Translations- Langauge

I really liked the discussion we had about "language [being] a barrier to modern progress". I have found that of the topics we have discussed throughout this course, the ones that interest me the most are the ones I feel the strongest about.

I feel that language is so unique and beautiful that to call it a barrier between the old and the new is ignorant. I think that language is a link between past and present. The differences between the many forms of language is something we should hold onto; not something we should try to eliminate.

To me, the people who call language a barrier in this way (with the intention of trying to fix the problem by causing other languages to become extinct) have no idea what they would be giving up. I feel very strongly that people should learn more languages, not adhere to one.

Translations

My initial thoughts when I began to read translations is to compare it to the most recent play I've read. Translations and Othello are worlds apart, almost literally.

Anyway, my first reaction was that this play had detailed directions, whereas Othello (as a Shakespeare play) has none. Translations tells the age, the setting, and personality of people before a scene even begins. Part of me finds this helpful and part of me finds it frustrating. I like being able to interpret and use my imagination as I go.

A part that is similar for me in comparing Othello and and Translations is that both seem to contain a certain amount of language I don't understand. Granted that at least the parts of Translations I don't understand is in another language, but reading these parts makes just as much sense to me as Shakespeare does.

Beliefs and Knowledge

I found our in class discussion about the differences and similarities between belief and knowledge very interesting. This is something I've been asked to think about before and I've know how fine the line is between the two, but I still think there is a definite distinction. I think of them in a Venn diagram, as two circles that overlap on certain subjects. I don't think they can totally be pulled apart or pushed together.
To me knowledge is something that can be proved. Beliefs are something you want to prove but can't. When I say prove I mean back up with some sort of hard evidence. Have a photograph, historical evidence, scientific evidence, etc. These are things I consider to be proof and the more evidence a belief has to back it up, the closer it comes to becoming knowledge.
There are some beliefs that will never be considered knowledge. I know this and accept it. I know that there are some things people refuse to believe are true even with the evidence sitting in front of them. This is where beliefs and knowledge get fuzzy.
Both knowledge and beliefs have to be believed to exist. If people can't accept that other individuals have different beliefs that they think are just as valid as there own, they won't ever be able to accept it what they believe ends up being proven wrong. If people can;t believe in the possibility of beliefs besides there own, how will they accept it when it becomes knowledge? I guess some people never do.

Lucy

The cover of the book Lucy is interesting because i see the woman as Lucy. She looks confused and sad to me. I think this picture depicts her before she realizes that her mother is her greatest love. The hand she holds up seems like she's pushing someone away. To me, it seems symbolic of her inability to get emotionally close to anyone, especially her lovers. She holds back even though she is unhappy. I think if this image had been meant to give an image of Lucy after she realized her great love for her mother there would be less confusion on her face. She just seems so unhappy, and unsure of why she feels that way.
I also find it interesting that she looks naked. Maybe this too symbolizes her physical connections with people and lack of emotional dependence on any of them. It could also be a demonstration of her search and discoveries about her sexuality. Between the ages of 14 and 19 in the novel we are able to see her experiment and figure out what her sexuality means to her.

The above picture is another version of the cover for the novel Lucy. In this depiction Lucy looks younger and happier. This image is more confusing for me because I don't picture her as young and happy. Maybe this is before she felt lonely, before she began to push people away emotionally. The dress she's wearing is white which convinces me even more of her innocence in this picture. She's still not wearing much, maybe this is foreshadowing her promiscuity and experimentation. She is also holding a feathery headdress which is indicative of her heritage and a reminder of where she came from.

Interpreter of Maladies

I accidentally read the "Interpreter of Maladies" earlier in the year. I liked it then but after discussing it in class I like it even more. In our class discussion some people didn't like this short excerpt because it didn't have a typical, matter of fact, point. This was really interesting because I usually hate stories that feel that way to me; obviously this was somehow different. I liked her excitement with finding all of the Christian artifacts. I think this could be because it's totally something I would do. If I moved into a house and kept finding all kinds of Hindu paraphernalia I would act very similar to the way Twinkle does. So I guess maybe this becomes the point of the story for me.
When it comes to what the title "Interpreter of Maladies" means, I think taking the author's experience into account is very important. Her run in with her friend gives her the idea for the title. I don't really understand how that can't mean something. However, I don't think it relates solely to her being the interpreter of the experiences she speaks of. I think she sort of guides the reader through a story and then lets the reader interpret the meaning himself. She never actually says what the impact of any ones feelings are on their lives. In other words, she lets us know how both Twinkle and Sanjeev feel and their different reactions, but she doesn't tell us who's reactions are right or who's are wrong.

I have seen the movie "O" before. I didn't like it the first time I saw it. I thought I would appreciate it more now that I know it is based off of the Shakespeare play "Othello", but I dislike it even more. I know Shakespeare is supposed to be timeless, but for me it isn't. I picture everything Shakespearean in a much older time period than our own (the time when I picture it being written). I guess this version makes it too real for me. I already find the version of Othello I picture in my head frustrating, this more modern version just makes me angry. I don’t know exactly why this more modern version makes me feel more strongly about Iago and Othello. I just don’t like to relate such manipulation and deceit to my own time. It makes me uncomfortable, even if it isn’t real.

Iago drives me crazy. I really don't lie his outlook on life. He's so selfish, negative, and worst of all conniving.

Barbantio is already having a difficult time with the thought of his daughter running off and marrying a man thought unworthy of her. Iago just accelerates everything and makes fun of Barbantio for not doing anything about it. He basically insults him and antagonizes him about his daughter's fall from reputability.

The passage in 1.1.88 also depicts Desdemona as helpless. Iago describes it like she was taken against her will by Othello, but that isn't what happened. (I just get so fed up with Iago and his meddling.) -He also makes it seem like Desdemona is just a material possession, like she's been stolen. He keeps pushing and manipulating until everything falls apart.