Pairing your 30 words to a place

I randomly opened Finnegans Wake and landed on page 590. I decided that I would memorize these 30 or so words:


"Halp! After having drummed all he dun. Hun! Worked out to an inch of his core. More! Ring down. While the queenbee he staggerhorned blesses her bliss for to feel her funnyman's functions Tag. Rumbling. Tiers, tiers and tiers. Rounds."


It's obvious what is going on in these few sentences. There is a fight going on and someone is yelling help because he is being beaten and then he falls and gets stung by a bee and it seems that they play the game of tag afterwards. It's very clear.



I've been wondering how it is I'm going to memorize these 30 or so words? Some of them aren't even words at all, and I certainly can't relate to their meaning such as a favorite poem or quote. Then I remembered, in the Oral Traditions class a couple of semesters ago we had to memorize the names of the 9 muses. They, like the words in Finnegans Wake, were unusual and difficult to memorize for me. In order to memorize the names of the muses we paired them to items in the classroom, for example, Urania was the projector screen. I would remember Urania by thinking of stars being projected on to the screen. Or, Euterpe was this picture posted on the bulletin board that said, "Let it Snow." I remembered that because Euterpe is the muse of music and I would imagine the Christmas song "Let it Snow" being sung. I figured that with Finnegans Wake I can pair each word with an item in my room, such as the couch or my bookcase, or smaller items like a picture or vase. This is the same technique I used in order to memorize 50 governors (Arnold Schwarzenegger was paired with my bed). It helps if the pairing is funny or grotesque (such as Arnold laying on my bed or Sarah Palin looking at herself in the mirror), if it has a significant meaning then it's easier to memorize.

Honestly, this technique is so easy, I had all 50 governors memorize within 2 hours. Now I'm going to draw another awesome photo of the layout of my room and pair certain sentences or words to objects.
I placed my words to objects in the same order of the sentences. So, "Halp!" is the Finnegans Wake book because I need help reading the thing. "After having drummed all he dun" is the Bird bottle opener because "drummed" can be exchanged with drank or the act of drinking. "Hun" I put with the picture frame because some people call others hun. "Worked out to an inch of his core" is with the snowboard because I suppose that can be seen as working out. "More" is with the boots because it's more snowboarding gear. "Ring down" is the chair because it is the shape of a circle. The couch is undecided because that sentence is going to be tough to memorize. Then there's "Tag. Rumbling" paired with the bean bag just because and lastly there is the "Tiers, tiers and tiers. Rounds." which I placed with the bookcase because there are tiers and tiers of books and a round candle.
I realize I now look crazy, but I hope this helps.

The Eternal Return

Sexson mentioned a few examples of the eternal return in literature, such as The Tempest and Indra and the Ants. One I thought should be mentioned is "The Second Coming" by W.B. Yeats. He talks about the coming of an Antichrist or a second coming from an eternal being. The eternal return is seen by some as the ability to return to the mythical age. Yeats says that the Anitchrist will be the body of a lion and the head of a man, or in other words the return of the Sphinx, "what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born." This also fits in with the belief of the eternal return being a religious symbol. Well, I just thought I'd mention it. Here's a great video that I'm sure you'll all enjoy.
P.S. It doesn't have anything to do with my post and is also a complete waste of time. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY4Y1gTO9HE

Archetypes

Look! I drew a picture.

In class on Friday, Sexson briefly mentioned the critique Northrop Frye. Thanks to Prof. Eckert I actually know not only who this man is, but what he believed. Frye's main belief was in archetypes and structure. He believed that archetypes help a reader make sense of the world with language. Salman Rushdie writes a very structured hero story. In Haroun and the Sea of Stories there is a Shadow, Ego, and Anima, as Frye would say. Each of these characters can all be found in our "self" while outside floating around is the collective unconscious. Inside our self, such as in a good story, the Ego has to confront and overpower the Shadow, this allows the ego to understand or achieve the anima. The Anima represents a treasure, usually a woman, but can also be seen as truth or knowledge, although in Beowulf it was actually treasure. The Shadow is, of course, the form of evil in every story. Frye focused on epics, believing that they were the perfect forms of literature because they contained archetypes.

Attaching Frye's theory to Haroun and the Sea of Stories is quite simple, although not as easy as Spencer's The Fairy Queen. Haroun is the main character and also the hero in the hero story. The damsel is Batcheat, but what makes Rushdie's tale so comical is that no one cares to save the damsel, well, except Bolo. Bolo is a funny character as well, he is a confused hero. However, Rushdie gives Bolo all the major components of a knight, such as quickness to anger, rashness in action, a hopeless romantic, but Bolo is an annoying knight who's main purpose is to get in the way. The Shadow in Rushdie's tale is Khattam-Shud, who is shadowless. Khattam-Shud's main objective is to have complete power using darkness and muteness. An interesting point is that the Khattam-Shud that Haroun faces is in fact a shadow. Like Sexson said in class, Rushdie was quite the genius. The characters of Iff and Butt are not in Frye's archetypes, but but but they are very important to Rushdie's story because they represent the question in reality. If this, then that...or There's this, but that. When we put if and but into a sentence we are questioning something. Therefore these characters are important to the fantastical situations in the story that Haroun must believe in order to become the hero.

There is one more situation in Rushdie's story that can be compared to all great epics, as well as Frye's theory, is the use of water. Water, in epic tales, symbolizes the unconciouse or transformation, such as in a baptism. The first use of water is when Haroun drinks the polluted story water. He sees himself failing as a hero, and unconciously Haroun believes that he will fail in his attempt to save his father. Later when Haroun puts on the wet suit and jumps into the acidic water he emerges transformed. He comes from the water, realizes he has the wish water, and comes up with the plan to destroy Khattam-Shud. Water, in this instance, was used as a transformer.

I'm pretty sure Frye would have greatly enjoyed Rushdie's ironic archetypes.

High Brow vs. Low Brow

Highbrow and lowbrow literature can only be explained in the form of dialogue. Thus, an example:
Low brow conversations:
(2 American men standing outside the old R' Bar)
Man 1: "What are you doing tonight bro"
Man 2: "Partying"
Man 1: "Me too" (but, he would spell too wrong)
(Man 1 and Man 2 high five)
High brow conversation:
(Of course, in a British accent)
Man 1: I say ol' chap, may I enquire what business you will partake this beautiful evening"
Man 2: "It is not entirely what will be my occupation in the later evening, yet rather the alternative quarries I must decide. Will I, perhaps, compete in an extremely dangerous cricket tournament? But no, dare I say that my bugger of a horse, Fatty Lumpkins has an injured calf. Yet, may I engage in a competitive game of chess, dear boy? Lastly, let us not forget a light read, perhaps Finnegan's Wake for the tenth time or, wait, I must attempt the Four Quartets once more; I've made an engagement with the Prince of Wales to compare notes."
(all the while light classical music is playing in the background)

Well, there you have it. A perfect example of the difference between high and lowbrow literature through dialogue. Point and case is that nobody wants to hang out with the British men, but more often then not we find ourselves hanging out with the American men. Just as in literature, we do not read the highbrow literature because it seems boring, yet, is it more self satisfying? Ah, that is the question? The highbrow literature doesn't leave us with a hangover. I must think more on this epiphany I've just had.....