November 13, 2007

literary nepotism

cover: Michael Ondaatje, The English Patient The actual name of this phenomenon escapes me at the moment, but I love when a writer references another work in their fiction. It's not just that I enjoy seeing how one artist influences another -- Homer's Odyssey directly or indirectly inspiring Dante's Inferno, Milton's Paradise Lost, or even Spielberg's Indiana Jones -- although that's fascinating in its own right. Rather, I enjoy when an author has a character read or somehow become involved with a story within that story. Por exemplo:

"She opens The Last of the Mohicans to the blank page at the back and begins to write in it.

There is a man named Caravaggio, a friend of my father's. I have always loved him. He is older than I am, about forty-five, I think. He is in a time of darkness, has no confidence. For some reason I am cared for by this friend of my father.

She closes the book and then walks down into the library and conceals it in one of the high shelves."

-- Michael Ondaatje, The English Patient

In writing this brief episode, how does Ondaatje's choice of book inform his audience? Would the reader interpret this differently if Ondaatje had instead written about Hana scribbling in The Jungle Book or Jane Eyre? Would Lady Chatterley's Lover have been too racy a reference, distracting the reader unnecessarily, or perhaps over-sexualizing her observations about this older man? As the English Patient himself collects clippings in Herodotus' Histories, would it have been hopelessly elitist to depict Hana defacing a copy of The Iliad?

Things become even more complicated once we start asking whose choice it was in the first place: if we argue Ondaatje's the one who chose that tome, we're asking all kinds of metalingual questions. He picked that book for the literary references inherent in the years that have passed after James Fenimore Cooper published the novel. To imply a connection between a sympathizer to a conquered people and Ondaatje's own Caravaggio. For the simplicity of borrowing an entire text's popular relevance without having to weigh down his own text even further.

If, however, one supposes that Hana, the character, chose the book, the connections become less about Ondaatje's cleverness, and more about his character's completeness. Does she make a deliberate move to place this journal entry in this volume, or is it mere random chance? Earlier in the novel, we are told that Hana has little if any literary knowledge; are we then supposed to guess that she's been educated by her experience, enough to understand the complexity of her choice? Or should we attach a pseudo-schoolgirl naivete to it, that "oh-it's-just-so-romantic" squeal that belies true understanding of a deeper text?

As a writer, as a teacher, hell, as a lover, I know it's the little things that make all the difference. Here, and a nod is needed to rebobadob's The Luck Key, this is a case of the tiniest detail colouring an entire text. Literally.

November 2, 2007

October 29, 2007

Chicken is...

... funnier than you thought.



See http://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf for a hard copy.

October 9, 2007

Linguistics: a primer

The latest in my string of post-secondary courses taken to keep the ol' brain alive, English 329 at UBC, presents a basic overview of linguistics. There are obvious applications for linguistic theory in my work as an ESL instructor, but some of the things that impress me most about the course thus far aren't pedagolically minded. They're just damned sharp observations.

Last week's lecture included this gem from instructor Jessica de Villiers:

"A society of listeners expects clear enunciation -- a society of speakers, however, pretty much slurs everything."

This statement speaks to more than just various styles of learning. Yes, Korean and Japanese learners (for the most part) tend to focus on paper skills, grammar rules, and what we'd call book-learnin', and thus have difficulty a) speaking English in non-classroom situations, and b) listening to casual English as spoken by non-classroom teachers. And yes, Mexicans and Italians (for the most part) tend to focus on speaking first, which them an advantange in casual conversation but forever stigmatizes them as not being able to use the language correctly, especially in writing. But for me, the most interesting implications of this statement aren't to do with people from outside the English-speaking community. It's the ramifications for societal differences within a given lingual group that fascinate.

As educational levels go up, what goes down are the tendencies to speak first and face consequences later. As most of our parents tried to teach us, those who listen get ahead. Cases in point: the lower classes tend to resort to knee-jerk reactions, while upper crust types calculate responses. Street-level violence goes hand in hand with lengthy explosions of profanity; white-collar crime, more often than not, is hidden in carefully crafted legalese. Needless to say, this presents itself as a two-way street... naughty words will always be seen as low-class, while the hoity toity -- oh crap, he says, re-reading this very post -- will pontificate no end.

No matter how we evolve, or where we go as a society, or how open minded we pretend to be, we'll pretty much always come back to the My Fair Lady form of class distinction. That's not necessarily a function of class superiority, as commonly espoused by us left-wingers, so much as one of lingual expression.

Fascinating stuff. Looking forward to more of the same.