It's not POE it's YOU! given in 3 parts
Omg!! Where to begin? Where to begin?
PART I - A day in the mall
Ok. First of all, I'd like to start out with a scenario:
DURING the day, a Saturday to be exact, it all happened. I was walking through the mall, just looking for the ultra-rare Buddha-shaped toenail clipper, out of stock in every store. Then I saw him. He was just standing there in the middle of the food court. He appeared to be mumbling something to himself. He then did that cross thing with his hands (the one where you draw a cross in the air over your chest) and pulled from under his overcoat a AK-47. It seemed as though I was the only one to notice him. It all happened so fast; he pulled the trigger and shot a man in a clown outfit.
this is where the story can go off into two tangents.
a) What would really happen:
Not knowing what to do, everyone INVOLUNTARILY screamed and ran for their lives. Though the security gates already closed (closed so tight that something such as the red death could not get in or out) due to the gun shots, the 1000+ people in the mall were able to tear down the barrier. (this is not really that illogical if you look at how humans were able to create the great pyramids) Then Blah Blah Blah
b) What Theresa think happened:
Not knowing what to do, everyone INVOLUNTARILY ran towards the gunner, all getting killed in the process because he brought extra rounds with him just in case. Then Blah Blah Blah
I think where I'm trying to go with this is pretty evident. So let's move on to part secundus.
PART II - aristocracy or everyone?
So, about that. Yeah, I think we are we are taking literary criticism of Poe way too far. I highly doubt Poe was so self-absorbed that every piece of work he published was to mock his father. I believe anyone can create hate stories but we have to look at why Poe's work was chosen above all the rest. Thinking about it this way, the story is more based on the fact that death cannot be avoided by anyone of any status. It is true that we cannot replace the aristocracy with peasants in this story and still have a logically sound story. The story does, however, relate to everyone in that there is no define setting involved with this story, as in The Cask of the Amontillado. It is not important to see who Poe hates/dislikes, but on a larger scale, how we are affected personally by the story or what message is Poe giving. Being thus, we cannot look purely at all of Poe's short stories from the "I somewhat agree with ......, but ......." sense because everyone is "right" in his/her mind. We are all sharing our ideas, there's no need to flame >.> *cough*TheresaDanielleMATTTTttttt*cough*
PART III
nvm i decided not to add this because im getting flamed enough as it is.
EDIT: thanks to Matt for proofreading
17 Comments:
Dan, indeed, has shown us the way to englightenment far more expediently than Buddha himself (Budda, that is, of ultra-rare Buddha-shaped toenail clipper fame) ever could. I quote Vergil: "Heu, vatum ignarae mentes!" Quite right, my Vergiliculus, tu vastes vastissimus! Look not to the entrails of the beast, but to the beast with its blood yet flowing. That said, doing so obviously doesn't preclude the firing off of heated fulminations, which make everything so very much more lively.
Bravo for that brilliant point of the "I agree but..." nonsense. It's really irritating to have people spout out things others have already said in order to stay on "friendly" terms. We're mature people. We won't hate you if you make a point that we disagree with (well... most of us anyway). So don't be nervous, take a stand!
Now that's out of the way...
I have the disagree with you Danielibus. You forgot to mention the fact that there's always some wannabe hero who tries to take down the gunman/red death but fails to do so. The rest of the people, seeing what the first man (or woman, if you want to be really PC about it... I prefer not to be) did, follow his lead. This can be likened to a "sheep to the slaughter" mindset. We are really divided on what's involuntary and irrational and whatnot. I propose that we have a clear set of definitions to work with when using these words to describe the thought processes of the people during these types of scenarios.
And I'll have to agree with your second point about not being able to take one story of Poe and say it represents all of them (hating the aristocracy and whatnot). But given that we've only read a few of his stories and that we're given that nice fact that Poe hates the aristocracy, it's difficult for people to get out of that mindset. Since it seems to fit for Masque and Cask (poet and you didn't know it!), it would seem (sort of) logical to conclude that a majority of Poe's works deals with his animosity towards the aristocracy.
I do have a qualm though about how everyone is technically "right" in their own minds. This type of mindset is inherently flawed due to the fact that we, as a human species, cannot be satisfied by the fact that everyone can be right. We need to have a sense of who's right and who's wrong so we can silently gloat about how we totally pwned another kid's argument.
But, that's the tricky thing about interpreting literature. You have no idea what's right and what's wrong. Poe could be writing about how he loves the aristocracy and using death as an image for the ultimate reward. He could be on a relationship/relationship with the aristocracy where it's cool to write about them dying all the time. He could've been writing just because he's an emo punk like the rest of the romantics (I'm looking at you Longfellow). Are these right? I hope not because I just thought of them. Are these wrong? Well... they could be. But according to the "everyone's right" mindset, I can never be wrong!
That's where we have to draw the line. We can't just go around reading literature and telling people how to interpret it just because in H. English III we were taught that "everyone's right." There are times when people are just wrong, but yes, there is a huge grey area between the two extremes.
That's all from me for tonight. I hope you were insulted. (Not really, I'm not that kinda guy)
Since somehow we both managed to post at exactly the same minute, I'd like to address my fellow commentier. You wrote: "Thus, the theory that they all involuntarily rushed in to the room where the gunman was located is not really as illogical as you make it out to be."
I think what Dan's point was that the action wasn't involuntary. "That being said, it would be natural instinct for the people to want unmask what seems to be to them the rather cowardly killer of their protector." That's not and involuntary action An involuntary action is when the doctor hits your knee and your leg jerks forward. An involuntary action is when your heart beats and your eyes blink. It's entirely possible and very appealing to say that their rushing forward was involuntary because death comes just as our eyes blink and our hearts pump. It's also equally satisfying to say that it is a natural human impulse to individually try and stop our own deaths. Involuntarity has nothing to do with the logic of the action. By definition, involuntary actions aren't controlled by any logic of the mind. The point has to do with whether the key to interpreting the story has to do with the idea of man's eternal desire to forestall death or the idea of death having ultimate control over our wills. The former idea, in my mind, is more nuanced.
And Alberto posts also! With some good points I might add. So, for the record, let's say that "the fact that there's always some wannabe hero who tries to take down the gunman/red death but fails to do so" is NOT involuntary. "The rest of the people, seeing what the first man...did, follow his lead. This can be likened to a "sheep to the slaughter" mindset." That neither can I see as involuntary. Mob mentality, perhaps, but it is not a basic physiological reflex. I hope.
Hmmm....
Chenibus said:
"I have the disagree with you Danielibus. You forgot to mention the fact that there's always some wannabe hero who tries to take down the gunman/red death but fails to do so."
Did I forget to mention he had an AK-47 and not one of those antique pistols that take an hour to load after each shot.
Elizabeth said:
"...it would be natural instinct for the people to want unmask what seems to be to them the rather cowardly killer of their protector."
How about if it was a killer-horse and not a gunman? Would that be scary enough for you to run away?
"But according to the "everyone's right" mindset, I can never be wrong!"
I meant right as in you are free to have your own thoughts and consider them true in your mind. I did not say that makes it what Poe was actually thinking.
No, I do not think everyone would run at the crazy person with the AK-47. What you thought I thought was wrong, and that is not up to your own interpretation because you are presuming to interpret my thoughts.
My point, actually, was that the natural instinct would be to run away from great danger. So I must question- why did the nobles run toward the Masque of the Red Death? I tend to agree with Caroline when she explained that the inevitability of death drew them in. Considering the Gothic theme, this theory makes sense.
Elizabeth- I also have to question your proposal that the nobles attacked the Red Death because it killed the Prince. I do not think this particular group of nobles had high ideals of honor and obligation. After all, they locked themselves in a castle as the infected peasants rotted outside the colorful walls. Fear seems to motivate the aristocracy, so I doubt they would go after the Red Death to avenge their "benefactor." And fear, in my opinion, is involuntary.
You may be right, I may be crazy. But since we have decided to all be right, let's hold hangs and sing and bake a cake filled with rainbows and smiles.
By the way, if I was in the mall, not going to lie, I would hide in a utility closet.
Theresa said:
"No, I do not think everyone would run at the crazy person with the AK-47. What you thought I thought was wrong, and that is not up to your own interpretation because you are presuming to interpret my thoughts."
I really don't like doing this but there are so many things wrong with that statement.
What you thought that I thought about you thinking about what I thought is only because you said it.*brain explodes* The story would be no different if it were an AK-47 or a knife. We are not arguing about the means of death, but rather if it is human nature to run to death or from death. I never said I knew why such things occur. And you can't say I misinterpreted you. I wrote the story. Thus you misinterpreted the main point of my story. I wrote it, and I know why.
Question: Apparently Theresa said, "My point, actually, was that the natural instinct would be to run away from great danger." And I am assuming that in the context of what we are discussing, she is referring to the person with the red death disease or whatever as the great danger.
REALLY. She said this? Does anyone want to verify that? Because that's not the impression I got from our lovely discussion is class the other day. (remember, the one with all the agreeing, smiling, and teddybears)
Theresa writes: "My point, actually, was that the natural instinct would be to run away from great danger."
Matthew writes: "Possibly."
Theresa writes: "And fear, in my opinion, is involuntary."
Matthew writes: "Fine. But I think you'd agree that the actions aren't involuntary. The point of disagreement some of us have, to summarize it yet again, is whether the nobles ran forward individually to stop their own deaths, or were drawn into the room by the mystical compulsion of death. Considering the latter has no actual textual basis, and goes against actual human impulses, I'd go for the former."
According to Matt,
"The point of disagreement some of us have, to summarize it yet again, is whether the nobles ran forward individually to stop their own deaths, or were drawn into the room by the mystical compulsion of death."
I think that if they were to try and prevent their death, they would run away. And the second point is the reason I have have to say I am deeply sorry. I sure I'm not the only one, but I thought that when Theresa said that it was involuntary, she meant that it was human tendency. But after looking it up, it could mean "not by one's own choice"(dictionary.com) And I guess that's what you were trying to say yesterday, but I have to admit I kind of just skimmed over it because it was really late. I didn't think before I spoke, but luckily I'm not running for presidency. This being said I was hoping that we could move on with our lives and hate each other on another Poe-related topic not started by me. Again I'm truly sorry to Theresa if that was your original intent.
Also, after re-reading(if I can say that I really read it a first time) I think that though there is as Matt said no textual information to back it up, but just think it would make more sense that the individuals were somewhat drawn into the room.
Sorry that I over-reacted, Dan and Matt. This blog is so intense.
That was what I meant, by the way.
I think that we have discussed this too much. After a while, all just degenerates into bickering.
Firstly, I don't think that the nobles rushed forth out of anger that their prince was killed. As Theresa pointed out, these are people who worried most about themselves, and therefore may be upset that the prince was killed, but their own lives were more important than the prince's.
Secondly, the wild "courage of despair" shows that the nobles probably feared something, but perhaps they did not think that they would all be killed. Although they knew the prince had died, nobody was present at the time in the room to actually witness it.
Lastly,Poe says that a "throng" of people rushed toward the Red Death. A throng being a crowd or mass does not necessarily include evryone. Therefore, using the human thought model, I think some people understandably rushed in out of curiousity, while others did not rush in out of fear. Using, the inevitability of death model, some rushed in becasue that was their time to go, while the others who waited met death when it came to them one-by-one. I don't think people running into death versus death running into people is hugely important, but simply that when death is meant to happen, it is almost a magnetic reaction.
--caroline
I say that rushing death like a bunch of unruly soccer hooligans is both voluntary and involuntary. You may very well be saying,"but Adiel how can something be both voluntary and involuntary, that..is..a..c.o.n.t.r.a.d.i.c.t.i.o.n. we all learned that in 3rd grade after the cranberry bog unit." well to answer your question, its called a flight or fight response,NJN baby, instinct dictates that when confronted by a "dangerous" situation you other run or kick tush.(can we use the more vanilla expletives?)Instinct, by the way is human nature minus all the moral and psychoanalytical junk that gets picked up for in class self aggrandizement.You all know this already, so i sound like a condescending jerk. Anyway, if the point of the story is that you can't escape death, than that kind of eliminates flight. Instinct is involuntary, although it can be overcome. Situations with only one option is not very voluntary, so the aristo pigs had to fight/ confront death and suffer the pain of their innards exploding. They had no choice in confronting death, but they can chose how. So all the party people chose (that should be bold for extra significance)to rub death out, they could just as easily get in the fetal position.
So, instinct and one option situations: involuntary. Choices within the framework of circumstance: voluntary.
There is also the possibility that it is an involuntary response by virtue of people being unable to control their emotions, but i don't buy that.
About the everyone is right part, thats BS. Even if it is in your own mind you can be wrong,unless you live in some sort of bubble or non sphearicle yet equally isolating shape. This isn't some tarted up 80's cartoon where at the climax of the show young Timmy saves everyone by realizing that all he had to do was believe in himself, and then mateiralizes some sword of self assurance to smite the baddy with. For instance, if i were to say that Poe wrote Masque as a sequel to a Nancy drew novel that fell into his lap through a time warp, i would be wrong.
Finely the AK-47 story just fails, the difference between some hoodie wearing mall rat with a gun and a manifestation of death need not be stated. That is why in the mall scenario fleeing is an option,while in Masque there is no escape from death or the reality of it.
on an unrelated note anyone who is studying Spanish in this class,i call upon you to make tawdry, and snobbish references to your second language along with me. Beat the latin kids at their own game.
buenas noches y adios
-adiel
It's true that some things have to be wrong and some things have to be right when we discuss a story. For example, I originally thought that the rooms were set up in a straight line, which was wrong because the text reveals that the rooms were at angles. However, some things in the text are left open to interpretation. For example, this whole debate over voluntary versus involuntary reactions is valid. Poe didn't say in his story that the guests ran to the Red Death either voluntarily or involuntarily. He did say that they rushed towards the Red Death due to their "wild courage of despair." However, you could assume that despair either causes people to approach the problem or that it would cause people to run away, or both. If despair causes people to aproach the problem, then the action was voluntary, but if despair would naturally cause people to run from the problem, then it was involuntary because the people did appraoch the Red Death. Unless Poe specifically points out things, I don't see why things can't be interpreted. As long as things can be interpreted, nobody is necessarily "wrong" or "right." The fact that we all have different interpretations as to whether or not Poe's stories can be interpreted shows that sometimes there are no clear answers.
Valete, boni discipuli!
--Discipula Carolina
Just to clarify, what i meant when i said, certain statements are right or wrong had to do with what was bought up about Poe's father, not the voluntary/involuntary discussion. This class seems to run i a pattern. We receive a new body of work to analyze, and eventually someone gets caught up in a 1+1=2 mentality, biographical fact+ similarity within the work= a cause and effect relationship(oodles of class credit). The only problem with this is that it degenerates very quickly into niggling over minute facts and scrounging through material desperately, in order to find some little nugget of gold to build an all encompassing theory around. Theorizing in that way and biographical connections are not inherently bad ideas, but eventually they become a major stumbling block that the class can't get past on its own. So some one decides to be the hero and make an impassioned plea or envenomed criticism of the discussion itself. With Jefferson Matt played the role of the voice of reason, or tried to anyway. and now Dan is havening his shot at it. This is not a criticism of the situation, i want nothing to do with that type of sermonizing. Being the voice of reason serves a critical function, without which we would all still be discussing if Jefferson was a hypocrite for owning slaves. So Dan, Matt and whomever else choses to fill that post should be commended, and intermittently shunned for going against the majority.
So small unimportant facts are either right, wrong, or unimportant (shocker). While topics with sufficient room for interpretation, voluntary vs. involuntary, should be discussed until people are satisfied.
hasta manana
--Adiel
To Adiel, though I may occasionally partake in what you're describing: word.
A tout à l'heure,
Will
Post a Comment
<< Home