itself.  I suppose one could say I experienced the “shock effect” Shklovsky talked about (even though he was referring to poetry). I did like the examples Shklovsky used from Tolstoy to explain defamiliarization. I have never read any of Tolstoy’s works but was very impressed by his descriptions and different ways of expressing himself within the excerpts (ie – the horses view on property). It’s interesting to see authors express ideas in different ways through the written word.

I also liked Foucault’s take on the role of language as mentioned by Rivkin and Ryan in Introduction: The Implied Order: Structuralism; “Foucault notices that what counts as knowledge changes with time, and with each change, the place of language in knowledge is also modified” (54).

I feel like this holds true to this day and for years to come. Just look at how much we have achieved in such little time. Before moving to Vancouver (as of three weeks ago), I was working in the Advancement department of an international private school that taught students starting from PK3- high school. It was astonishing to see how much children could pick up at such a young age. By the time they entered first grade, they knew the alphabet, they knew how to count, add, subtract, spell, and read in two (2) languages. I don’t know about you but when I was that young…all I did was learn the alphabet and color. What counts as knowledge has indeed changed over time or perhaps it is the act of science/research that has proven that human beings are capable of more than what we once were.  

Further into the readings, I was able to see and kind of understand the meaning of signified and signifier but unfortunately, I was a bit confused when it came to Barthes and the term myth. Is it that myth ties everything together…the common thread?

Hopefully one of you guys can clear that up for me. I am optimistic and hope my “lenses” won’t be as foggy in the readings to come.