Small World 1

Question 1: The Prologue) Lodge is clearly setting the reader up for a kind of satirical work. The themes of the prologue sharply contrast the image of “self-improvement” or hard work and the less-idealistic reality that is often underneath: “Not all conferences are happy, hedonistic occasions; not all conference venues are luxurious and picturesque; not all Aprils, for that matter, are marked by sweet showers and dulcet breezes.” This juxtaposition is farther enhanced in Part 1, when Persse states, “April is the cruelest month” (3). Lodge also uses Geoffrey Chaucer to enhance this theme. Many (though not all) of the characters in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (the Merchant, for example, epitomizes this theme of a pleasant exterior contrasting with a manipulative, immoral interior. One juxtaposition that Lodge is expressing in the opening paragraphs is the appearance of academic betterment and the ‘underlying agenda’ of contemporary literary conferences. When he speaks of these conferences, he mentions building relationships, gossiping, eating, drinking, sightseeing, and making merry. He only mentions the ‘supposed’ purpose of these conferences – the presenting of papers – as an excuse to indulge in all of the former benefits of these modern “pilgrimages.” Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is regarded as one of the few literary works from the medieval ages that may paint of us, the modern reader, an image of medieval society, and it is towards the juxtaposition between appearance and reality seen in many of Chaucer’s character’s here that Lodge is drawing a parallel to. However, not all of the characters in The Canterbury Tales are ‘two-faced’ in this respect. One cannot say that all pilgrimages were made without noble intent, or that all members of a literary conference care more about gossip than literature. This is why I think it is important that Lodge ends the prologue with a repetition of the phrase “not all,” as it gets across the idea of a misconception of self-betterment and literary prowess while not being an overly generalized statement. This draws attention directly back to The Story of the Grail, in which ideal knights were far and few between even thought there were a developed standard. Lodge prepares the reader for a character that lives in the framework of a misconception of literary prowess, just as Percival lived in the framework of a misconception of knighthood.

Question 3: Conference Settings) One thing that stuck out at me was that Lodge peppers the description of the university with words that express a hurried sense of time (“a building hastily erected in 1969… and now, only ten years later”; “the traces of posters hurriedly removed”), and stresses the use of depressing or glum adjectives to describe the people and the setting (“slumped in the raked rows of seats”; “dismay had been already plainly written on many faces”; “glumly unpacked their suitcases”; “springs sagged dejectedly in the middle”). This creates the idea of a place and time significantly less reputable than what is once was or could have been (this again relates back to the theme of false or disappointing perceptions as seen with the concept of knighthood in The Story of the Grail). Lodge also creates a setting that feels compact and prison-like, filling the reader with a sense of impending escape (“cracked and pitted walls”; “little privacy”). Dr Rupert Sutcliffe clearly represents what Lodge would call the realists’ version of the conferences. This contrasts greatly with Perceval’s first encounter with an ‘esteemed’ character in The Story of the Grail, in which the knights were built up, in Perceval’s mind, to be angelic creatures.

Question 4: Angelica) Lodge is clearly mocking the stereotypical role of a female love interest in the way that he first presents Angelica (a name he undoubtedly chose for its otherworldly, angelic connotations). As Chretien did with all of the female love interests in his story, Lodge describes only Angelica’s physical attributes, and goes to a point of parodying the angelic grace that she is meant to emanate for Persse: “At that moment the knots of chatting conferees seemed to loosen and part, as if by some magical impulsion, opening up an avenue between Persse and the doorway. Thus, hesitating on the threshold was the most beautiful girl he had ever seen in his life.” He mentions her “womanly figure,” her dark skin, hair, and eyes, her lips, and her posture, leaving it up to Angelica herself to point out the treatment of women versus men in this setting: “If you use initials in the academic world, people think you’re a man and take you more seriously.” I also think it is interesting that her root are a mystery, her being an adopted child, further disassociating Angelica from a tangible world that Persse can relate to on a common level.

Percival 3

1. We find Perceval on a journey in a deserted area where he encounters three knights and ten maidens. What might this group represent? Where might we see a parallel to this group in the text? What do they represent to Perceval?

Could the three knights possibly represent the holy trinity? The main function of this group’s appearance was to re-introduce Christianity into Perceval’s life, so the idea that they do represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be contingent upon this religious theme. As for parallels of this theme throughout the story, one might interpret Blacheflor’s name to be a reference to the symbol of the Holy Trinity, the lily. Going along these lines, could the ten maidens represent the Ten Commandments? (As ridiculous as it sounds, I feel compelled to point out that 10-3 is 7, ie the seven deadly sins, though I’m pretty sure that’s not where Chretien was going.) If Chretien was a converting Jew, then that would make these characters all the more important to his story. They state: “All those who believe in him should do penance on this day… We fulfilled the most important duty that any Christian can do who truly wishes to please God” (458). They also chide Percival for wearing his armor on Good Friday, and just before Percival comes across this group, Chretien states that though Perceval continued to “pursue the deeds of chivalry,” he completely forgot about God for five years. Chretien does an interesting, if not altogether surprising thing here by separating knighthood and Christianity, and in this scene with the three knights and ten maidens religion is clearly places well above knighthood. This value set was seen very early in the story with Percival’s mother, who was very religious and shielded her son from knighthood due to its dangers. It would be interesting if these were the knights and half of the maidens that were mentioned in the beginning of the story, in Perceval’s first encounter with knighthood (it is interesting to note that in Perceval’s first encounter with knighthood he placed knights on the same level as, if not above, religion, but in this scene with the 13 travelers the case is turned completely around).

2. We see Perceval begin to weep as he goes to repent to the Hermit. Why does he begin weeping? What can be said about his self-image at this point?

“Perceval set out on the path, sighing deep within his heart because he felt he had sinned against God and was very sorry for it. Weeping, he went through the thicket…” (459). This reference to “the path” could be referring to the religious path that he hermit, Perceval’s uncle, sends him on. When the hermit asks Perceval what he is repenting for, he does not mention his mother’s death – he only mentions the things that other people have told him he has done wrong, ie not asking about the lance and the grail. The hermit is the one who corrects him by telling him that all of his misfortunes are a result of the sin of his mother’s death. So, though Perceval seems to be more aware of his vulnerabilities and faults at this time, he is still learning. There is also the fact that his misfortunes were also caused by taking the “gentleman’s” advice about keeping his mouth shut – this further indicates that his happiness will not come from following the path of knighthood, but rather tracing back his maternal lines to religious roots.

Percival 2

1) Blanchflor’s name is interesting because it seems to imply a contradiction: the color white typically represents a kind of purity and innocence, while a flower (as seen in La Celestina) may often represent a woman’s sexuality. This contrast of innocence and reality is seen on numerous occasions with Blancheflor when she speaks to Percival: “She pretended to discourage him by her words, though in fact she wished him to fight; but it often happens that one hides one’s true desires when one sees someone who is keen to enact them, in order to increase his desire to fulfill them” (also seen in La Celestina). There is also the fact that though Chretien describes her as an object of desire, “an unsurpassed marvel to dazzle men’s hearts and minds,” she rejects the advances of Clamadeu, and though she herself is “charming and splendid,” her kingdom is wasting away before her eyes. Also, the first time she visits Percival in bed she means “no wickedness or evil” by it. In light of the fact that Percival also protects Blanchflor and her kingdom from Clamadeu, all of these things cold indicate that Blancheflor represents a protection of the innocent for Percival, who is anything but “charming and splendid” himself. On that note, I find it interesting that the red color of Percival’s attire is constantly mentioned throughout the text – this could be a direct contrast to the white purity that Blancheflor represents. The red color of Percival’s armor could be reminiscent of blood, and thereby passion, in contrast to Blancheflor’s calculating intellect. It is interesting to look at this theme when considering the concept of matriarchal and patriarchal society: the red represents and unrestrained, blood-spilling, violent passion while the white seems to temper or control this kind of behavior (this theme is repeated in the scene with the blood on the snow).

3) I thought it was interesting that the blood on the snow was caused by a bird, when the first thing that Chretien compares Blancheflor to is a bird (specifically “a sparrow-hawk or a parrot”). This reference back to Blancheflor is explicated when Percival immediately recalls Blancheflor when he sees the goose’s blood. In Christianity, the goose’s call is often thought to be a warning of imminent wickedness; considering that this episode may be a possible foreshadowing of sinister events, or perhaps even Percival’s effect on Blancheflor (if the hawk that attacked the goose is read as a representation of Percival), it is ironic that Percival reacts with joy when he sees the blood: “As he gazed upon this sight, it pleased him so much that he felt as if he were seeing the fresh color if his fair lady’s face.” The fact that blood reminds Percival of Blanchflor is pretty creepy… I’m thinking that there is a possible connection between this and the fact that the hawk attacked the goose without actually obtaining it – representing an unrequited struggle, perhaps?

Percival 1

Question 1)

Chretien emphasizes a theme of worthiness in the prologue by comparing he court (his intended audience) to Alexander the Great. The latter’s name would initially imply that he is exemplary, and Chretien remarks in his opening statements that he tells this tale “for the most worthy man in all the empire of Rome… whom surpasses Alexander, who they say was so Great” (381). Almost the entirely of the rest of the prologue explains all of Alexander’s “vices and wickedness” in comparison to his virtuous audience. Rather than simply serving as a way by which the author flatters his audience, this theme of supposed greatness falling short in comparison with the royal court seems to foreshadow the contrast between great knights and the imitation of knighthood (a popular theme in Chretien’s stories). This theme harkens back to The Knight with the Lion (Yvain), in which Yvain had to learn to become a real knight instead of a worthless pretender. (This theme of true worth and “vainglory” is repeated when Chretien speaks of the left and right hands.) What is interesting about The Story of the Grail however, is the that Chretien gives his name unabashedly to the audience as opposed to hiding it before the main character of the tale is worthy of associating with him. Rather, the name of the main character is not initially given. He states in his opening lines, “Chretien sows and casts the seed of a romance that he is beginning, and sows it in such a good place that it cannot fail to be bountiful” (381), yet the main character seems to fall short of someone the author might ask the audience to put their faith in. This makes the character all the more interesting, in that he must build up his worth as the tale goes on.

Question 2)

Unlike every other story by Chretien that we have read to far, Percival is completely unacquainted with knighthood – hidden from it in fact – because his mother is afraid of losing her son if he becomes a knight. Though the mother’s portrayal of knighthood is foreboding, the knights in the Waste Forest seem to serve a worthy example of knighthood when Percival meets them. While the knights fulfill the audiences expectations of what knights must be like, Percival serves as a direct contrast to this, so it is ironic, if not altogether surprising, when it is revealed that he comes from a line of great knights. When Percival sets of on an adventure to become knighted, the audience cannot help but compare him to the knights that put this very idea into his head. In this, Chretien shines a different light on the kind of people who try to become knights, disassociating the occupation from perfection.

Question 3)

The mother’s misery at the thought of her son’s discover of knighthood and his subsequent departure goes remarkably unnoticed by Percival, who seems entirely too self-centered or ignorant to think much of anyone but himself (as was seen in the previous scene with the knights, where he could not answer their questions because he was so preoccupied with things that captured his interest more). Though the mother’s warnings of knighthood may have led to trepidation in any other person, Percival insists upon departing after she reveals his lineage to him. She then gives him advice on how to behave as a worthy knight, emphasizing how he should treat the women he meets on his adventures, and though this advice seemed good and simple enough to her (as she is familiar with the ways of knighthood), Percival miserably misinterprets her words (when he doesn’t completely ignore them). Though Percival tells his mother that he understands what she has said to him, he gallops away from her after he sees her faint upon his departure, and unwittingly torments the next person woman he meets. Percival harkens back to the characters that Chretien makes a mockery of in his earlier tales of worthy vs. unworthy knights.

That Obscure Object of Desire

These questions are 'out of order' because I typed out these thoughts immediately after watching the film, before the questions were posted. The question numbers that I put before each major paragraph refers to the question(s) that I thought best fit what I was getting at.

3) Why are there two actresses playing the same role?

The two Conchitas represent the two things that Mateo wants from Conchita but cannot have simultaneously: she cannot be the unbridled manifestation of sexual desire while maintaining the chastity that he finds so compelling. This double-standard is visible through Mateo when he first tries to wile Conchita into fulfilling his desires and later on when he kisses her hand affectionately after she tells him that she is a virgin. It is important to note that both of the Conchitas mentioned here are the ‘second’ Conchita, who clearly represents the more amorous side of the woman. This is the Conchita towards whom Meteo makes his first real advances, the Conchita he sees dancing, the only Cochinta he sees completely naked, and most importantly the Conchita who appears to be much more at ease with her sexuality than her other ‘half.’ This is also the Cochinta that Mateo takes out his aggression on, and the Conchita we see right before the last bomb explodes, ending the film and a severely detrimental relationship.

5) Why is Mateo telling the story? Why a flashback?

It is crucial that Meteo is telling the story because the listeners are better permitted to see Conchita through Mateo’s eyes. In one of the most pivotal scenes of the film, Conchita tells Mateo that he does not understand women: what is certain is that he clearly does not understand Conchita, or he would not constantly be seeing only one of her two ‘halves,’ but the ‘real’ Conchita. This is why the story is told through Mateo’s perspective, because it is the only way to portray Mateo’s limited knowledge of Conchita. Bunuel does not want the story to be told from an objective point of view because such a telling would allow the audience a better understanding of Conchita’s character. The real Conchita remains a mystery to both Meteo and the audience from beginning to end. The conflict between Conchita and Mateo arises due to the fact that Mateo cannot see the whole person. I find it ironic that any time that Conchita acts in one of her two extremes, either extremely amorous or extremely chaste, Mateo is not satisfied. Yet, Meteo still refuses to see Conchita in any light other than one of these two extremes. Overall, I interpreted this as a commentary on an unrealistic double standard.

2, 4) Why are there so many references to terrorism?

A terrorists aim is to affect dramatic change based on a biased perspective by terrorizing the masses: in this light, terrorism may be seen as an extension of Mateo and Conchita’s relationship. In the closing scene, a reporter is commenting on the two groups of politically extreme terrorists (the far-rights and the far-lefts) who are at war with one another – this is similar to how Conchita’s two extreme halves are fighting with each other. There are also many references to Meteo ‘killing’ Conchita when he is discussing his attempts to get her to conform to his desires: first, there is the scene in which he is trying to ‘buy’ her through her mother, in which a mouse is caught and killed in a trap; then, the scene in the restaurant where a fly is caught in Mateo’s glass when he is talking about possessing women. Both of these scenes suggest the theme of death as a result of possession and captivity, foreshadowing the end of the film, at which point Mateo and Conchita are finally ‘together’ out in the open immediately preceding the final bombing of the film.

Celestina 4

Question 1

Calisto’s speech here does not convey any sense of happiness; rather, he is troubled by the shame he now suffers because of his actions, his desires, and the deaths of Celestina and his servants.

“Alas, how can my great loss ever be made good? What shall I do? Where can I turn to advice? Whom can I tell of my disaster? Why do I conceal it from my family and my other servants? I’m in trouble abroad, and I don’t speak of it at home. I had better put on an appearance.” Celestina was the embodiment of desire, and society allowed her to do what she did because she bore the burden of shame so that no one else had to (much in the same way that prostitutes all bore the shame of their station while medieval society permitted to continue). Now that Celestina is dead, Calisto has to bear his own shame. Again we see the theme of truth and appearances, a constant dichotomy throughout the text. Calisto will pretend to be innocent even though he knows he bares the same shame that became the death of Celestina and his servants.

“By day I will stay in my room, and by night in that sweet paradise, that happy garden, among those gracious plants and that fresh venture. O night of my relief, would you were here again! O shining Phoebus, hasten your customary way!” Calisto’s desire has not been satisfied; he wants Melibea just as much as ever, if not more. Calisto uses extensive metaphors and allusions to convey the lust and desire he feels. First, he mentions the garden again, another possible allusion to the Garden of Eden: after Adam and Eve gained sexual knowledge, they were thrown out of paradise; this could foreshadow an unhappy ending for the lovers. Calisto also mentions the Greek God Phoebus when he speaks of his desire for time to move faster; it is interesting to note that Greek and other pagan religions are incited far more often than God. This could be interpreted as a way of further under-toning the absence of religion in the text. However, at the same time, Melibea and Calisto are placed into the positions they are in precisely because the state’s religion has assigned these positions to them. Therefore, Calisto’s troubled speech here may represent the individual’s battle with human nature and society’s abuse of religion. Again and again Calisto speaks of Melibea as one would speak of God. It is because the state religion itself has failed Calisto, (and in fact all of these characters) that he must place his faith in another person; in so doing he transfers his worship of God to a worship of desire. Yet this new ‘religion,’ rather than fulfilling him, is the cause of all this trouble and pain. Calisto’s speech may therefore be commentating on his search for faith in something tangible. Because Calisto’s nature makes him consumed by desire, Melibea appears to fulfill his sense of worth. Yet he cannot convey happiness in his speech because according to society he must bare the shame of succumbing to his natural desires.