Why I Chose to Read Lolita (Preliminary Post)

When I heard that we were about to pick our books for the Independent Reading Project, I had my heart set on picking the book that was going to be as controversial as possible. I am a quirky person who has a penchant for quirky things--thus, I intended to go outside of the norm by reading books with "sensitive" subjects.

Lolita was the first book that came to my mind, but I also considered other possibilities:

1. The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath

I wanted to pick this book at first to bring other people's attention to Plath's writing (I love her), and also because I wanted to read it again--but this time, I wanted to deeply analyze it. However, the prospect of re-reading a book didn't exactly seem appealing to me, and I thought it would somewhat defeat the whole purpose of the project. I think everyone should try to read her and try to understand her works, nonetheless.

2. Anything by D.H. Lawrence

Lady Chatterley's Lover had a controversial subject matter, and I think it would be interesting to read a book with a female protagonist in a position of sexual power, but everyone in my class wants to read it. Boring.

Sons and Lovers had a similar plot to Lolita, though... Moreover, it has a female character who isn't vulnerable--compared to the protagonist in Nabokov's novel. What more can I want? Of course, I chose the latter because, despite sexual power struggles and whatnot, it's not as revolting as the subject of Nabokov's novel. However, sometimes I regret not choosing Sons and Lovers. Oh well. Maybe I'll read it for leisure, after college apps...

3. Maurice - E.M. Forster

Since I couldn't get my hands on the book, I watched the 1980s movie. This was such a great story! The dialogue in the movie (copied verbatim from the book) had so much symbolism that I wanted to grab the book and read it myself! What better opportunity to read this than during IRP? YES, YES, and YES I WANTED THIS BOOK--but eventually, no, because 1) a copy of Maurice was just so damn hard to find on Barnes&Noble; 2) it wasn't on Sobrero's list of 'classic, really important books.' Maybe there just hasn't been much attention on Maurice? I just wish people would come to appreciate this novel more...

4. Other LGBT-themed books

I tried looking up LGBT-themed books on the internet (because LGBT-themed books are always a controversial issue in uptight 19th and 20th Century, they're a gem), but to no avail. Maybe I'll ask Ms. Sobrero for a recommendation of LGBT-themed books to read after college apps...

Site Updates

Hi! I'm back!

We're finally starting our Independent Reading Project! I'm so excited to read my book I already bought it the moment I came from school.

To celebrate, I decided to update the look of my blog by adding pictures of all the books I've analyzed in the sidebar. Of course, the "big kahuna" book, the one I'll be reading for the Independent Readong Project--Lolita--has a bigger picture than the rest of my other summer books. You should go check it out! The pictures look SO cool on my blog!

1984:Julia and Winston ... who gave in first?

When I read the ending of 1984, my first interpretation was that Julia had been the first one to cave in to O’Brien’s demands—very suddenly, at that—and renounce her love towards Winston. Thus, when I read the denouement, the chance meeting at the pub, I felt somewhat contemptible towards Julia. After all, according to O’Brien, she betrayed Winston “immediately - unreservedly.”

At the pub, Julia explains to Winston as to the reason of her betrayal: “Sometimes...they threaten you with something - something you can't stand up to, can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' ... And after that, you don't feel the same towards the other person any longer.” I interpreted Julia’s explanation as being contrite, guilty for giving in first.But upon closer inspection, it made me doubt whether she really did give in unequivocally. It was easy to scare Winston because he was scared of rats, but what could Julia be possibly be afraid of? She seemed to have more bravado than Winston. Julia was described as having “a long scar, partly hidden by the hair, across her forehead and temple.” I mean, after Winston gave in, he was still scratch-free, but Julia probably had to endure the pain of those scars.

Could it be that psychological shock wasn’t enough, and the State perhaps run out of ideas and had to resort to physical violence or mutilation in order to quell down Julia’s desires? Perhaps they tampered with her brain in the literal sense?

Catch-22: Nazism in the American Army?!?!

Chapter 8 featuring Lieutenant Scheisskopf in Catch-22 contained a lot of symbols pertaining to Nazism. I believe that these references, apart from taking a crack at Hitler, also highlights and parodies the similarities between the American army and the German army--such as petty bureaucracy.

1. The name Lieutenant Scheisskopf is German, although Scheisskopf is an American soldier. Note that sometimes his name is spelled as "Scheiss-kopf." One of the lower-ranked soldiers call him Lieutenant "Shithead." "Scheisse" means "shit" in German. Could this be the possible meaning of Scheisskopf?
2. Lieutenant Scheisskopf was obsessed with parades with a zeal almost or as tantamount to Hitler's.
3. Scheisskopf neglects his wife in a similar manner Hitler neglected his mistress, Eva Braun.
4. According to Scheisskopf, his wife is incapable of looking beyond her own dirty, sexual desires to the "titanic struggles for the unattainable in which noble man could become heroically engaged." - Sounds pretty much like Nazi ideology.
5. Scheisskopf hatches a "brilliant" idea in which the soldiers at the parades march without moving their arms. The other generals that were watching look at him with shocked faces, and one general was blue in the face. Were these other generals offended at the Nazi resemblance or were they mad because they knew they'd lose to Scheisskopf's idea? That's what makes it funny.

Catch-22: My kind of humor.

As it turns out, Catch-22 is a very random, rambling book that goes off into all sorts of complicated tangents faster than Colonel Cathcart can increase the required missions to fifty. Someone better be glad that I like Monty Python, because the humor between the two is very similar--spontaneous, downright illogical, stream-of-consciousness like. Thus, a reader like me who likes structure in a novel but finds little in Catch-22 still finds the book very captivating because of the utter random circumlocutory hilarity that alights the following pages. When I read it in the train I could do nothing but suppress my smile or else be shot down with stares by other passengers. When I read it in the comfort of my own house I find myself laughing at intervals. The book is brimming with sarcasm and witty irony I just couldn't find myself to put the book down because it was my kind of humor. This lighthearted humor, when juxtaposed with the graphic images of death and destruction, such as The Soldier in White, makes me think of the absurdity of the war and of the events in this book.

To quote as evidence, this is one of the lines that never fails to crack me up:

"Who is Spain?"

"Why is Hitler?"

"When is right?"

"Where was that stooped and mealy-colored old man I used to call Poppa when the merry-go-round broke down?"

"How was trump at Munich?"

"Ho-ho beriberi."

"Balls!"

All rang out in rapid succession, and then there was Yossarian with the question that had no answer:

"Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?"

Genius.

Catch-22: Plot and Conflict

Catch-22 starts in medias res and is chronologically disjointed throughout. I guess you could say the disjointedness mirrors a soldier's disordered life in combat. It's almost difficult to discern the overall plot of the story because the narrative seems to jump from one time frame to another with no goal or end in sight. In the beginning, the plot seems unclear, as it seems that we're merely endlessly following Yossarian and Friends through their antics within the 27th Air Force Squadron. However, when you analyze the motives behind Yossarian's actions, you realize that Yossarian's doing what it takes--however unscrupulous it is--to get out of the war alive and unscathed. Also, will there ever be an end to this endless cycle of military incompetence? The conflict in this story is not between the Allies and the Axis (in fact, for a war novel I find it peculiar that the Germans, the enemy, have made no appearance in the book as of yet, and I doubt they will), but between Yossarian and the state--including the highly incompetent people that surround him, and the useless bureaucracy.

How to Read Literature Like a Professor - What I've Learned (Chapters 19-26)

Here is the last set of the notes I took for How to Read Literature Like a Professor:

19. GEOGRAPHY: The type of land a story takes place in (e.g. hills, plains, valleys) usually implies something important in the story. The unique, specific location of the story (e.g. Eyjafjallajokull, Iceland for example) is also important because of the political, social, and economical ramifications. Oh, and when characters go South, they go hedonistic and berserk.

20. SEASONS

a. Fall – harvests, reaping what we sow, oldness and expectation of death, tiredness

b. Winter – death, cruelty, harshness, resentment, coldness

c. Spring – birth, rebirth, childhood and youth

d. Summer – romance, growth, adulthood, fulfillment, passion

INTERLUDE: All stories come from one single story – the story of humans being humans.

21. MARKS: When someone stands out from the others either physically or psychologically, they’re marked for greatness (or infamy). Try to figure out why that part of the body.

22. BLINDNESS: It’s funny, but blindness in literature usually is a big huge marquee sign that tells the reader, “PLEASE LOOK AND EXAMINE CAREFULLY.” If you want your audience to know something important about your character (or the work at large), introduce it early, before you need it.

23. HEART DISEASE: Heart disease usually means sickness of the heart, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually.

24. ILLNESS:

a. Rules of diseases in literature:

i. Not all diseases are created equal. Mostly due to image.

ii. It should be picturesque.

iii. It should be mysterious in origin.

iv. It should have strong symbolic or metaphorical possibilities.

v. Every age has its special disease. (TB in Victorian Era, AIDS in the 1990s)

25. DON’T READ WITH ONLY YOUR EYES, OR THEIR EYES: Try to mix your perceptions with the context in which the literature was written for the best possible enriched reading.

26. GUESS WHAT?!?! IRONY DOESN’T FOLLOW ANY OF THE RULES I STATED ABOVE!!!! IT’S JUST THAT AWESOME!!!