Not so Close Analysis of that BUDDHIST NOVEL. Or Buddha of Surburbia

This will be an exercise in close analysis and (hopefully) interpretation, maybe even resulting in some poetic flares and explosive prose.

Where can we begin from such a hectic book? I guess the sexual revolution would be a base point, whereby the world thus discovered the intrinsic pleasure in the opposite sex, and/or their own genitals. I guess the Queen and her conservative pomp-naught had previously locked down all freedom and expression, effectually banning all of the not-so-conventional type, when suddenly someone ventured underground and noticed that breasts were to be admired, not hidden (and thus he spread the ‘infectious diseases’ outward, probably from the tip of his own very cock). As a result, the Buddha, or God, can claim “Eva’s apparent closeness” as a sufficient reason to herald the imminent breakup of the family.

Then perhaps this leads to the discussion regarding the rotting perversion of the institute of the family. When morals dip low, so does the bench of the family standard – for not too soon, it was sunk. Page 69, the young Karim is deeply wanting to subvert the family, rock the boat further to unstabilize the convention (“I wanted to encourage Dad and Eva to get together.”) I wonder if Karim’s every wish will come true in this book (Suprisingly I’m writing this blog post-reading the entire novel, and I still am lost as to where I can conduct a three paragraph blog).

And then there is Karim’s eventual and painful transition from a “young hippie” to something else. At the beginning, all he would do after-school would be “going home to [their] mothers, to our rissoles and chips and tomato sauce, to learn French words and to pack our football gear for tomorrow” (70); this triviality of his schooling life resembles the nonchalance and innocence of ours: there was a shield protecting us from the outside world.

But is Charlie the outside world, outside the nest of innocent Karim? Is he a byproduct of the outside and intoxicated London-esque world? Where does Jamila fit in this?

As seen, this blog is surely not a close analysis, but a broad outlook and summation of the novel, so continue with me, and we’ll see where it chooses to end.

One event that is particularly flagrant and you, as my reader, should take great particular heed is the whole choice by Jamila to flamingly resign herself to a life with arranged marriage with that fat-piece-of-wad Changez (which by the way, remains one of the novel’s most loveable and insightful dopes). At the time when she makes the decision, on page 77, Jamila chooses to sacrifice her life and succuumb to her father’s beckon. That doesn’t remain the situation, for on page 82, Karim interprets the event as a “rebellion against rebellion,” which is later modeled by Jamila’s multiple sexual exchanges with Karim, baby with Simon, and love for her woman, Joanna.

I have viewed Jamila as the most correct person in the novel. She was an observant actor of whom Karim always turned to for advice. Her maintenance and constant outspoken input molded Karim in ways unbeknownst to other characters: Page 108, she exclaims the profusion of “people needing sympathy and care, oppressed people, like our people in racist [Britian], who face violence every day” which would later foreshadow Karim’s involvement with the Pyke movement and race theater.

Empassioned, her character spoke the word of the poor.

And Charlie! O how Charlie ran ahead of Karim (he breaks ground, staying one step ahead of Karim) until Karim’s final departure towards the end of the book.

Probably the most depressing move was Karim’s ignorance towards his mother and his little brother Allie. I counted and Allie was mentioned probably only four times throughout the novel. But Allie was the symbol for dropped Indian heritage, and English or Western acceptance (he was involved in style, and not of religion, of Italian and France, and not of Anwar’s flat), whereas Karim was battling over the dual identity.

I only choose to describe characters because that is how the novel was presented. As an adventure of X amount of Characters dropped into a shifty, shady time period.. .and their results are the novel of Hanif Kureshi.

Digging

As Heaney depicts his hardworking grandfather and father through out his poem Digging, one is able to see the values that are viewed as significant in his life. One is able to see that work ethic is moral issue that the Heaney family holds to a great value. This is a very important part of Heaney's life because he uses the symbol of a spade, which is able to produce all that is needed for the family from wealth to the ability to substain life with food. As this spade is used in a symbolic way, one is able to see that a pen is the spade in Heaney's life as he wants to be able to support his family and produce children with the same ethicsaas his father has engrained with him as well as supported him in things he has done. One Ideology that many people dont think about is the fact that Heaney views his father and grandfather to a mythical stance or as heros. I would argue that Heaney in fact represents a lot of these characteristics as he presents many values that he finds creditible in his father and Grandfather.

That 'Literating Spade

"Under my window, a clean rasping sound
When the spade sinks into gravelly ground:
My father, digging. I look down"

The image of Seamus inside, at his window, looking down upon his father digging into the "gravelly ground," reinforces the main contrast of the poem: Seamus works inside with a pen, while his father works outside with a spade. The alliteration in the stanza, "spade sinks" and "gravelly ground," is connected with the description of his father working below in the field, not with him at the window writing. This might seem odd: alliterations are the tools of authors, not diggers. Why then use them to describe his father?
Looking at his other clear use of alliteration in the poem in stanza 7, we see again that not to describe his writing but to describe his father's digging is alliteration used. "Squelch and slap of soggy peat" and "curt cuts" describe the world outside, not inside, and by using a literary tool to describe his father's work Seamus connects the pen more intimately with the spade. As the spade is reaching into the context of his writing, so his writing form is reaching into the digging of a spade. By applying his literary skills to the description of his father's trade, Seamus further defines the link between pen and spade, so that as the pen can dig, so can the spade alliterate.

Having fun Digging with Seamus Heaney

If one wants to go for basics on the topic of sound influencing content, then one of the simplest approaches to take with “Digging” would be the overall tone of the poem itself. Hinted at slightly in the beginning, yet taking full form from line 15 onward, the poem’s tone is definitely that of a ode or a fond memory of two very important idols in the authors life, especially his Grandfather, whose awesome digging skills are the main subject of lines 17-24. And, as we pointed out in class when we discussed this poem, while the author cannot continue in the digging traditions of his father and grandfather as they dug to keep the past alive, Heaney states that he can still continue their proud digging in his own way, by writing. This poem gives both of them plenty of well deserved respect from Seamus Heaney’s memories and judging from the sound of the lines and fluidity of the poem, he had a lot of fun in writing these fond memories down on paper to share with the rest of the world.

Pound Lecture.

I'm a little late on this, but here goes.

I didn't really enjoy the talk as much as I would have like to. I found slightly--empty. I was hoping for an in-depth discussion about Pound's teaching carreer and how he was accepted in this small town around the turn of the century. But, unfortunately, little was really discussed on this matter. The professor didn't seem to know too awful much about the details of his school career other than that he was quite bohemian in nature and not as conservative as many of the fellow professors would have liked him to be. Most of lecture was on how his months in Crawfordsville affected his writings later in his life. I found some of his findings interesting, but to tell the truth, they weren't groundbreaking, and frankly, some of them were a slight stretch. All in all, I think his first five to ten minutes were the most interesting, the rest was just... filler. he may have been more interesting if we would have had him in a more personal setting, but as we discussed in class, that didn't seem to help really at all.

O, Ezra .. Where has the art gone?

O, Ezra .. Where has the art gone?

I will not rant on for another second,
Or wasted description, for pictures are not pure,
Muddled only .. when fighting with nonsense.

O Ezra, memories of your trip to us could
Not be Analyzed
Not be Discussed
Talked on about, talked around about, the sounds of how,
You were misplaced on
Our campus walls -- we walled you in.

But that is home to you?
And that is important to you?
For Paris was not the cultural center, and neither was Crawfordsville, how true!

Even today.
Enough already,
with draining your dead corpse of its thoughts,
I am sick of hearing mongrels discuss (with smirks!!) your talented limitations.

And who can compare to you, manifested in your red scarlet robe of Images and
Language, Rhythm and Rhyme,
For even you said,
"Pay no attention to the criticism of men who have never themselves written a notable work."


-- This poem was in response to the gentleman's speech about Pound. I know that he was not critical of Pound or his work, but nevertheless I was deeply disturbed by his blather, critics in general, and their misplacement of the artistic valor of others.

Pound At Home

The title "Pound at Home" for Dr. James Longenbach's lecture is perfect. The lecture focused on how Ezra Pound found solace and his sense of home, when he was alone and as far away as possible from his native Idaho. Longenbach argues that "home," for Pound, meant being someplace where he was with others of his own kind--Artists interested in putting their life's work to creating another renaissance, a renaissance of the renaissance as Longenbach puts it. Indeed, it seems Pound's lifelong ambition was to rejuvenate western culture, to remember the past but also feel its layers, to embed the past into the texture of the present. All the while, "Pound was stuck in a world that refused to acknowledge the poets power to make the world a better place." Thus, he was at home spreading his renaissance, when he was the most alone. He was never in exile, Pound was at home in Paris, London, Rapallo, even Crawfordsville. He was at home when he was spreading his dream, and if you look at it that way and consider he did that all his life , Pound was the luckiest man alive.

Longenbach on Ezra Pound

Professor Longenbach's lecture "Pound at Home: The Crawfordsville State of Mind" filled in some blank spots in my knowledge of Ezra Pound's brief tenure at Wabash. While I knew the story of the "lady-gent impersonator," Longenbach's rendition opened my mind and paved the way for an interesting, and at times humorous, lecture/discussion of Pound. It was interesting to read from "Three Cantos II," knowing that it takes place in our very own Crawfordsville. The story of Fred Vance, in the poem, is intriguing because, before I read it, I had been under the impression that Pound did not like Crawfordsville (which he really DIDN'T) and had no friends here. Moreover, the poem draws connections between Vance and Pound: in Pound's eyes, both he and Vance were "noble" failures, and both lived in a place they didn't choose (Crawfordsville), dreaming—not living—their respective "Renaissances." What I found most interesting about the lecture was that Pound associated the "Crawfordsville state of mind" with good writing; it was only when he was in that "miserable" state of mind that he could suffer enough to write something of any value, and Pound could only get into such a state while he was in Crawfordsville, London, or Paris. Venice, for example, offered him no misery and, thus, nothing about which to write. Lastly, I was also interested in Pound's maxim "make it new" and the fact that he used language in a way that made common translations fresh and exciting (Old English in "Canto I," from a Latin translation of a Greek translation). I wonder if we lose much when we read it in modern English; this was one aspect that Longenbach did not discuss, and I only JUST realized that it would have been a good place for elaboration/elucidation.

Ezra Pound Lecture

The Ezra Pound lecture by Mr. James Longenbach (forgive me if I misspelled his last name) was a pleasant surprise to me. My attention was quickly captured by Professor Hudson’s introduction of Pound and Mr. Longenbach’s subsequent facts and findings. I was most surprised to hear about Pound’s exile-esque way of life, which sort of hit a cord with me considering I just did a paper of the pros and cons of the life of an exile for my Postcolonial Literature and Theory course. What I really liked about the presentation as a whole is the possibility of placing all of Pound’s poetry into a singular volume and calling it the Artistic Biography or Ezra Pound as each poem in one way or another illustrates a key moment in his life right up until his death (as I realized with Contos 20 which I read after the lecture). What I find kind or ironic and sad is how little Pound thought of himself and his accomplishments throughout his life. While he never achieved the “Renaissance” utopia he dreamt of his entire life, he is still a revered author and one of the greatest literary minds of our age with a large list of accomplishments and places traveled, including here at Wabash. This lecture helped to instill this thought in my head and actually feel sorry for the poor guy. If only he could see today just how much of a profound affect his works have had on the literary community and English courses everywhere. All in all, it was a hell of a good time. Good work Mr. James.

A Flimmaker's Apocalypse

Since I leaning towards doing my final paper of Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse now, I figured I'd do a bit of long awaited research into the making of the latter. I found in the library a 1991 documentary film comprised of homemade footage from the time Coppola and his wife spent in Vietnam making the film. Let me tell you, if HoD and Apocalypse Now are both stories about men going made and confronting their own demons in the darkness, then this story fits right in with that little genre of story telling. The filming process, as it turns out, was hell. It took almost three years of filming to get a properly finished cut, the one that made it to theaters. And during those three years, Coppola was at odds with everyone, screenwriters, actors, the film studios, all because the constant changes in story and direction nearly sent, or rather did send, Coppola over the edge. An interesting sidestory is the filming of the openign sequence, where Martin Sheen as Willard dances crazily around his room, toiling in anguish. This sequence was filmed while Sheen was still a heavy drinker and smoker, all of his reactions in the scene, even the unexpected breaking of the mirror, are all genuinely real and not scripted. A perfect example of confronting ones own demons. And that's just the beginning of the many side stories that plauged the films production. So many, I can't put them all in this one blog. You just have to check it out for yourself.

The name of the film is "Heart of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse" and it is on our VHS rack in Lily Library. I highly recommend it for anyone who loves the film and wants to know just how hectic is was to get made. No disappointments here.

Penance in Paris, London, and the Trenches

In Orwell's writing and life I think we see a better reaction to colonialism than that presented by O'Brien, Conrad, McKibben's analysis and Achebe's criticisms. Like O'Brien and Conrad, he lived in the fields of colonialism, serving in Burma a post that showed to him the "futility of white man's presence in the East." However, in contrast to the two mentioned above, Orwell seems more morally and intellectually offended by his country's occupation of the East, and because of this reception molds his future life to, in a way, pay penance for the Burmese woes. Instead of calling the rich to give to the poor or lamenting the poor in public speeches or writings, he seeks to understand their situation and so falls willingly into poverty. He trades a comfortable life for a "down and out" toil in Paris and London.
We see a similar move by Churchill of comprimising his comfort and luxury to relate and justify himself to the people when, after his failed military plan turned into a massacre, he enlisted in the trenches. Such was his penance. Such is real empathy - not to damn privilege, but to willingly forgo it and so, by choice, live a life without it.

Orwell Vs. Churchill

The Documentary that was presented enlighted its audience to very profound comparison and contrast between one of the greatest authors of all time and one of the greatest leaders of all time. It was evident that while many people today view these two as great, in their own respects, it was not the overwelming majority as their popularity grew in their respective time frames. Orwell was seen as to far fetch and radical where Churchill was to traditionally based, yet both of their theories were able to coincide almost uncompetitevly. Both of these men were able to produce greatness through too completely different mind sets. This is where Orwell and Churchill are able to be compared. Both men through their own vehicles are able to establish great common support and are able to establish belief systems that allow for them to succeed.

The Two Winstons

From the movie, I learned a great deal about the two Winstons. On one hand there was Churchill, who even though made mistakes was able to lead England through a rough period of war. Then there is Orwell, who influenced England through his writings. One thing I found fascinating was the savior of England Churchill. Even though he went through upsets in his wrongful decisions, he was able to get back up and stay strong leading the English. Great men become better through learning from their mistakes. I also found that Orwell was a self made accomplishment. Quite the opposite of Churchill's lavish childhood, Orwell came from a poor neighborhood and later established himself as a great writer.

The Two Winstons

I was surprised at the parallels between Churchill and Orwell's lives, especially in their early years. Both of their boarding school days seem to have had a profound affect on their lives and future actions. Although both had clearly different views on this experience. The movie demonstrated that Churchill became fascinated with history in school, while Orwell was the opposite, he despised the pointlessness of memorizing dates. After school their parallel lives continued with their first failed attempts in the military or police, and then they both dropped out of society in a way. Orwell literally, and Churchill forced out due to his military miscues. I expected this intersection to be the last in their lives, as Churchill eventually becomes one of the greatest figure heads of a nation, and Orwell an author appalled by big brother government. From what little of knew of these two men's histories and their writings, I expected them to have an ideological clash at the very least. Needless to say I was very surprised when they were able to come together in a way, through their mutual fear/hatred for communism and socialism, ideologies taking over and destroying continental Europe at the time.

The Two Winstons

The Two Winstons was a lot more enjoyable then many of the other documentaries that we have seen in class. First of all, one of the reasons why I enjoyed the video so much was the fact that 1984 is one of my favorite books. I first read this sophomore year in high school and I still find myself going back and reading it. So being able to learn more about the author really made me pay attention. I thought it was quite weird that two men from different backgrounds live the beginning of their live parallel to each other. But it was their families that made them go in different directions. What I mean by this is that Churchill’s family was rich and a lot better off then Orwell’s. This is what led to Churchill to politics and Orwell to writing.

The Two Winstons

The Two Winstons presented George Orwell and Winston Churchill in a way that I never would have pictured them before. I knew of each man's importance individually, but I had no idea that they were connected in even the most remote way. It was interesting to see how both men came from similar circumstances to hold similar ideals yet approached things in such different ways. Both men came from middle to upper class families and were sent to boarding school for a large portion of their childhood. Both men also grew up to care a great deal abou the British well-being. However, they tackled the issue in different ways. Churchill dove right into the fray and got involved with politics. He eventually climbed the ladder and was elected prime minister. From this position, he continuously strove to improve the British condition. Orwell chose to educate the population about the negative possibilities out there through his literature. This was a much less direct approach, but it was none the less effective.

Dos Winstons - Double the Trouble, Cancel Out the Trouble, or Wicked what?

Dos Winstons - Double the Trouble, Cancel Out the Trouble, or Wicked what?


Hmm. I have to say, regardless of others and their opinions, that those two men are modern Heroes. Their vivacity -- quite extraordinary.

However, as the film pointed out, they were inevitably on the other side of the fence … with regards to even their own homeland. One, a pudgy looking bulldog and the other a sharp snappy willow branch.

But that description fits them quite adequately: One relied on the cuff of his sleeve and the brute power of such…. Which was inevitably referring to his spoken voice - the loud boom. The other, waited and took the quieter approach, silent until bam -- inspiration flooded his pen and boom .. On the paper.

What was quite interesting however was the fact they were on opposite sides …
One would have given himself to the Motherland, knowing with every fiber in his body that Mother England was the only thing stopping the world from falling.
And the other would hope that the Motherland would fall, knowing also with every fiber that England was totalitarian in other respects, holding the Imperialist Empire as she did.

One wrote Novels and parables, the other Rhetoric and tirades.

One however, was born before and died after the other…. Mostly all the while in the public eye.
The other died early and was born late… the death occuring slowly, coldly and silently in the Cotswold Sanitorium (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/).

Both would work often with pen in hand. But only one descended purposefully to the depths of the poverty, so that he may truly acknowledge "how the other half lives."

Both would change the world. But only one stood up bravely against all those ((in charge of his nation)) solely for her defense … So that Her golden flag should proudly flap.

In the end, I ask… where they are Double the Helping, Cancel out in smithereens in their Graveyards, or Divinely what…?

Canings Without the Promise of the Perks

I thought that it was very interesting that both men went to boarding schools very young and had little to no contact with their parents. Think about that, To have a child and then, basically, sent them away and hope the mold to become a good person. It is a wonder to me how successful boarding schools really are. It was also very interesting how the film marvelled Orwells accomplishments and brought a shinning light to them, but with Churchill I felt that they down-played him until his infamous speeches. It was interesting because the narrator said that both boys "were put to the cane", but Orwell had them without the promise of the perks. The perks are suppose to shape a man for the real world, as it did for both Churchill and Orwell. The great part about comparing these two, was as the documentary suggested both Winston and Orwell appealled to their respective classes. Churchill was the aristocarat, and Orwell was the middle class.

The Two Winstons Reaction

The Two Winston’s was a pretty interesting story of two respectable men who are on different sides of the social spectrum. In a way it was a classic team up of sorts as both men wound up lending their skills to fight a common cause in order to protect the country their both hold dear. Yes, their methods and allegiances were different, Churchill to the high officials and Orwell to lower class society, but in the end it was both of their amazing skills that brought England into a new and prosperous age. I’ll agree with Nolan on this being far superior to “The Empire of Good Intentions.” If we had more men like Churchill and Orwell influencing England at the time of that documentary, the world would be a far better place.

The Two Winstons

The chapter of Simon Schama's History of Britain entitled The Two Winstons essentially speaks to varying perspectives of British history in the early 20th century. Through the lens of two very different, though equally historically focused men, The Great Commoner Winston Churchill and the acclaimed novelist George Orwell, Schama presents a tumultuous history from the both the top and the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy. These two men helped to shape the history they were to live-- "reading it, writing it, making it." From Churchill we see the Britain of the political elite-- snobby, sure, and intensely patriotic. From Orwell we see the under side of the British Empire, ruthless imperialism and impoverished destitution and these notions become evident to Orwell while he acts as a police officer in India. Orwell notes, "I realized the hollowness and futility of the white mans dominion in the East...and how I was an absurd puppet." But eventually, the two men would come to agree on one thing at least, the need to defend England against tyranny, oppression, and slavery in the form of Nazi Germany and the need for victory at all costs. Schama concludes the program with a thought on history...its not meant to revere the dead, rather, its meant to inspire the living. And I think that is the essential purpose of his chapter. Much like Orwell's detestation of boarding school peers for not understanding the meaning behind the history they were so apt to memorize, Schama expects his readers/viewers to realize the importance of history...not on the past, but on the present and the future. To steal a line from Schama, "I think that neither Churchill nor Orwell would have minded that very much, and as a matter of fact, neither do I."

The Two Winstons

I found this chapter of “History of Britain” to be a lot more enjoyable than the last. The comparison of Winston Churchill and George Orwell at first surprised me, but then I found myself seeing and looking for ways that they were alike. I found it fascinating that two people that were polar opposites had so much in common. In my mind both Orwell and Churchill were so alike because they both lived their history. When Orwell wanted to write “Road to Wigan Road”, he went out and experienced the coal mines and he threw himself into his research, experiencing what the characters in the book were experiencing. Winston Churchill did the same when he was fired from the position of First Lord of the Admiralty; he joined the front line and fought in the trenches during World War One. Both men reinvented themselves throughout their lifetimes. In the end of their lives they both outgrew their own godlike lives. Orwell escaped it, while Churchill embraced it. The two Winstons opened my eyes to the real people of the real people, not just the godlike figures.

The Two Winstons

This movie was somewhat enjoyable. I enjoyed the way they made parallels between Orwell and Churchill. It was fascinating how their lives were oddly alike, but also very different. They seemed to be paralleled opposites of each other, which was very interesting to see in the film. Both men had wealthy parents, Churchill's was royalty, a Duke, and Orwell's father was an opium mogul. Both men went off to boarding school. However, Churchill was very interested in History, to go as far as it was nearly his religion. Orwell wasn't that interested in History, or anything else for that matter. Where Churchill was excelling in school, Orwell couldn't care less. He was indifferent and became slightly rebellious in his academic apathy. Churchill pulled his strings and got to be in the action of WWI, but Orwell couldn't, and felt a guilt for not experiencing the horrors of war. While Churchill was working as the First Lord of the Admiralty the first time, Orwell was in Burma, working for the police. He defected from the police to become an author, and became a homeless tramp to gain experiences to write about. Likewise, Churchill's fame was dwindling, and his party was tired of his politics. Having been demoted, Churchill began to write books himself. Oddly enough, Orwell went to Spain during this time to help train rebels fighting against the fascist socialists taking over Spain.
Their entire life interetwined in an oddly parallel way, at least, through the eyes of the movie. The film did a great job of comparing the two men, though the similarities and intertwinement may have been exaggerated.

Response to "The Two Winstons"

Watching the "Two Winstons" section of Schama's documentary, the first significant idea that grabs my attention is that of the Chinese opium "habit." I use quotes here only to emphasize that "habit" may not exactly be the correct word; by using this word, and failing to elaborate, the documentary puts a more-than-deserved negative slant on the Chinese, failing to mentioned that it was the British and Indian governments that instigated the Chinese addiction to opium in the first place. Once opium was officially outlawed in China, and many Chinese were already addicted, Britain and India continued to sneak it in, which was infuriating, as the Chinese government (and many commoners) found opium use to be immoral and unhealthy, an alarming trend that needed to be eradicated. However, the illegal British/Indian triangular trade with China—in which the British could avoid coming into contact with the Chinese at all by using Indian ships to do their "dirty work"—continued for years, and this lead to the Opium Wars. See John Fairbank and Merle Goldman's China: A New History (2006; Belknap Press) for more/specifics, especially pages 196 to 200. Jonathan Spence is also very good.

With that out of the way, I should probably focus on the actual topic of the documentary: Winston Churchill and Winston Smith. Honestly, the "Two Winstons" aspect of the documentary is difficult to follow. Eric Blair and "George Orwell" (a pen name) seem to be interchangeable in the documentary, and this makes the viewing experience rather tedious. Perhaps I missed Schama's first allusion that Eric Blair WAS, in fact, George Orwell; as such, the realization that Blair and Orwell are one in the same needs to be made clearer, and from the very beginning. I often find myself wondering who Schama is talking about. Who is this Eric? I also find myself wondering why the documentary strays away from the Winstons. In fact, it does not (well, not really, anyway), and I do not realize this until at least twenty minutes into the documentary. Upon realizing that Blair is Orwell, and Orwell is Blair, I further realize that the documentary provides essential historical/biographical insight into Orwell's writings; had I had time to read the optional Orwell assignment, this information might have been vital and/or enlightening. As such, for me, the documentary merely provides historical insight into British history and biographical insight into Winston Churchill (e.g. ideas about writing and democracy), as well as an introduction to Orwell, who I now know was born Eric Blair. In all, the documentary provides a fairly in-depth look at Churchill (e.g., I did not know that the "majority of his party" mistrusted him, at least during the evacuation of children), but it seems that identity confusion hurts the Orwell aspect of the film, making the "Two Winstons" connection more difficult to see/understand (at least for me, that is). Furthermore, in Schama's treatment of the Chinese as well as that of America, his bias as an Englishman definitely shows—which Kyle pointed out.

Dueling Winstons

While I think this episode of the documentary is slightly more agreeable than the last I still have some minor complaints. For example, the obvious glorification of Churchill and Orwell is perhaps merited. I think it is perhaps distorting however, because the build up of the British state of desperation in WWII only to mention in passing the involvement of America in the war and in a disdainful way upsets me slightly and makes me think these movies were made solely for the glorification of Britain under the guise of fair historical treatment. I kept waiting for the mention of American involvement and the result was one passing and pejorative comment "if Britain had to be the unwilling sidekick of America in order to fight off the oppression of fascism then so be it." This statement hurt me as an American citizen. First it made it sound like world war II was fundamentally a British conflict and in effect their "crusade against evil" and that American involvement was an inconvenient dulling of British pride that had to be swallowed. With all these grandiose description of Churchill as the pinnacle of British culture and the savior of Britain in a time of need you would think that a few words could be spared for American involvement in the war. It is not difficult to believe that without American involvement in WWII Hitler would not have been taken down, and yet the movie seemed to make the statement that without Winston Churchill Hitler would not have been brought down. Even though it is a documentary on British history rather than American I still hate the slighted way the movie treated this. How long does disdain for American involvement in World War II have to last?

Passage to India

This movie is significant especially in the realm of indigenous people film. As we can see through out the movie steretypes of people are being portrayed. You have you indigenous people who fight of the oppression as well as the contradictory group who see nothing wrong with what is going on. This all changes however when the young girl accuses the man of rape, as we then see all the people who are being oppressed engage in a "revolt" or overthrowing of the oppression. As man scholars would announce this as a very traditional film, one is able to see that many problems still occur in a modern day society.

Gaelic

Patrick Long
Professor Brewer
Gaelic Passage
3/17/08

The Importance of Gaelic

Pg.44 "It really was rapid... Gaelic of all is well-nigh unintelligible.”

This passage is relevant as our author presents Gaelic in a very negative tone. Our author is presumably from Ireland yet during this story, he points to Ireland original language as jargon or “swearing drunkenly.” At this point our author feels that the language that was spoken by his ancestors and the people of the west is nothing more than a drunken man swearing at him with no relevance or systematic thought. This quickly turns as in the very next sentence our author develops Gaelic as a very difficult language to understand and to speak fluently. By doing this the audience is able to see that while the author feels that Gaelic is not so much the fact that it sounds like a drunk blabby it is the fact that Gaelic is very hard to understand and unfortunately if you are not used to this form of language you are going to be very frustrated and unable to understand. This is when our author makes the biggest stance of all. He states “Good Gaelic is difficult but that the best Gaelic is well-nigh unintelligible. Here our author furthers his stance that if you have no encounters and are not used to the language that even with someone who speaks good Gaelic you are going to be lost and with someone who is fluent you are going to have no recollection of anything that is being said.
The question however still remains, is Gaelic any different than any other second or third language that a person is trying to learn and that has very little training in the art of language. For instance many students are forced to take a second language even if they have not intent on ever studying it any further than a first year student. But do they still not have these same instances of struggle. I can remember looking back on much of my Spanish training and thinking that I have no idea what this person is saying yet I had been studying the language for three or four years. I can understand where our author is coming from as our story teller is presented as a man from Ireland with little experience with his native language. So inherently without studying the language our story teller is obviously going to find someone speaking Gaelic to “swear drunkenly.”

Blog On Orwell. Or A Lesson In A Beauty.

Blog On Orwell. Or A Lesson In A Beauty. (PROFESSOR BREWER: I READ BOTH PIECES, and ENDEAVORED TO COMMENT ON "SHOOTING AN ELEPHANT" USING ORWELL's GUIDELINES AS DESCRIBED ON PAGE 92 OF "POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE")

As an author, Orwell was simplistic. I scrutinized his style and hoped to find something out of the ordinary: nothing came. But, on the contrary, perhaps the fact that Orwell navigates without a 'superfluity' in style is a style, in and of itself. He was, after all, one of the twentieth century's keystone authors.

But maybe he attained his title for other reasons. As an author, Orwell would elucidate elusive points for his audiences, maneuvering political and social impasses with ease. As the imperialist "elephant" slaughterer, he paralleled every Englishman at that time, squeezed betwixt the grip of the Queen and the glares of the natives, wherever they may be.

Why didn't he slaughter a tiger, or some predator? Why did Orwell's story deem him to attack a useful and "costly piece of machinery?" (81) If it had been a predator, then Orwell would have been useful and a grace to the Burmese natives. But that wasn't what Orwell attempted to say: He sent for the rifle initially, only to "defend [himself] - if necessary" (81). The elephant wasn't a 'threat,' either. Though he was influenced by a state of "must," the elephant, at the time that Orwell chose to shoot him, was passive, or "took no notice if you left him alone, but he might charge if you went too close to him" (82).

Therefore, as I propose to you, perhaps Orwell was writing to truly espouse once again the inherent damage of his presence as an 'imperialist'. The underlying protest against the "dirty work of [the] Empire" (79) was modeled by Orwell's choice, as an author, to force Orwell, the narrator, to shoot a working Burmese elephant. The author's choice was conscious and deliberate, and suggesting that the Empire was intervening incorrectly outside of its jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, there is evidence suggesting Orwell wrote not for the above reason, but rather to outline another side of his dilemma: the Indians' reciprocal and reactive psychological pressure. As the piece began, the narrator Orwell waged an internal war, battling the Indians' devilish, antagonistic ways and "sneering yellow faces of young men" (79). Likewise, leading up to the point of noticing the crowd (bottom of 81) he was a rational actor, resolute in his decision in opting "not to shoot [the elephant]" (81).

Afterwards however, in the aside seemingly interspersed throughout the next page , Orwell discloses the truism that "every white man's life in the East was one long struggle" (82). This is elemental. His life was a battle, and after noticing the immensity of the crowd, had to "act like a sahib… resolute [and] knowing his own mind" (82). But only if Orwell, the narrator, could know his own mind, then perhaps the elephant, wouldn't have died "very slowly and in great agony" (83).

For my own bewilderment, I pose this question to you: Does this jostle the mind of another author we have read? Is not Orwell reminiscent of Conrad?

The Poor Mouth

In the opening chapters of this book, an audience member could place themself in the grandfathers house, sitting on the big red footstole, listening to him tell stories about his life. In the opening chapter one recieves a very interesting background of our story teller. One understands that our storyteller is from Ireland and that he speaks in Gaelic, or the traditional language of Ireland. We also learn that he is brought up by his grandfather and his mother on their farm. This chapter sets the presedent for many more of the stories that will further develop our storytellers life.
In Chapter six one is able to see many of the traits allow the audience to see the time in which our storyteller is presenting his lifetime. The audience must note that our storyteller is living during a time that women are deemed to be insufficient to men and objects for marriage rather than an object of love. This is most easily to be seen when our storyteller tells the story of when he asks his father where the best women are going to be found. He then discovers that the best women will be in the rose bush and he quickly attends to find a perfect women for him.
Through out this novel, one is able to see that the author is trying to portray the life of a young man in Ireland through out the turn of the century. Many of the stories seem to have a brief moment of sattirism in them yet, one can still see many of the same traits in a grandfather to grandson story today. As the life of our storyteller develops, so does the understanding of an Irish life, atleast as it is presented to the audience.

Poor Mouth

It may be relatively obvious that the Poor Mouth is intended to be humorous, but despite its obvious nature, the use of humor is very important to the book. It is used to probe into the minds of the truly Gaelic to reveal their thoughts and feelings about their heritage and to poke fun at the unrelenting Gaelic sense of pride. The most prominent theme in the book is the Gaelic mindset that everything that can go wrong will go wrong. Irony is probably the most effective means of highlighting this theme, and is seen at virtually every twist and turn of the story.

There are innumerable examples of the Gaelic everything that can go wrong will go wrong mentality, but a few are the most obvious and useful. The first is the Gaelic feis. It is intended to be a huge celebration, but although there is celebrating, a number of people die. Eight died simply from dancing too much. This shows that even in times of celebration the Gaels can not escape their fate. A second example is Bonaparte O'Coonassa's, or Jams O'Donnell, marriage. Again, when things are going great tragedy strikes. He is finally married and even has a baby boy, and basically out of no where his wife and child die. A third example is O'Coonassa's fate at the end of the story. He becomes very rich when he finds the gold pieces hidden in the mountain with Maeldoon O'Poenassa, but he ends up being falsely accused and convicted of murdering an English man and gets 29 years in prison.

Although to a lesser extent, the book also makes fun of the strong sense of Gaelic pride. The author makes fun of Gaelic names giving every character a surname of O'blanknassa. He also repeatedly points out that the native land of these Gaelics is a place that no one would ever want to call home. And he makes fun of the fact that all Gaels are dirt poor. But he also gives a sense that the Gaelic people are content with their situation and that they basically own it because it is part of what makes them Gaelic. If they were to escape the hardships and find prosperity, then they would no longer be able to call themselves truly Gaelic.

George Orwell's Elephant

The Shooting of an Elephant by George Orwell turned out to be a very fascinating read. I enjoyed the beginning the most, in which the soldier (I wasn’t sure if this was Orwell himself or the event of a fellow soldier he happened to witness) goes into detail about his being torn between his duty to the empire and his massive envy for the people who hate him the most. It is one of the first texts I’ve read in this course in which the British Empire is badmouthed from within for a change and not sugarcoated with supposed goodness a la Empire of Good Intentions. But what I really liked about the essay was Orwell describing the soldier who chooses to do his duty for the sake of non-embarrassment, “here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd…I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant, it’s his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy…for it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life trying to impress the “natives” and so in every crisis he has got to so what the “natives” expect of him.” (2381-2382) It reminded me of two things: 1. “The Hollow Men”, the power they gain destroying them from the inside, making them aloof to the chaos they cause for victory; and 2. A popular student who will pull off any kind of dare in order to stay popular and not show fear of losing.

Politics and the English Language

Orwell repeatedly mentioned in his essay the risks of cluttering sentences with Greek and Latin-derived polysyllabic words, saying that these, instead of communicating a precise meaning via an image, muddle meaning in a fog of abstraction. "...Latin words [fall] upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details" (2391). He then, rightly so, says Latin-drenched sentences usually come from the mouths or pens of politicians and lawyers - and it is strange then to think what reasons are given to young pupils to encourage them to study the classical languages.
If my Internet were working now, I would pull up a quotation from a page I viewed months ago when first deciding to study Greek, but I think the example so familiar that a quotation would be needless. Greek and Latin are encouraged for those interested in pursuing law or political occupations. It is obvious, then, that such diction would come from the mouths and pens of lawyers and politicians. However, if such diction muddles meaning, and students are encouraged by educators to study Greek and Latin so that they may later use Greek and Latin etymology to bolster their sentences - why are they encouraged? Should they be encouraged?
It seems that students, then, are encouraged to study Latin and Greek for the wrong reasons. Rather than appeal to future lawyers and politicians on the basis of the languages' ability to boost their vocabulary, educators should emphasize the rhetoric that flourished in ancient Roman and Greek oratory and the literature to which ours pales in comparison.

A Passage to India

If you look at just the first portion of the movie, it presents an interesting difference in the attitudes of the British characters. It seems those that have been in India for an extensive period of time have become the embodiment of imperialism. Characters like Ronny exhibit these attitudes of oppression and a sense of being better. However, characters like Adela Quested present a very different attitude. She is very excited to see how the Indians live and to meet Indian people. She seems to have no oppressive ideas whatsoever. Now, this all being given, the movie tells a lot about human nature. Eventually, Adela loses her feelings of benevolence and accuses Dr. Aziz, a good Indian man, of rape. This shows that humans are affected by their surroundings. When Adela began to see small reasons why others held oppressive attitudes she began to change her views. It was almost if she was falling back into the safety net of her British brethren. The strange country and people changed who she was.

A Passage to Oppression

In the movie A Passage to India, the themes are oppression and the dominance of one people over another group of people. The movie takes place in India under British rule. The British treat the Indians very poorly. For instance, at the beginning of the movie two Indian men riding bicycles were run off the road by British officials riding in their cars. It's the first visit to India for Adela Quested, but she is quick to oppress Dr. Aziz by accusing him of rape. This shows the lack of respect the British had towards the Indians because Dr. Aziz was ridiculed and had his personal business thrown out into the public. Then Adela decided to drop the charges for no reason. And even though she dropped the charges, it still seemed like she believed that Dr. Aziz was guilty of the crime. 

A Passage to Oppression

L. of Inish...

... began by intentionally and obviously opening up a new conclusion for the parable of the good Samaritan. Donney, an Irish lad inclined to sniff shoe polish and daydreaming, upon finding a battered cat in the road, doesn't pass by like, come to find out, he should, but instead picks up the thing and turns a dining room table into its hospital bed. This, as the play continues, will prove to be a mistake that will cause a gross amount of blood to later color the stage - and so from the beginning we see the "good Samaritan," Donney, not being so celebrated. Further, instead of being celebrated, the ensuing treatment of Donney the tenderhearted cat-carer brings a Lennon tune to mind: "If you had the luck of the Irish, you'd be sorry and wish you were dead..."
And death wishes - or, rather, death warrants - came quickly. Not just your neighbor's cat, the battered cat in the road turned out to be the very beloved cat of one crazed Padriac, member of the Irish Republican Army and notorious madman. What agony Padriac inflicted on those who happened on his bad side was the equivalent of the affection he dealt and felt for his cat.
So the play continues, absurdly piling up futile efforts to escape what was presented as inevitable violence and efforts by others to inflict violence. By the end of it, the "luck of the Irish" was Irish luck indeed, when, after five or so deaths and a kitchen "repainted" red, Padriac's cat meows and crawls from the kitchen corner. Thus the cat who sparked the triggers was not the Helen-of-Cat at all, and what very small reasons for gratuitous violence the play and characters presented were dismissed by the curtain fall as even more absurd.

Self -centered

I too saw a parallel between A Passage to India and A Heart of Darkness. The British in both story lines have a view of the other race at being less because of social differences. The British believe that everyone should be like them and that’s the only normal way. What they are ignorant to is; other cultures are able to survive and be “normal”. Normal for one culture is the ability for it to work efficiently and be accepted by the majority of the people. When a stronger culture sees a difference they believe that it is not right, much like the British in both story lines. The British saw black people as being uncivil in Heart of Darkness and also they saw themselves as superior to the people of India. Basically, the British are self centered when is comes to their beliefs. But isn’t everyone? So can we really blame them for judging people of different cultures? Don’t we (as in Americans) do that as well?

Hmmm. I guess its your daily dose of IMPERIALISM.

Blog on Passageway to India

Ever since the beginning, my palate was struck blantantly by the British and Imperialistic taste//overtone: When they (Mrs. Moore and Ms. Quested) turn, on the bow of the boat, away from the Indians, it seemed that they were full of utter disdain. (Thank Goodness I was incorrect, seeing that Mrs. Moore was adamently a warrior, and as two down puts it "a moral safehaven" and safeguard against the Indian treatment) The gritty taste remained stagnant in my tongue and mouth for the remainder of the movie:
- East is East, Mrs. Moore. It’s a question of Culture. -- Or a question of non-integration of Westerners into the East, when they are presently in the East…. Aka the Accountant from Heart of D.

- They become all exactly the same. I give all englishman Two Years. I give the women six months. -- Rape the land, and act totally arrogant against the natives, how utterly unusual.

- Adventures do occur, but not punctually. --- This statement has absolutely nothing related to
the Imperialism picture I am painting for you, but merely I enjoyed it coming out Mrs. Moore's mouth, and agree totally with her.

- "I'll pay you tommorow… "--- here, Dr. Aziz is powerless to the whims of the British Women and their ultra important party that they must be attending

-"God is here… God is here. " Being humans, something unites us all. The disregard for that simple fact might very well be the British and Imperialistic problem… They didn't realize that Indians were humans with similarities (aka that they believed in God, just as the British/Christians did).

-I think you are very new to India,… How did you know? By the Way you address me.

- I've scarcely spoken to an Indian since we landed. Lucky you.

- Perhaps we speak yours a little. Why Fancy, she Understands! Sarcastic little mother of a ... Grr, I don't think one could be more blantant if one tried!

- We're Out here to Do justice and keep the Peace. I'm not a missionrally or a sentimental socialist. --- Hmm, Rudyard Kipling, that wouldn't be the White Man's Burden, Would it be?

-Take mine, I have an extra (back collar stud). Are you sure, nobody keeps it in their breast pocket. Here it is, in my pocket. Many Thanks--- but remember, at this point, there hadn't been a proper introduction: Dr. Aziz had merely just talked to the man, and already he, as the native, was offering up himself to the service of the White man, or Dr. Fielding.

Rape in the eyes of a Wabash Man

The effect of being molested in A Passage to India brings up a good topic. At Wabash our class would be able to discuss this topic from a different viewpoint than any other class, or most other. Being all male derives a unique conversation of various acts of cruelty especially toward women. Rape viewed in an all male classroom would be very different, than in a coed one. In this story the conflict is intertwined into the British Indian relationship. This provides a unique experience for the Wabash man as he is forced to question the volitity of the molestation, in this story I believe that it was either untrue or in no fault of the women. This story is a classic example of the south in the early nineteen hundreds. White women would claim to be molested by black men, when as in To Kill a Mocking Bird, proved the truth is nothing happened. Even if the claim is completely true I just leave the class the question of, “What was the fault of the man, and what is the fault of the women?”

A Passage To.....

The film adaptation of E.M. Forester's novel "A Passage to India" was long and inconclusive. Essentially a characterization of the interaction between the Indians and the English that results from British colonization, the film centers on the relationship between Mr. Fielding, a British educator, and Dr. Aziz, an Indian surgeon. As the film progresses, it becomes clear that no character is with out flaw, whether British or Indian, but Ms. Moore, the mother of the local magistrate, appears as the moral touchstone. Thus, it seems fielding does not place blame fully on the British for the results of their colonization of India, also assigning some fault to the natives. Additionally, the movie resonates with a similar theme of "Heart of Darkness," that unfamiliar lands and people can leave a person feeling isolated, confused, and insecure. Ronny reeks of Mr. Kurtz, as he was once a just and benevolent gentleman back in Europe, but while in India he appears slighted and predjudicial. Thus, it appears a theme that foreign lands and foreign people can have profound effect upon even the noblest people. Furthermore, much as Marlow is not very clear...no not very clear" about his experiences in Africa, so to is Forester's description of the events of the Marabar caves-- and the conclusive truth of neither is ever really determined. Similiarly, my only definitive conclusion from this movie, is that the relationship between the British and Indians was tumultous and never really had a shot at success, just like the relationship between Fielding and Aziz appeared hopeful, but eventually failed. Hurray of Ambiguity!

Homosexuality and Maurice

While I realize that homosexuality has always been a taboo subject, I never realized exactly what it could do to a person until I watched Maurice. I had never thought very much about the legality of homosexuality, because I've grown up in a world (or country, rather) that does not treat it as a punishable/illegal offense (at least not seriously, or to such a great extent). Sure, I've seen phrases like "standards of decency" and "temptation" attached to homosexuality,  but Maurice amplifies the meanings of these phrases, going so far as to show one gay man's being sentenced to 6 months in jail with hard labor (which was actually "lenient"). The police had arrested him for a "charge of immorality" and for the "corruption of his social inferior." This latter phrase shows how one could tie social status to the homosexuality issue/problem, as the abovementioned leniency came from the fact that the accused man was a high-ranking member of society, specifically, a politician. It is interesting to note that, had the man been a "regular" member of society, the punishment would have been even more serious. What I find most interesting in the film, however, is the portrayal of secrecy, the proverbial gay "closet." Clive is the one to initiate intimacy with Maurice, but he is also the one who marries a woman for "cover" and leaves behind his true sexual orientation; he gives in to society, caving to its heterosexist standards, while Maurice also hides his sexual orientation from the world but, at the same time, is open enough to pursue a relationship with Alec. Perhaps this is a symbol for the then changing attitude toward homosexuality, a sign of hope for the future. Now, however, we are living IN that future, and although some things have changed, there is still a long way to go for same-sex couples' rights; society's attitude toward homosexuality is continually changing/evolving and perhaps will never be done doing so.

A Passage to India

A very long movie depicting E.M. Forrester's book about the trial between a young English woman living in India and an Indian doctor who she claims to have molested her during a visit to a cave. This movie is centered around and constantly reminds us of the conflict between the British and Indian cultures. "East is east," says one British woman in the beginning of the movie, another time a bicycle nearly runs over to Indian men. However, in spite of these differences there seems to be a genuine connection between many of the Indian and British characters throughout the beginning of the move. Aziz reminisces kindly about how he imagines himself being part of his ancestor's time as they ride the elephant across the countryside at one point in an interesting monologue. Regardless, in light of what happened at the cave, which is somewhat unclear throughout the movie, these relationship immediately dissolve, the trial itself serves as a focal point for the elevation of this conflict. When the woman decides to withdraw her charge not only is she already distanced from the Indian locals, but those British who had been supporting her. Why she does this is unclear, but one character suggests it is simply out of pity for the doctor, because she knows he stands little chance as a Indian man in light of such allegations from a British woman. The Indian doctor immediately becomes a huge celebrity, representing to the Indians, a symbol of the triumph of Indian people over British persecution. Perhaps one of the most startling changes in the movie is the dynamic transformation of Aziz, this kindly, overly expressive, friendly and accommodating doctor, to a stoic nationalist that detests the British. The real strength of the movie however, lies in the fact that it never reveals whether in fact the woman had been molested or if she had, as Aziz puts it "just got a little too much sun." Whether or not that had happened truly, it allowed the British woman to be the cog that set the wheels in motion for an interesting film about racial and social disparity, and the oversights and weaknesses of British colonialism in India.

Maurice and Social Traditions

In deciding whether to watch A Passage to India or Maurice, I consulted the ever-trustworthy rottentomatoes.com and, upon seeing Maurice with a higher "tomatometer" rating, a 91% even, took it with a bit of pasta one evening.
If something were to ruin the movie, anything at all, Hugh Grant no doubt would save it. His performance, I thought, carried the movie, all the way through Edwardian sitting rooms, Edwardian sitting rooms, and, well, Edwardian sitting rooms. The look at Cambridge made me pain a bit to then look at our dwellings on campus. And further, I wish we too were under the pressures of established, collegiate decencies - I think.
Yes, the film pulled homosexual strings but, I thought, in the contrast between Maurice and Clive, did so quite properly. In Clive was presented a tendency toward homosexuality - a just-past-platonic tendency toward homosexuality - then tempered, in his later years, by society. And when he regarded duty to society, duty to its traditions and decencies, over what might to him have offered a more fleeting and thrilling lifestyle, he found contentment in it and in his eventual marriage. Maurice, on the other hand, sparked first by Clive's affection, continued on a spiraling descent into carnality, separating him from his family, society, and, by the end of things, his first collegiate friend and, well, love - Clive. And here was the strength of the movie, apart from its portrayal of Cambridge - duty before pleasure, and if one is to conquer the other, then let duty do the conquering.

Sawdust, Joyce, Mashing, and INRI.

Form very much over function for Joyce, Ulysses. Pensive, too. Only says one simile length of Lestryg.: "His brother used men as pawns," p. 2225. Must mean metaphors are more natural. Not natural to think in "like," in "as." Means rationalization.
Says "sawdust" like T.S. Eliot says sawdust, p. 2229, talk of restaurants and "gobful wolfing" collared men, "... snivelling nosejam on sawdust." And Eliot, "... sawdust restaurants with oyster shells." Earlier too Bloom thinks oysters.
---
Enough, though, with this pained imitation of his chopped sentences. I had read Joyce's Portrait of an Artist last fall, sitting under street lights misplaced 'round a city park, and liked it much for its integration of religion, its stress of religion, religious guilt, and college boys talking like Salinger's Catcher - but I don't remember chopped sentences in it. Sometimes in Lestryg. they do well, I think, to catch some poignant image by mashing two words not oft used side-by-side. P. 2227, and "...deep summer fields, tangled pressed grass, in trickling hallways of tenements". Then what may be my favorite sentence from the reading, p. 2221, and "No time to do her hair drinking sloppy tea with a book of poetry." It off-rhymes in blank verse, yes, but that "sloppy tea!", the misplaced modifier "sloppy" jammed between "drinking" and "tea" is something really nice and new.
And I can't decide if what makes some of Joyce's stream of consciousness word-smashing pretty is its newness, how it fulfills our longing to hear words we don't often hear, how it relieves us from the formulaic phrasing of words and established-with-authority sentence structuring, or if its pretty disregarding our tiredness and want of new, pretty in itself, because it (might) reflect what we too think, deaf to our rationale, when we walk 'cross town on a lazy afternoon, thinking of Elijah and eateries and infidelity - as if it held a voice recorder to our walks then transcribed those thoughts onto a writing pad.
Lonely walks, too. His Bloom is a man-on-the-town and of-the-town, occupied with advertising, handshaking businesses with other business, but also he holds a sensitive distance from the fellows, the bailiff and "suetfaced young man" (2228), chomping mouth-open with hasty knife and fork at the first pub he ducks into: "Couldn't eat a morsel here" (2228). Loud unrefined men "shovelling gurgling soup down the gullet" (2228) - Bloom's disgust with this is, I think, what makes him likeable, and is what gives his walk and thoughts a sense of protection, of undisclosed feelings and associations, revealed to the reader in Joyce's chops and snippets.
Seems too much like dripping paint from a can and calling it art, Joyce's way of mashing words and letting their mashed pieces fall on the page. Yet as Pollock was an artist, dripping paint from paintcans, so was Joyce and his mashed words. Underlying the random splotches is something, something, something new or something so mirroring our free-associating thoughts that reading Joyce or viewing Pollock is a reflection on, geez, our consciousness, or something, something...
"No time to do her hair drinking sloppy tea..." (2221).

Note: On page 2214 - "Our Saviour. Wake up in the dead of the night and see him on the wall, hanging, Pepper's ghost idea. Iron Nails Ran In." That last part, Iron Nails Ran In, is a play on the Latin acronym, IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM: "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews." Those four letters, INRI, were plastered all over Spain, especially on the architecture of Gaudi, and I was confused to them until returning finally to Barcelona and querying an Opera singer Spanish friend of mine - but yes, a play on the Latin phrase.