Last Seen Blogs
Text
Should James Somerton be exonerated? - A 3500-word essay on plagiarism and ownership
Should James Somerton be exonerated?
Who even is this guy?
I had not heard of James Somerton before Hbomberguy’s video on Plagiarism and You(Tube). He is the main target of the video, as he has demonstrably plagiarized the content of his videos from other content creators, allegedly being hostile to them when they called him out for it. These accusations don’t interest me much; they are gossip from old Hollywood, and we should not turn the private conflicts of individuals into content. What I find deeply compelling and attractive about this case is that James Somerton became fairly successful by pretending to be a YouTuber.
Content mills
As more people acquire a grasp on the basics of video making and start professional-looking channels more easily, and as more content is called “video essays” regardless of how the label fits, the bar for quality increases. Everyone is a YouTuber now, sure, but not everyone is a good YouTuber. Before, only people with camera-presence could run YouTube channels. Now, and for some time already, newcomers bet on running faceless YouTube channels and producing videos out of stock-footage, only providing a voiceover as the evidence of their presence. This is probably because so many people have been “exposed”, had their turmoil turned into microcelebrity gossip, become a liability for their companies, that being a corporate brand instead appears to be the preferable, smartest option. Lord knows what would be the current fate of James Somerton if he didn’t prominently show his face in his videos: Internet Historian, someone else who was demonstrated to have plagiarized an article for his channel, hasn’t had hordes of people go after him, perhaps because he uses the likeness of András Arató as his own channel mascot and because he’s never pretended to be a particularly moral individual. I personally have a preference for those who show their face in their YouTube content, even if it’s of poor quality, because they defend it with their life.
The danger of faceless channels is that they emulate, impersonate, corporate media that passes through quality control and is therefore professional and trustworthy, at least in the case of didactic entertainment. The amateurs immediately blow their cover when they say something out of place, something that would not fly in the worst, most biased fake news outlet, or they omit any references to their sources, as is common on YouTube. James Somerton is a rare case because, while he showed his face, he often presented conjectures as fact, and most importantly he rarely cited anything. That is precisely why he fascinates me.
Embodiment of the simulation
James Somerton, pre-cancellation, was a simulacrum of a video-essayist. He played the part to a tee. He spoke confidently, dressed up, and discussed the same things that the consumer demographic of video-essays enjoys. Perhaps it was the quality of his videos what impeded him from partnering with the independent platform Nebula; they looked the same as the videos of more prominent YouTubers who engage in queer cultural analysis, but their content was often either plagiarized or factually incorrect. They couldn’t get past a relatively simple threshold. Cultural analysis of popular media and the queer experience doesn’t necessitate much research; it’s precisely the type of discipline that can thrive on conjecture and subjectivity. The only thing his videos needed was proper citation and, perhaps, more rigorous investigation. I’ve seen the videos that are currently on James’ channel - the ones that do not feature plagiarism or flagrant misinformation according to him. I must say, these actually meet the threshold of quality for YouTube essays; they are authentic YouTube videos. No plagiarism, no misinformation. When he puts his mind to it, the man can craft a good video. (Note: James produced many videos in collaboration with writer Nick Hergott, who is quoted in a video by Todd in the Shadows from a post on James’ Discord server, “But that said…a lot of the claims [at least that I make]...are kinda based on just raw observation. I’m kinda fucking lazy and don’t WANT to look things up so I just kinda take something and ruminate on it.” Other, more succinct confessions of his are “Of course not because I don’t read,” and “I don’t do research.” It is clear that he is culpable for much of the incorrect information on the James Somerton channel.)
To pardon James
I’m willing to put James Somerton’s plagiarism behind him. Since the beginning, I thought that all that was needed to avoid every single instance of plagiarism in his videos was to cite his sources. Had he done that, nobody would have cared, even if he didn’t ask permission to any of the writers and content creators referenced. It is courtesy on YouTube to ask for permission or let others know when you’re referencing their material, but in the doctrine of fair use that is irrelevant. If all of his plagiarism showed me anything, it’s that James is a good reader. It is crucial to be a good reader to be a good writer. A bad plagiarist (and keep in mind that James was a bad plagiarist) cannot demonstrate that he understands what he stole or that he learned anything. I listened to James’ podcast, where he spoke off-the-cuff, without any script, and he is knowledgeable. He has learned from all that he’s read. Under the definition I just gave, he’s more of a “bad copier” as Roberto Bolaño once defined them, “...those who simply plagiarize”, than a truly bad plagiarist. He has the potential of doing good, non-plagiarized content.
Good Plagiarists vs. Bad Plagiarists
Let’s continue on what I said about bad plagiarists, or truly bad plagiarists. James was a bad copier because he didn’t hide what he stole. However, there are good plagiarists, and widely celebrated by our culture, at that. We claim to abhor plagiarism while celebrating it at its most shameless. Here is the difference between a good copier and a bad copier: a good copier will transform and even surpass the original, whereas the bad copier will never go beyond simple appropriation and therefore never seriously challenge the existence of the original. To give a contemporary example, Greta Van Fleet became very successful off their first two EPs and debut album in which they emulated a specific period of Led Zeppelin’s career, while Led Zeppelin creatively spun everything they stole into products that are distinct from their influences, whoever they are. The funny thing is that bad copiers will deny that they borrowed from their influences. The members of Greta Van Fleet said that their inspirations for those early records were not Led Zeppelin, but rather AC/DC and Aerosmith. While the complexity of Greta Van Fleet compositions resembles AC/DC’s more than Led Zeppelin’s, the excuse is ludicrous. Everyone knew what they were doing, and the band just played it off. To be clear, a copier is not necessarily a plagiarist, which is a legal category, but plagiarists of course react similarly when they’re caught - No! It wasn’t me! It was the one-armed man!
Artistic plagiarism
The YouTuber TomSka posted a video titled TomSka’s Guide to Plagiarism (The Somerton Scale) in which he posits that “plagiarism exists across a spectrum of severity”, which he structures in a scale baptized after James Somerton - the Somerton scale. It consists of ten steps: no correlation, parallel thinking, subconscious appropriation, inspiration, influence, reference, allusion, derivative, imitative, cloning, and freebooting. The only categories that might plausibly qualify as plagiarism are the last three: imitation, cloning and freebooting - TomSka himself says so in the video, calling them “the danger zone” of the scale. His conclusion is that we all build off from the work of others and that originality doesn’t exist and therefore we shouldn’t fall into despair if we find out that our work resembles someone else’s by accident or coincidence and that if we are inspired by someone it doesn’t hurt to differentiate our stuff from the source. All of these are sensible conclusions, but they’re almost not at all related to the James Somerton situation. What TomSka is referring to with his video is artistic plagiarism, which does not exist. How come it doesn’t exist? It is the acceptable form of plagiarism.
Academic plagiarism
The unacceptable form of plagiarism is academic plagiarism. Plagiarism in academia is extremely easy to detect, especially now that there are multiple plagiarism-checkers that schools utilize; schools also have access to the databases of scientific repositories which feature publications protected by copyright law. Because it is easily traceable, academic plagiarism doesn’t serve its purpose as plagiarism. Plagiarism only works if it replaces the original; it succeeds as long as it goes unnoticed. If you are found to have plagiarized portions of your grade thesis, for example, you get reprimanded; it doesn’t matter if it was a little bit or a big bit. Only if you become a politician you might be immune to any sanction. Returning to the purpose of plagiarism, if the goal is to make money off stolen work, academic plagiarism is the least optimal option, because academic writing does not make money, or at least not enough to be stolen and republished or resold. And just from a philosophical perspective, it is also futile to plagiarize an academic publication, especially if it is research on a hard science, such as medicine, physics, math, chemistry, and so on. Social sciences, such as history, economy, and philosophy, are more up in the air. The point is that there is not much merit in being the owner of a work on the discovery or inquiry on a fact. Facts are facts. Your subjectivity is of little importance to the objective world. The earlier you are on a scientific discovery, the more incorrect you are about it. The fight for originality is not fought in the realm of science. The fight for recognition is worthwhile (looking at you, Rosalind Franklin), but what matters about science is that it is done, not who does it. People will be wrong, but facts will only be right. So that is academic plagiarism: easily spotted, functionally unnecessary, unprofitable, and ultimately useless. But no one defends academic plagiarism. Besides, when it is proven, it is most often punished, which is why nobody considers it a pressing issue. Academic plagiarism is not a problem, because it is unacceptable.
Artistic plagiarism, continued
But artistic plagiarism is of importance to the public. The public doesn’t read scientific publications for leisure. They consume art: film and television, music, literature and poetry, theater, and a long etcetera. What the youth nowadays consumes, for it is an immediate form of entertainment, is content - creative content. That is what James Somerton did, creative content. I mentioned before that social sciences don’t have the same inherent protections against academic plagiarism because, although they employ the scientific method, their analysis is highly dependent on subjectivity. Art criticism is arguably the easiest form of critical analysis possible, because the literary world is a dimension separate from the scientific world. One doesn’t need to rely on fact to perform an engaging critical analysis of art. Of course, literary critique, art criticism, social commentary, however one prefers to call it, is enriched by maintaining a contact with the scientific world, and it borders on being scientific if it is compatible with scientific consensus and historical record. Still, what matters about art criticism is that it be truthful rather than factual. That’s why sometimes writers say wild things without justifying them, and we give them a pass. That’s why Nick Hergott felt completely comfortable admitting that he never researched for the James Somerton channel and still felt righteous in distancing himself from James despite contributing to bad information in their videos. Unfortunately, on YouTube and every other social media platform, it is not only in art criticism and social commentary content that we see this flagrant nonchalance about uncited information. It is still interesting that despite both being featured in Hbomberguy’s video, people resent James Somerton and fellow YouTuber Blair Zón or “iilluminaughtii” for different reasons. Zón actually engaged in academic plagiarism, ripping off (much more in volume than James ever did) documentaries and news articles, yet the criticism directed at her is all about personal drama with co-workers and former colleagues that I cannot be assed to care about. Nobody cares about her plagiarism. Perhaps because they don’t actually dislike plagiarism unless they are told. People dislike James Somerton because he plagiarized art criticism from other queer content creators, many of them freelancers and independent workers (and two passed away). Had he plagiarized the right type of content, maybe he would be written off as lazy, but he would still have a platform.
On copyright law
Andy of AtunShei Films once joked that the collection of content creators affectionately nicknamed Breadtube were “liberals who make YouTube videos.” It is incredible that one of the most prominent YouTubers making anti-capitalism content is such an ardent defender of copyright law. Copyright law serves to give creatives control over the value generated by their labor; however, it also exists to screw people over in abusive, petty ways. The lawsuits that have happened over music are the most outrageous example.
The Marvin Gaye estate successfully sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over the song Blurred Lines being too similar to Got to Give It Up, so they tried their luck again with a lawsuit against Ed Sheeran for supposedly copying Let’s Get it On to make Thinking Out Loud. Fortunately, they lost the second case. Similarly, a no name Christian rapper won a lawsuit against Katy Perry, whose song Dark Horse allegedly used the same riff from his song, whatever it was. Recently, that decision was overturned after Katy Perry appealed. One last case, that of Neil Innes, illustrates how one can be frivolously sued over a creative work and come out an authoritarian, an enforcer of and believer in the system. After he was sued by ATV Music for his Beatles parodies and forced to split the revenue with the company, Innes sued Oasis for eight notes of their song Whatever. He believed he was owed credit and compensation for a bar in a six-minute song. He had no empathy to spare for fellow artists. That is the ideology promoted by copyright law.
It is ludicrous to uphold a mechanism that exists so that malicious agents can squeeze large amounts of easy money out of more successful people (and sometimes less successful people) while setting precedents to stifle creativity under the excuse of ownership.
Plagiarism vs. Copyright infringement
To clarify, plagiarism and copyright infringement are different things. You can plagiarize something that is not copyrighted, to define the distinction through an example. Plagiarism is a claim of authorship: the seller of pirated movies doesn’t claim to have produced the films himself. Legally, it is easier to find someone guilty of copyright infringement than of plagiarism. The easiest way to determine an occurrence of copyright infringement is when copyrighted material is unlawfully distributed in its entirety, representing losses in the earnings of the copyright holder. Pirated movies, music, books; bootleg recordings of concerts or live theater. Episodes of television uploaded to YouTube. The material is reproduced, and the copy may not generate money, or it might generate money to the incorrect person. That form of copyright infringement is the easiest to find and litigate. However, if a copy is not a reproduction, a clone, but a new entity that somewhat resembles the original, claims of copyright infringement become shaky. If as much of a single atom of a copy is different, the accusation of copyright infringement is no longer completely solid, so it is safer to decry plagiarism, and at that point there is nothing that can (or should) be done about it.
a brief manifesto on combating artistic plagiarism
As I see it, the problem of artistic plagiarism should be treated the same way as with copyright infringement: whether the copy threatens the original market. The threat should be quantified in practice: if a creative sees a dip in revenue that can be proven as caused by imitators, the imitators shall split the revenue with the original creative. Otherwise, imitators should be allowed to exist, for their right to earn money under the capitalist mode of production and for their right to free speech.
The absurdity of ownership
Private property is a highly contested concept in ideologies such as communism and anarchism, and intellectual property, or intellectual private property, should be perceived with the same skepticism. Intellectual property is as preposterous as immaterial labor. We cannot own an idea. An idea is immaterial. We cannot prevent others from using an idea. That is the crux of the problem of ownership. Anything that is good should not be deprived from others. An idea is an inexhaustible resource, an infinite commodity. What is the use of limiting its distribution? You don’t have the right to have my idea. Who is any of us to dictate to others what they can or cannot do, with an idea or in general? While the discussion hitherto has focused on artistic and academic literature, intellectual property extends to inventions. How much progress for the benefit of humanity has been hindered by patent protections? To give an example, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the world to develop new vaccine technology to provide vaccinations to the population and lessen the debilitating and potentially fatal emergency. The distribution and rollout of vaccines was slowed down by Bill Gates’ refusal to waive patents on vaccines produced by his company. Patents on inventions are obviously a device to make rich people more money, but trademarks and copyright law help artists keep the money they make, right? No. Most of the money generated by the labor of artists is kept by the real copyright holders: publishers. Publishers, record labels, movie studios. In our current day, publishers are trying to devise methods to pay less and less royalties, with music and entertainment streaming and refundable digital books. The artist earns a wage as any other worker.
If intellectual property does not provide complete ownership of their labor to creatives, it probably does not merit the ardent defense of any creative. If intellectual property prevents access to knowledge, it probably does not merit the appreciation of anyone who values the utility of knowledge. That is why anarchists pay hosting fees on websites to distribute anarchist literature for free: they are committed to the spread of ideas, the education of the masses, rather than to privatizing their knowledge for profit and the prestige of ownership. Intellectual property is antithetical to the democratization of knowledge.
Harry Brewis, the Hbomberguy, says on his Plagiarism and You(Tube) video, “On YouTube, if you have an original idea, if it’s good, it won’t be yours for long.” Good.
Conclusion & Call to action to the reader
After the fallout of the James Somerton spectacle, YouTubers are becoming bold and publicly calling out smaller YouTubers who copy - but not infringe on their copyright - their work. This is bad. People are not upset at content theft. People don’t care about quality content, or originality, or any of that bullshit. Nobody believes in that. What they are upset about is that some have found the solution. Nobody is angry at the copiers for doing things “the easy way.” Everybody wants to do things “the easy way.” Nobody likes to work. Everyone wishes to earn as much money as possible with the least labor. Those upset at James Somerton and other copiers are upset at the fact that some people found a way approved by the administrators of capital to make money. They, like every liberal, are angry at capitalism while believing in it and supporting it. Is there a solution for them? There are plenty. To ignore the copiers is a good first step; after all, the free market regulates itself and consuming quality content will create a demand for quality content. If you are more interested in the enrichment of the intellectual landscape, of common discourse, than in petty drama, my advice is that we all become active consumers. Passive consumers don’t question what they consume - they read something and believe it. Even if you think that the present essay is total horseshit, at least engage with its arguments, even if you disagree anyway. That is my advice to you: read. Read more. Learn to evaluate and critique sources. A list of references is not just a display of intellectual honesty: it’s the evidence of the quality of your research. Become an active viewer, an active reader, an active consumer, a participant in the discourse. If you are a good reader, you might recognize from where I borrowed the structure of this essay, and I’m sure he would not mind. And if you’re really desperate about the low bar for quality for video-essay content on YouTube, I suggest you graduate and start reading books.
#james somerton#nick hergott#plagiarism#plagiarism and you(tube)#hbomberguy#intellectual property#copyright law#copyright infringement#2024#Raúl DJVP#essay
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
My water footprint
My personal water footprint is 1,185 gallons a day, amounting to a total of 5,925 gallons a day for the five people in my household. The personal US average water footprint is 1,802; the website that calculated my results, Water Footprint Calculator, remarks that my footprint is low. I agree with that assessment. I was surprised by my water footprint because I had not estimated the exact amount of water I or my family used in a day. I knew it would be large, despite my efforts to keep it minimal, and indeed, it is a big number by any metric. What surprised me the most was, rather than a particular result, the fact that virtual water is taken into account within the site’s methodology. I only thought of water consumption in the domestic dimension; under my definition, indoor and outdoor water consumption were not separate, yet I paid less attention to outdoor water and focused only on indoor water. In fact, I used to only pay attention to water dedicated to personal use, because I could control how much of it I wasted. I did not factor the washing machine or the dishes into my personal water footprint, at least when I was a child.
The culture of water efficiency was always inculcated in my house. When the shower faucet opens, water usually comes out cold until it heats; we used to collect the cold water with a bucket and repurpose it. Often we poured that water into the toilet to make it flush. I no longer do that. Of course, as circumstances change, the water waste in a household is also affected and not always kept to a minimum. When I lived with my dad, we were only two in the house, so we allowed the toilet water to mellow for as long as it could be hygienic. In my mother’s house, the toilet is flushed every time, at my stepfather’s request. Let it be known that in my current house, every faucet is low-flow, emitting 1.5 or even 1.2 gallons of water per minute. My previous house still has all of its three toilets, whereas my current house only has one. Thanks to various economical factors, there is an exchange in waste reduction measures and water waste, some gains and losses.
This exercise definitely changed my perception on water consumption. It is true: a water footprint is not limited to water of hygienic use, as water consumption is implicated in various technologies and in most activities. Virtual water accounts for most of my water consumption. I have a low personal water footprint, and I intend to keep it that way. The total footprint of my household might remain the same for a while, because some of the measures we could realistically enact necessitate collaboration from my four family members. For example, I would try to reduce or even cut meat from my diet, but I live with three picky eaters, and meat is served daily in my house. Food, including pet food, accounts for the largest portion of total water consumption. Interestingly, all of my home energy comes from utility power, and while an alternative energy device could reduce our water and energy consumption, the savings would be very minor for a small domestic electric system like ours. For now, I will keep using the least amount of water I can and need, just as I have done before. In fact, I registered my email on the website so that I can track my footprint in the future.
0 notes
Text
My EPA Carbon Footprint
My EPA Carbon Footprint report states that the annual carbon dioxide emissions in my household is 52,992 lbs. If I were to follow through with the emission reducing actions that I annotated, this number would go down to 46,593 lbs. Both of these results are way below the “U.S. Average” of 98,508 lbs. This is of course, a rough estimate, since some of my data was difficult to quantify and some might have distorted the result. For example, there are five cars in my household, three of them acquired this year, but two are not regularly driven; the annual mileage and gas statistics of these cars were artificially inflated. Also, I accidentally promised to install 19 ENERGY STAR light bulbs in the Reducing Emissions section of Home Energy, when I actually already have said 19 light bulbs in my domestic electricity system. In any case, my annual CO2 emissions tally might be closer to the 46,593 number.
The majority of carbon dioxide emissions are products of corporations and the fossil fuel industry. The problem at large lies more with unregulated conglomerates than with the consuming population. For reference, according to a 2006 United Nations Fact Sheet on Climate Change, “Africa accounts for only 2–3 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions from energy and industrial sources” (1). A much more recent CDP Africa Report from 2020 indicates that “Africa accounts for the smallest share of global greenhouse gas emissions, at just 3.8%, in contrast to 23% in China, 19% in the US, and 13% in the European Union” (3). The percentage of emissions in Africa remained the same after all these years. Emissions per capita will vary from country to country depending on many economic and geopolitical factors. The biggest producers, the biggest industrial economies, such as China and the United States, pollute more than entire countries combined or even far more than a whole continent. It is not unexpected, then, that according to the EPA the annual average of CO2 emissions per household is high, much higher than my calculated annual average (accounting for data inflation).
I live in America now. I used to live in a household with only two cars; now there are five at hand, three used daily. Two of them are large in size, so they need more gas to be filled. When I lived with my dad in Tijuana, the waste we generated weekly could fit in a paper bag for loose bread. In Spring Valley, we have two blue containers for recycling waste, in case that one is not enough. In Tijuana, my mom would put the clothes to dry in a clothes line; here, we always use the dryer. In all respects, life is more wasteful in the United States. I would not say that the population is to blame, again, because waste reduction practices are dictated by economic and cultural factors. Here is my point: if the most important pollution is not caused by the total global population (consider again the least polluting countries), but rather by industries and corporations, is there a point to watching a personal carbon footprint? Yes, absolutely. Our personal effort of waste reduction can be superseded by the forces of capital: the plastic used for wrapping and containing food is generally not recyclable and amounts to a large sum of plastic waste, the infrastructure of the United States is more accommodated for cars than for public transportation, the economy is dependent on oil and its derived products, most of our energy comes from thermal power stations. The changes that would reduce our global carbon footprint and environmental impact in general are economic and political in nature: the structures that incentivize overproduction, overconsumption and excessive waste will have to be replaced so that more efficient CO2 reduction can be enabled at a personal level.
That said, if individual effort translated into collective action, it would reflect very positively on the per capita carbon footprint statistics. Having seen my EPA carbon footprint results, I can visualize how effective my waste reduction efforts have been. I was surprised to see that my home energy and waste related emissions are comparable: 2,189 lbs. of CO2 from home energy against 2,003 lbs. from waste. My waste emissions are not too far from the U.S. average of 3,458 lbs., but my home energy emissions are a far cry from the U.S. average of 42,630. My transportation related emissions, 41, 835 lbs., are not dramatically different from the U.S. average of 52,420 lbs. of CO2 emissions. These results are due to the waste reduction measures we already take in my household: we carefully recycle every material, all of our light bulbs are ENERGY STAR and we plan to switch our refrigerator for an ENERGY STAR model too, and we insulated the house so that the heat from the furnace or the air conditioner remains long after they are turned off. When I start driving my car regularly, I will watch the miles I drive and choose the most efficient fuel. I intend to keep watching my carbon footprint and take all the measures possible to reduce my environmental impact.
Works cited:
BENCHMARKING PROGRESS TOWARDS CLIMATE SAFE CITIES, STATES, AND REGIONS, CDP AFRICA REPORT, Mar. 2020, https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/005/023/original/CDP_Africa_Report_2020.pdf?1583855467.
United Nations. United Nations Fact Sheet on Climate Change, UN Climate Change Conference Nairobi 2006, https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/factsheet_africa.pdf.
0 notes
Text
Ratatouille - Artist vs. Critic
The story of Ratatouille is not simple. Remy doesn’t just want to cook. He knows that he has this ability, this gift, and he wants to be recognized for it. And cooking is not a rat activity. Remy has aspirations beyond his animal life. He says that he wants to leave his trace on the world to his father, to which he replies that he’s talking like a human. And Émile is concerned too, at the beginning of the film: standing on two feet, cooking, reading, watching television, those are human activities. But Remy does all of that, and he learned it from the culinary mastermind Gusteau himself. He finds human activity much more fulfilling for his creative spirit. Remy has to find his footing between these two worlds, animals and humans, and he has to confront his animality as he tries to become an artist. No human is fully human, and no animal is fully animal. The most particular aspect of Ratatouille is the conflict between the artist and the critic. Schaffrillas says that ego is the antagonist of the movie because it is pride and selfishness that usually comes in the way of our goals and fruitful relationships. But then I thought about it from the Freudian perspective, at a very basic level. The ego is the self. What in English is translated as ego, superego and id is in German Das Ich, das Über Ich und das es, in Spanish it is Yo, Superyo y el ello, in French, Le moi, le surmoi et le ça. While vanities and conceit can be diminished, ego itself cannot be eliminated because it is part of identity. And between the artist and the critic, ego plays a very interesting role. With their critique, the critic hurts the artist’s ego. Artists are proud of their art. They can also be very insecure about it, but then they have an ego that is already beaten down. The ego of the artist is very fragile because their work reflects their self, their identity. Because of the intimate relation with the work, incomprehensible to everyone else, any attack against the artpiece becomes personal. It is common to see artists behaving as rockstars, since they are the creative deities, but it is rare to see a critic superstar. Artists have the advantage of appealing to emotions, memories and fantasies. Critics, instead, appeal to value, discourse and method, something the average enthusiast is less engaged by, less familiar with. Artworks can be immediately related with the individual that produced them, but critique tends to be desubjectified, generalized within the canon, although opinions, the instrument of the critic, are just as personal and subjective as any artwork. Has opinion been commodified, like every other type of artform? I wouldn’t say so. But it is easier for the critic to disappear in comparison to the Author. How many people know of Death of the Author without knowing of Roland Barthes and the context in which he wrote his essay? Even if the critic succeeds in achieving fame, notoriety and ultimately influence, they are vulnerable to this sort of erasure. The goal in Ratatouille is to impress and defeat the critic. Anton Ego was prepared to give Gusteau another unfavorable review. But the artist must not view the critic as their adversary. Ego realizes this applies inversely to the critic after tasting Remy’s dish. The artist and the critic are not at battle. Critics do not only voice their opinion, they contribute to literary theory, they expand the language of critique and help others understand why they appreciate the art they so love. And while I deem critics those who emit critique professionally, the art consumer, the middle-man in this binary of artist and critic, also exerts the role of critic. While not the first, Marcel Duchamp said that the artwork is completed by the spectator. Everyone can be an artist and everyone can be a critic. The critic is an artist too. A critic is not one who only gives negative criticism, but one who situates the artist in front of the eyes of the world.
Full video here:
https://youtu.be/6TDO9ZPKMvs
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ortografía de la Lengua Española
Ortografía de la Lengua Española, publicado por la Real Academia Española en su edición de 1999, tiene como objetivo establecer las normas de la ortografía, el dominio de la lengua escrita, y ser un manual de consulta general, en especial para la veintena de países que también hacen uso del español. La RAE es la más antigua de las instituciones encargadas de estas funciones (fundada en 1713) y España es el país de origen del idioma español, por lo que se admite como la autoridad responsable de hacer correcciones y aclaraciones a otras naciones. En el prólogo a la obra emplean el término “panhispánica”, pues una ortografía oficial es un esfuerzo de unificación entre hablantes.
La primera edición de la obra fue Orthographia, publicada en 1741. En 1752, la segunda fue titulada Ortografía, privilegiando a la fonética sobre la etimología.
En 1844, fue decretado por una Real Orden, firmada por Isabel II, que la ortografía académica debía enseñarse en las escuelas públicas según lo que marcaba el noveno diccionario de la RAE. Previo a esto, la Academia no tenía una responsabilidad de tal importancia, sino que hacía propuestas y aconsejaba. El referendo oficial determinó a la ortografía académica como la de uso preeminente en España y así se adoptó también en las naciones americanas. Un año antes, una academia madrileña de profesores de educación primaria comenzó a enseñar una ortografía sin “h”,”v” ni “q”, lo cual apuró al decreto. Antes de la versión definitiva de una ortografía académica, la RAE innovaba la lengua escrita con soltura. Después, cada variación pasó a realizarse bajo el juicio y aprobación de los veintidós órganos asociados.
La tarea de la RAE es la regulación de las normas, puesto que el lenguaje evoluciona y es influenciado por la práctica (tres criterios principales han definido a la ortografía académica: la pronunciación, la etimología y el uso), y no por su antigüedad o su país de origen va a hacer su voluntad por encima de todas las demás academias. El ámbito hispánico alberga variantes del español que provocan planteamientos y replanteamientos de las normas;el objetivo de la RAE es mantener una unidad esencial entre estas.
Real Academia Española (1999). Ortografía de la lengua española. Madrid, España.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Sobre la conferencia de Chomsky en UABC (2021)
En la conferencia titulada “Gramática generativa y Variación de lenguaje”, el Dr. Chomsky discute estos temas en un recuento de la historia de la lingüística, empezando por el lenguaje concebido de forma sociológica por corrientes estructuralistas (en Europa se sostenía la definición sassureana del lenguaje como un contrato social; en Estados Unidos era prominente Leonard Bloomfield y su definición de las “comunidades de habla”) y la filosofía del lenguaje, y pasando luego al enfoque biológico, en el que se reconoció al lenguaje como una propiedad de la especie Homo Sapiens. Chomsky es partidario de la gramática universal, que refiere a la facultad misma del lenguaje, y su principal contribución es la gramática generativa: el lenguaje, dice, es un sistema computacional de infinidad discreta, pues de una estructura finita pueden desarrollarse una infinidad de expresiones de pensamiento.
Cerca del final, él discute el principio de dependencia de la estructura, que define el funcionamiento del sistema interno del lenguaje, y señala dos cosas. El principio de dependencia de la estructura dicta que reconocemos estructuras antes que palabras. Entonces, el sistema interno no se guía por orden lineal. A veces hay concordancia entre el verbo y la frase nominal más cercana, otras veces la hay con la frase nominal más remota. Esto es más bien determinado por el análisis que hace el sistema interno de una frase dada, considerando estructuras y significados posibles. Así sucede durante la adquisición temprana del lenguaje. El lenguaje no se aprende en la educación básica, o antes, haciendo análisis sintácticos. Es mucho más automático. Chomsky dice al respecto que “los niños sólo escuchan un hilo de palabras”, implicando que los niños tampoco reparan en el significado más complejo de las palabras. Cita a Lila Gleitman, quien pone el ejemplo de que muchos niños pequeños conocen el significado de la frase “eso no es justo”, siendo el término “justicia” muy cargado de múltiples contextos que lo hacen objeto de estudio riguroso. En resumen, lo que más acaparó mi atención fue la dependencia de la estructura y cómo éste habilita el uso de nociones muy abstractas en el lenguaje, incluso en las etapas más tempranas de su adquisición.
#Chomsky#noam chomsky#structure dependence#language#acquisition#Lila Gleitman#Leonard Bloomfield#gramática generativa#generative grammar#parsing#UABC#2021#síntesis
0 notes
Text
Poem - Owner Walks into Room Where Dog Waits
Hi!
Welcome!
Welcome back!
How are you doing
Where were you Where are you going
I’m here on the bed Look out the window
I’m so glad that you’re here Everything is better when you’re here
Did you eat I already did Oh thank you Nice pets Alright I’m going
to jump down I’m going to stretch You are so big again Are you happy
It’s a beautiful day Play outside Want to go outside Want to stay
I missed you If you are happy I am happy Will you sleep in your bed tonight
Can I sleep on your bed if it’s cold I feel safe next to you I love you
Please don’t leave me There is something outside I will protect you
Bark Bark The least I can do Thank you for giving me food Thank you
for letting me on the sofa Thank you for letting me play inside and
outside Thank you for comforting me when I’m scared I’m glad to
see you again I’m sorry that I bit too hard I got carried away I will
do better Bark Bark Can you open the door You always guess
what I want Thank you for that Don’t disappear for too long
Okay You will be on my watch Always I love you
0 notes
Text
Sobre “De la Traducción” de Alfonso Reyes
En De la traducción, Reyes reconoce que la traducción implica un problema (“imposible”), pero no hace ningún argumento específico. Más bien pone ejemplos de traducciones que se toman libertades creativas y adaptan el texto original a la familiaridad de otra cultura. Los ejemplos que pone son en su mayoría textos clásicos y antiguos (el último es una versión actualizada de Horacio) u canónicos, más cercanos al siglo XX. En la parte IV, Reyes discute de lleno el problema del argot, introducir carga semántica muy local a lo que parecería un texto universal, cosa con la que juega también en la parte I. No sólo está esa cuestión, sino también su contrario: cuando la obra original tiene en su constitución un elemento cultural irremplazable, como el Pigmalión de Bernard Shaw y su empleo esencial del habla cockney. Se pone el caso del intento de adaptación al español con una variante fonética diseñada para emular tal elemento tan propio de la cultura en que se desarrolla la historia original. ¿Debería evitarse hacer arte harto localizado? Para nada, creo yo, porque permiten compartir los nichos culturales con el resto del mundo, aún si su traducción sacrifique ciertos aspectos para poder hacerse. Volviendo al argot, cada cultura tiene su jerga y creo también que puede usarse en adaptaciones con ciertas reservas (aunque esto a Reyes le parezca preocupante, como si al entrar en esta práctica, los textos perdieran su seriedad), pues los textos pueden ser apropiados y explorados de formas distintas para facilitar su comprensión.
#Alfonso Reyes#Traducción#ensayo#reflexion#Bernard Shaw#literatura#texto#argot#cultura#2021#Raul DJVP
0 notes
Text
Sobre “Traducción: Literatura y Literalidad” de Octavio Paz
Paz hace varias declaraciones osadas en este ensayo, he aquí las más interesantes:
-Todo es traducción: Esto es más bien una generalización de su argumento pero en una página la formula como el lenguaje siendo una traducción del mundo no verbal. También habla de la traducción en la misma lengua, explicar lo mismo cambiando términos, responder ¿Qué quiere decir esta frase? con otra. Parece Paz tenerle mala a la lingüística, no me queda muy claro porqué, pero este acercamiento es básicamente estructuralista, el signo que se descifra. Todo es traducción porque todo es interpretación, tratar de adecuar todo a la comprensión singular.
-La traducción evidencia las diferencias: A pesar de que los humanos dicen las mismas cosas, como afirma Paz, las expresan diferentemente. La cultura es expresión y perspectiva. Aunque hayan coincidencias, al final del texto se ejemplifica con T.S. Eliot y Velarde gracias a la influencia compartida de Laforgue, hay variantes únicas de lo dicho y traducido. Por su diferente configuración, las lenguas no pueden permitirse un intercambio total - está el ejemplo de los modismos o las expresiones idiomáticas, muy idiosincráticas, muy propias de su lenguaje, que no pueden aparecer de otra forma en otros.
-La poesía se puede traducir: Quizá la más importante del texto porque hay quienes sostienen que la poesía puede escapar a la traducción, que es totalizante. Paz insiste que no, a pesar de que un poema no se puede replicar (como ninguna traducción), por lo que se debe apuntar a una nueva versión del poema, inherentemente distinta pero reconocible, los poemas análogos de los que habló Valéry.
0 notes
Text
En una reacción química, la masa permanece constante
Me despierta más. Grandes pasos, avanza con rapidez, suena a un líquido en ebullición vaporizándose. Me figuro una planicie invisible en la que resuena un sonido, como un río tranquilo y, de la nada, agua de unos rápidos pasa por ahí. Hay una leve paz, un silencio que fue turbado de golpe y no recobró presencia. Me figuro materia que se estira, materia maleable. Me figuro a risas de una alegría por torturar. Un espacio cerrado que se abarrota de bullicio y se queda sin oxígeno. Luego se vacía y da lugar al silencio con mucha lentitud. Siento que el sonido sigue una trayectoria, y quiero seguir viendo a dónde va. Muchos objetos están cayendo y azotando con el suelo a destiempo, y se quedan estáticos. Son demasiado los objetos que quedan por caer, y su caída genera un ruido reverberante de volumen alto. Ahora hay una presencia que se aleja, se acerca a toda velocidad y explota enfrente de mí. La sensación renace y es temblorosa, pues es inestable la fuente del sonido. Zigzaguea. Rueda en el piso y choca con lo que encuentra. Es torpe, pero imparable y lo tira todo a su camino. Es despreocupada. Desaparece por donde haya quedado su ruta. Le siguen unas fuerzas pequeñas que emergen del suelo y terminan de crecer a poca altura. Estaban por ponerse quietas, pero son azotadas por una ráfaga de otra fuerza. Otro objeto llega arrastrándose con pereza y los volúmenes de decibeles se alzan. Se da una persecución de ruidos fuertes y graves a sonidos pequeños y agudos. Cuando se encuentran, sólo queda un zumbido de rastro. Unos segundos de calma y todo se vuelve a despertar. También yo. La trayectoria de todos los objetos es una común, y de repente se parte en diferentes caminos. Todos se separan. Y de la nada, todos se vuelven a juntar. Una vez más, todo ahora parece más ordenado, cada sonido similar comienza en tiempos distintos consecutivamente. Se acerca con rapidez una fuerza que desconcentra a todo; más bien, amalgamando todo. Se encoge el escenario. Todo lo que hay es pequeño, y ramifica, poco a poco, más sonidos. Desde lo alto, caen con lentitud objetos, dejando una estela sonora. No aterrizan nunca. El suelo se abre, y se arremolina todo para caer dentro de un hoyo y desvanecerse. Se aproxima, cuidadosamente, una banda de más sonidos a establecer su presencia, y se plantan en el suelo. Más sonidos se despiertan. Se pegan entre sí. Luchan. Se enciman. Los agudos son los que predominan. Su tono se hace grave y no cesan. Crecen al punto de ser demasiado grandes.
Esto ilustra la ejecución de la composición.
Nota del editor: El texto fue escrito en 2017 mientras se escuchaba Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima de Krzysztof Penderecki.
0 notes
Link
Here you can find 8 different texts and essays made for class, regarding topics such as police defunding, conservative media, the etymology of the word paradigm and the novel Watt by Samuel Beckett.
0 notes
Text
Ciencia, conocimiento científico y verdad
La ciencia comprende dos aspectos dentro de su definición: el conocimiento aceptado bajo criterios que lo evalúan y lo sostienen como verdadero, y el método con los cuáles se deciden dichos criterios. Esta distinción entre el tipo de conocimiento y el método se entiende también como teoría y práctica. Algunos pensadores favorecen una sobre otra, pero ambas partes se complementan. No obstante, la empresa científica puede identificarse mejor por su método, ya que es el que ordena la información de tal modo que haya un conocimiento sistematizado para aprovechar en primer lugar. El conocimiento científico sólo puede obtenerse por el método científico. Todos los enunciados fácticos congruentes entre sí conforman el conocimiento científico, y de esta concentración se utilizan los enunciados verificados, tomados ya como verdaderos, para la elaboración de teorías y leyes, con la intención de comprender el mundo, sus fenómenos y sus hechos.
La ciencia puede asumirse entonces como un estudio del conocimiento que apunta a establecer o descubrir la verdad. Pero los científicos mismos admiten la noción de “verdad” como difusa. Según se ajusta a los cambios paradigmáticos (Kuhn) frente a nuevas teorías, evidencias y épocas, pareciera que o la verdad cambia constantemente o nunca se ha acercado la humanidad a ella. Por esto recalca Bunge la cualidad perfectible de la ciencia: se autocorrige, no descarta el pasado sino que se construye con él, las leyes que plantea son hipotéticas (1) por naturaleza y su misma nomenclatura varía según su aplicabilidad y comportamiento. Entonces, se entiende al error como parte del método científico. Incluso, según el falsacionismo de Popper, probar que se puede obtener evidencia contraria a una teoría hacen al método y al conocimiento más científico. Otra vez se vuelve al método (2). La ciencia se determina por su método. Es por esto que Feyerabend apuesta por no limitarse a un método para avanzar la investigación científica, pues en la práctica, el prestigio de la ciencia y ciertos métodos les han dotado de una autoridad cuasi dogmática. Bunge en un claro ejemplo dice: “El requisito de verificabilidad de las hipótesis científicas bastan para asegurar el progreso científico”(3). Sin embargo, Bunge rebate que la ciencia es abierta como sistema por ser falible y que las reglas del método científico no son finales, por lo que no es dogmática. Lo que a él le interesa es el rigor del procedimiento (planteo del problema, construcción de un modelo teórico, deducción de consecuencias particulares, prueba de las hipótesis, introducción de las conclusiones en la teoría) y las teorías explicativas. Es menester mencionar que otra característica principal de la ciencia es la claridad: la ciencia es fáctica, analítica, precisa, especializada, comunicable, sistemática, general, legal - que establece leyes - y explicativa. Dentro de lo que se pueda controlar, debe evitar la ambigüedad, incluso cuando hace predicciones u trasciende los hechos con la ayuda de la lógica y la matemática (cuyas verdades son relativas a sus sistemas)(4).
La ciencia no está exenta de filosofía u otros campos de conocimiento (Bunge lo reconoce) y su método por sí solo no ha resuelto el problema de la verdad. Para el Círculo de Viena, lo único que puede ser verdad son los enunciados del discurso científico, más que el conocimiento en sí: “El sentido de un enunciado es el método de la verificación.” (Stadler, 1997, p. 312). Por lo tanto, la manera más clara de definir a la ciencia sería como una herramienta de proposición, comprobación y adquisición de conocimiento que ha servido a la humanidad para el estudio, para conducirse en el mundo que habita. Ha tenido sus revoluciones, se ha perfeccionado desde el racionalismo y el empirismo de la Ilustración, pues ha juntado ambas corrientes, y la comprobación ha sido facilitada por el avance de las tecnologías que más pueden registrar y más alcance tienen. Mientras sea útil, la humanidad, sea en sus campos de estudio o en su cotidianidad, se seguirá sirviendo de ella.
Notas al pie de página
1. Stadler, F. (2011). El Círculo de Viena. Ciudad de México. México. Fondo de Cultura Económica. pg. 314 “Las leyes son instrucciones para la construcción de enunciados.”
2. Bunge, M. (1960). La ciencia, su método y su filosofía. Buenos Aires. Argentina. Siglo Veinte. pg. 17 “La ciencia es esclava de sus propios métodos mientras éstos tienen éxito: pero es libre de multiplicar y de modificar en todo momento sus reglas, en aras de mayor racionalidad y oportunidad.”
3. ibid. pg. 21
4. El Círculo de Viena. p g. 313 “La verdad no es otra cosa que consistencia entre enunciados; la falsedad es una contradicción.”
#ciencia#conocimiento#científico#verdad#método#Mario Bunge#Bunge#Karl Popper#Paul Feyerabend#Círculo de Viena#Thomas Kuhn#Wiener Kreis#paradigma#ley#2020#Raúl DJVP
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Aforismo sobre la poesía de Jaime Sabines
En su poesía, Jaime Sabines trata cuatro temas de forma recurrente: la vida, la muerte, Dios y el amor. Si se entiende a la vida y la muerte como un binario, los opuestos, entonces Dios y el amor son el otro binario. En “Los amorosos” hay menciones de cada uno de estos conceptos, “la hermosa vida”, “la muerte”, “sin Dios y sin diablo”, y el amor en general, siendo este el tema central del poema; asimismo aparecen en conjunto en otros icónicos poemas de Sabines como “Tía Chofi”, “Doña Luz”, “Me encanta Dios”, “Adán y Eva” y “Algo sobre la muerte del mayor Sabines”. Pero poemas como “Los amorosos” abundan en el catálogo del poeta, poemas del amor romántico como “Te quiero a las diez de la mañana”, “Me dueles”, “No es que muera de amor”, “Sitio de amor”, así como del amor a sus familiares, como los poemas que dedicó a cada uno de sus padres, a su hijo Julio, a su tía Sofía. Entonces es clara la atención al amor de Sabines. Retomando la vida-muerte y el Dios-amor: si la vida y la muerte son opuestos complementarios, el amor es el complemento de Dios, al ser la única fuerza con una magnitud comparable a la de éste.
Contenido adicional: Análisis de Los amorosos
El título “Los amorosos” quizás refiera a una pareja que sirve de personajes que reflejan al amor apasionado. O quizás refiera a todos aquellos que han pasado en su vida por un amor tal. El amor descrito en “Los amorosos” es aquel en el que la otra persona se vuelve el mundo entero, aquel en el que los partícipes dependen de cada quien para sobrevivir contra un invasivo mundo exterior (lo que los hace vivir en soledad), aquel que no sigue razones. En esta clase de amor, sólo se necesita del silencio y de la presencia del otro. Por esto, no es fijo, sino que está en constante movimiento, en la búsqueda y en la espera, lo que trae incertidumbre y, en consecuencia, un riesgo al sufrimiento mayor a aquel del amor maduro y formal. Pero para los amorosos esto es preferible. Es preferible la aventura y la pasión.
Hay ciertos símbolos relacionados a la naturaleza, como los arroyos de agua fresca y un lago, que a modo de símil ubican a los amorosos en cuestión en un contexto casi salvaje. Hay símbolo que evocan el peligro, como los alacranes en la sábana, los gusanos que amenazan con comérselos si duermen y las serpientes en lugar de brazos, o las venas que se hinchan como serpientes, y son indicios del riesgo que un amor sin compromisos, sin planes, inexperto, como el de los amorosos, implica.
El poema no dice que este sea el ejemplo de amor romántico por antonomasia, sino que lo muestra como una forma bruta y pura del amor que muchas personas podrán identificar con el noviazgo. De hecho, se enfatiza el peligro y el llanto del amor de los amorosos, por lo que no es completa felicidad. Es un retrato franco que ilustra al amor en general y a sus vaivenes a través de una imagen de melancolía que tiene, al final, un lado positivo.
Como nota sobre el estilo, llama la atención que está escrito en prosa, lo que presta para un verso más flexible que integra ciertas estrofas de sentido literal con otras que hacen uso de figuras retóricas.
#Jaime Sabines#Los amorosos#Poesía mexicana#Poeta#Poema#Aforismo#Amor#Vida#Muerte#Dios#Análisis#2020#Raúl DJVP
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Book Report - Watt by Samuel Beckett
Watt is a novel written by Samuel Beckett written during World War II and published in 1953, the same year his seminal stage play Waiting For Godot premiered in France. The novel follows an eponymous character who stumbles upon a fancy house and, after managing to open a door from the outside, sneaks in, where he subsequently becomes the servant of the man who lives in it. Although this is the incident that kickstarts the plot, it is difficult to recount the story of the novel because it does not narrate the events that the characters go through; rather, it describes the thought process of the protagonist, who usually second guesses everything he sees. The book is divided into four chapters, and the timeline, according to the opening paragraph of the fourth chapter, is: “two, one, four, three.” But as presented in the book, it starts with a group of working class people on a train having a conversation until they spot a vagabond who passes nearby. One of them has dealt with him before, but he doesn’t know his name nor he remembers anything about him other than he has a red nose and that he has owed him five shillings for seven years.
It is made clear from the beginning that the mysterious character is an errant soul, and it can be inferred from the anecdote of the five shillings that he is a vagabond. After the group from the beginning leaves the train, the narrative perspective switches to the character, who is introduced as Watt. It is the nighttime and he is heading somewhere he can spend the night. He orients himself with the moon and walks while performing a ritual of sorts, turning his body around and flinging his arms and legs with each step. Briefly, he enrolls into a ditch, where he is surrounded by dirt and wet vegetation, and then gets out to continue his journey. It is then when he finds the house, a big isolated house in the middle of the quiet night. Unassumingly, he tries to open its doors, until he opens the back door, which tempts him to get inside. There he finds a fireplace burning in an empty room, where he entertains himself playing with the fire’s light and ashes. Suddenly, another man enters the room and explains to Watt that he (introduced as Arsene) is one of the servants of Mr Knott (spelled without punctuation) and that it is his final day as such, given that Watt has just appeared seemingly to take his place. Arsene also explains that he feels as in the twilight of his life, and that he perceives himself as one of many of the previous servants in a long line that goes so far back that their names are no longer remembered. He is defiant and scornful as he suggests that he will go away to wherever he can arrive until his body caves in. He delivers what effectively is an existential monologue that spans thirty-one consecutive pages, and it is by the end of the first chapter that he concedes his position as servant of Mr Knott to Watt.
During the second chapter, the novel introduces the recurring phenomenon of its narrative style, which can be exemplified with this scenario: Mr Knott routinely eats a pot of soup for dinner, and Watt is instructed to give the uneaten portion of the soup - in case that there is any - to a stray dog. Watt does as told, but after a few nights he starts to question how it is that the stray dog eats the remaining soup. He asks if it is the same dog every night, what kind of dog is it, if it is malnourished or decently fed, if it is really a stray or if it could be a passerby’s dog that eats modestly and only comes occasionally, which in that case would mean that there could be several dogs with owners. This goes on for fifteen pages. Watt is set on figuring out how the dish appears to be empty whenever he leaves it outside and later returns to get it. He considers every logical possibility and even comes up with statistics to help himself find a solution. It is later revealed that there were two dogs that ate the soup, Kate and Cis, which belonged to Art and Con Lynch, members of the Lynch family. Twenty pages are dedicated to explaining the genealogy of the Lynch family, who had ties with Mr Knott. They are a clan composed of aging people afflicted by different health problems and conditions. Art and Con are dwarves, and as it is part of Watt’s duties to receive them, he becomes aware of how the food served in the dish of remains disappears.
There are several passages identical to that of the dog and the soup dish, since the book describes the main character’s thoughts, and he is a very thoughtful individual. Everything that he does and sees is exceptional, or so it appears, because he inspects every mundane task or object to its last detail. On some occasions, this conduct seems rational or expected, such as when he hears a bell ring in the middle of the night and he ponders whether this unusual and unprecedented activity could represent a situation of danger. He suspects the other servant, Erskine, even though he’s asleep; then, he breaks into Erskine’s room and finds a bell that is broken and couldn’t have made the noise. It is not revealed what the source of the bell ding was, but Watt fleetingly considers that he, Erskine and Mr Knott might all be a bit crazy. Notwithstanding, he does not believe that he overthinks, and in fact is proud that he can sometimes rationalize quickly.
During his stay at Mr Knott’s house, Watt does not see Mr Knott around. Watt only knows when to take the empty soup pot away because Mr Knott is always done after twenty or thirty minutes. Watt divides the time of his stay in two stages: when he works on the ground floor and when he works on the first floor. It is only when he moves to the first floor that he occasionally gets glimpses of him, like when he is in the yard, between the bushes. He is an elusive character, a non-presence in his own house. He may be seen as a parallel to another Beckett character, Godot, from Waiting for Godot, who is awaited by the play’s main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, but never arrives. They don’t know who Godot is, but they have been told that he would come tomorrow, so they wait for him anyway. Perhaps the most important moment of the novel is when Watt encounters Mr Knott in his yard by coincidence. Mr Knott is standing in silence, bowing slightly. He approaches him but with his sight fixed on the ground, and he only feels his presence, instead of seeing him face to face. As he inspects the worm near his feet, he determines his employer’s height, until he decides to stop guessing and sees him. But Mr Knott, still in silence, has his eyes closed. He does not see him in such detail again.
The third chapter is narrated by a character named Sam, a servant from another mansion, who befriends Watt. Sam and Watt enjoy spending time together, but they eventually grow apart and stop seeing each other. They encounter again, without either of them wanting to, from the opposite sides of a fence that divides their gardens. When they detect each other, Watt accidentally slips and is injured by briars and nettles. Sam tries to jump over the barb wire fence to help him out, but first he spots a hole in the fence and imagines what sort of animal could have carved it. According to him, it could have been a boar, a bull, a cow or a sow, and since there is another hole in another part of the fence parallel to the first one, it could have been two boars, two bulls, and so on. When he finally directs his attention back at Watt, Watt has stood up and approached him from the other side of the fence. They pace together across the fence as in a coordinated dance, and so they decide to start chatting again. When he tells Sam about his job at Mr Knott’s house, Watt changes his speech patterns and starts to invert the order of his words, the order of the letters within the words and the order of the letters within the words within the sentences, making his language progressively more complicated, and Sam can only understand so much; thus, he is unable to understand what Watt’s job was like during the last stages of his stay with Mr Knott.
Sam then mentions an anecdote retold by Watt’s co-worker, Arthur, about a man named Ernest Louit who was writing a dissertation titled “The Mathematical Intuitions of Visicelts”. This story within a story follows Louit bringing an old farmer from Burren, Ireland, to a Trinity College committee, claiming that he can calculate cube roots in his head. The farmer, called Tisler Nackybal, is Louit’s last hope for academic success and credibility, since he blew his entire research budget and lost his boots, his labour, his health and his dog. The committee puts him to test and he proves to make accurate calculations of cube roots with minimal error. However, when asked to cube root five hundred and nineteen thousand three hundred and thirteen, he does not reply, to which Louit argues that the committee is trying to fool him by calling out a number with no cube root. Nonetheless, they find Mr Nackybal a subject worthy of interest and experimentation, so they ask if he can square and square root. Arthur does not finish the story.
Watt gets to see Mr Knott more often, as he helps him into his nightclothes and day clothes. Being in his room, he examines the possible combinations of Mr Knott’s shoewear, the movements of Mr Knott when he is in his bedroom, and the changes in the furniture’s placement according to the day of the week. Still, Watt does not learn what Mr Knott’s appearance is like, he perceives him with a different stature and body type each day. This proceeds routinely until one night a man appears in Mr Knott’s kitchen. Watt understands that he is there to replace him, and that he will have to leave the house, just how Erskine did when Arthur arrived. Unlike how Arsene did with him, Watt does not take leave of Micks, the future servant.
Watt reaches a railway-station between one or two in the morning but finds it shut. He encounters a man, Mr Case, who allows him to spend the night in the waiting room. Once inside, Watt struggles to fall asleep, as he feels the environment he is in is too alien. The empty room is too spacious and the ceiling is too white. He sits down and stands up. The room becomes darker and then lighter, meaning that the sun rises but he does not yet fall asleep, for his surroundings unnerve him too much. When Mr Nolan comes in the morning to open the station’s doors, Watt finally feels at peace and closes his eyes. A small group of passersby congregate around him, worried that he might not wake up. But he does, which relieves them so much that they become absorbed in unrelated conversations until one of them notices he has gone away. And thus the novel concludes.
The closing pages of the book are an addenda that displays some fragments that were omitted from the main text, such as footnotes, definitions, quotes, sheet music and loose poems, but complement the story nonetheless.
Watt is an unorthodox novel, and like most of Beckett’s works, it is very ironic. There is irony in its use of very far-fetched and intellectual language (floccillation, sigmoidal, cloistered, mensem, intenerating, dianoetic, to put some examples of the book’s vocabulary) to tell a story about a poor vagabond who cannot use it himself. There is irony in its focus on the minutiae of otherwise mundane situations, even though the characters themselves claim they don’t like it; “Details, Mr Graves, details I detest, details I despise, as much as you, a gardener, do.” says Arthur, who tells a story that spans thirty pages. And most importantly, there is irony in its abundance of repetition, even if, by admission of the narrator, Watt’s disdain for battology (the unnecessary repetition of words) is strong.
If I had to point out the central theme of Watt, I would say that it is intuition. The narration comes from the protagonist's thoughts, hence he is seen thinking more than he is seen acting. Perhaps Watt’s name embodies his curiosity (What?), just like Mr Knott’s might indicate that he is not (Not.), since he is a non-presence for Watt. Each situation Watt encounters in his daily activities demands the scrutiny of every alternative possible, or at least every one that he can think of. How Mr Knott can combine his shoes, how the soup remains disappear after being left outside each night, how a hole in a fence could have been punctured. This is a general reflection on possibilities and how they exist in theory, although only one is ultimately accommodated to reality (“If it hadn’t been you, it would have been another.” Arthur says in the Addenda).
In relation to the contemplation of possibilities, the most outstanding narrative device of the text is repetition. The list of variables fills entire pages to the point it becomes dizzying. Instead of progressing the story, these passages make it stagnate. As demonstrated above, there is a coherent chain of events to be followed, but its importance is second to that of the attention to minuscule details. The thoughts that Watt repeats are those which matter the most to him. It is through this repetition that he tries to make sense of the world. In his philosophical work Difference and Repetition, Gilles Deleuze writes: “If repetition exists, it expresses simultaneously a singularity against the general, a universality against the particular, a remarkable against the ordinary, an instantaneity against the variation, an eternity against permanence. In all aspects, repetition is transgression.” (1968). It is another irony to have a story be purposefully meandering when the expectation set for a novel is to witness a conflict and the path to its resolution. Yet, repetition is a key element of intuition, for intuition rationalizes things simply because they exist and extrapolates meaning from the patterns it observes.
Repetition is not only explored through mere logical algorithms, but also in the process through which Mr Knott’s switches servants. Watt’s realization is that he might have become part of a cycle that no one dares break, probably because it is predetermined. The servants don’t question the arrival of the next servant, rather they accept it and leave.This cycle is comparable to life itself.
In the end, the novel is is a phenomenological exercise on the nature of intuition, with its display of the thought process, language, with its exploration of metalinguistics, existence, with its thorough examination of its settings and objects from the protagonist’s perspective, and repetition, with its long-winded lists of multiplicities that describe several scenes. It is a work that wonders at the foundations of what can be called “human nature”, intellect and language, and its limitations. Despite being a very simple story, its presentation and themes earn it the label of “existential”, as it describes human life and existence itself.
#watt#samuel beckett#beckett#novel#book#report#book report#english#english class#summary#existentialism#2020#Raúl DJVP
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Del romanticismo oscuro de Poe al expresionismo de Burton
Hay una progresión cronológica que une a El gato negro de Edgar Allan Poe y a Vincent de Tim Burton, y es la trayectoria del romanticismo al expresionismo. Poe es un poeta y escritor americano célebre por sus relatos de horror y acreditado como el originador del cuento policíaco; Burton es un director de cine americano cuyos filmes, sean de animación o imagen real, cuentan con un estilo gótico y elementos de horror. Las obras de estos artistas de medios y tiempos tan diferentes presentan similitudes temáticas (Burton ha reconocido a Poe en su trabajo), lo cual se comprende al examinar el movimiento que originó a uno, que a su vez influyó en el otro. El romanticismo aparece en el siglo XVIII, el siglo de la Ilustración, en el que se estableció que la mejor herramienta para conocer el mundo y sus componentes era la razón, provocando una revolución intelectual racionalista de formulaciones absolutas. Incluso la ética vio nacer conceptos de moral absoluta como la voluntad general de Rosseau o el categórico imperativo de Kant. El romanticismo reacciona a la rigidez del enfoque en la razón proponiendo, a cambio, un enfoque en el idealismo de las emociones. Esto da paso al surgimiento de muchas formas de expresión artística innovadoras, entre ellas el romanticismo oscuro y la narrativa gótica, en las cuales Poe ejerció. Al despegarse de la virtud y nobleza absoluta del racionalismo y el arte del neoclasicismo, Poe se centró a escribir sobre misterio, enfermedad, impulsos dañinos, delirio, asesinato y muerte. Todos estos temas figuran en El gato negro (1843), una historia sobre un hombre que cae en arrebatos de ira, pensamientos maliciosos, impulsos asesinos y eventualmente en locura, ocasionados por su alcoholismo y por un gato adoptado, al que veía como premonición de culpa. Yendo al siglo XX, el de las vanguardias que forman la ruptura con muchas nociones artísticas canonizadas, se encuentra al expresionismo, un movimiento contrario al impresionismo; en lugar de buscar la “impresión” del entorno, se favorece a la expresión personal, al entorno interno. Por esto Burton logra, particularmente en sus animaciones y dibujos, un estilo reconocible: sus personajes animados podrían bien pertenecer al mismo mundo. Vincent (1982) es un corto temprano en su carrera que narra la historia de un niño que se entretiene con fantasías macabras, jugando a ser el actor Vincent Price o un científico loco, leyendo las obras de Edgar Allan Poe. El corto es narrado en verso, como los poemas de Poe, e incluso incluye un fragmento de El cuervo. Su estética inspirada en películas alemanas de horror en blanco y negro es de corte expresionista; no obstante, Burton ha experimentado en narrativa gótica y romanticismo oscuro con películas como El cadáver de la novia y su adaptación de Sweeny Todd.
Françoise Samarcelli (1999) sugiere que los primeras cuentos de Poe inspirados por la narrativa gótica de Inglaterra surgen a modo de sátira o pastiche, citando Loss of Breath de 1832 de ejemplo, en un esfuerzo de encontrar su propia voz en la aún sin definir literatura americana. En Burton también hay ejemplos de parodia de la narrativa y estética gótica en sus primeros filmes, como el corto Frankenweenie (1984) y Beetlejuice (1988). Habiendo tantas similitudes temáticas entre ambos, la principal diferencia recae en la intención de su uso. Comparando El gato negro y Vincent, resalta el tema de la locura. En el desenlace de El gato negro, ésta ocasiona no sólo el crimen mayor del protagonista, sino que él mismo se delate. En Vincent, las fantasías del niño salen de su control al punto en que se siente superado por ellas, por lo que se desploma en el suelo creyéndose muerto. En Historia de la locura en la época clásica, Foucault argumenta que la locura no es una enfermedad mental, sino que originalmente se concibió como lo opuesto a la razón. Siendo la razón el estandar, todo lo diferente a ella se clasificaba como locura no sólo de manera clínica, sino social y políticamente. Este juicio de los siglos XVI y XVII ha perdurado hasta hoy. Es por esto que Burton presenta a la locura como otra forma de normalidad, como diferente pero aceptable. Los intereses de Vincent Malloy en Vincent son macabros, pero en práctica son inofensivos. La corta edad de Vincent lo hace, sin embargo, susceptible a que dichas imágenes lo afecten psicológicamente por tomarlas demasiado en serio. Esta forma de locura, equiparable a la excentricidad, se aborda en la mayoría de los filmes de Burton, incluyendo su adaptación de una famosa obra de locura Alicia en el País de las Maravillas. Poe, por su parte, presenta a la locura en su faceta de enfermedad mental. Samarcelli señala que Poe se interesa sobre todo en la cognición. En relatos como La verdad del caso del señor Valdemar, El corazón delator y especialmente El gato negro, Poe muestra el declive de las facultades mentales de sus narradores. En El gato negro, el resultado del declive es la acción sobre el impulso de muerte freudiano del protagonista, que conduce al asesinato de sus seres amados (acto que en sí puede considerarse como sin-razón). Poe llama a esto “perversidad” en el relato, describiéndola como una “tendencia a transgredir lo que constituye la Ley” inherente al carácter, al “corazón humano”. Si esto fuese verdad, aun así no todos cometen crímenes ni terminan en locura. El protagonista paga el precio de su arrepentimiento con su sanidad.
El romanticismo y el expresionismo son corrientes artísticas orientadas por la expresión de los sentimientos propios, permitiendo una exploración de la percepción del mundo desde imágenes tétricas a través de artistas como Edgar Allan Poe y Tim Burton. La brecha temporal entre ambos denota el prolongado interés en la parte oscura de la naturaleza humana, el rechazo social hacia ciertas conductas, el miedo a lo abominable y a la patología. La locura, interpretada en estas dos historias de horror, concentra todas estas características, pues es la esencia de lo inexplicable, de lo misterioso y diferente.
Referencias bibliográficas:
Laporte y Fontanarosa. (1999). Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1949) - Une vie, une œuvre [1999]. France Culture. Francia.
Recuperado de:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36_3-5SJwgo
Foucault, M. (2015) Historia de la locura en la época clásica. Ciudad de México, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
#edgar allan poe#the black cat#gato#negro#Poe#romanticismo#oscuro#Narrativa#gótica#expresionismo#Tim Burton#Burton#Vincent#locura#Foucault
0 notes
Text
Sobre el “Terreno Común” de van Dijk
Por más atractiva que parezca una empresa tan ambiciosa, la más ambiciosa quizás, de totalizar al conocimiento en una sola entidad que defina toda la existencia, es evidente que por naturaleza nuestras metodologías, nuestro lenguaje y nuestro pensamiento nos dejan muy cortos. Creo que quien se acercó más a lograrlo fue Levinas cuando habló del significado, la significancia y el significante. La teoría de propagación de conocimiento está incompleta, dice correctamente el autor, pero como Feyerabend enseñó, todas las teorías están incompletas. No obstante, las disciplinas de conocimiento ya totalizan, categóricamente, el todo de la vida. Todo es lenguaje. Todo es saber. Todo es discurso. Todo es historia. Todo es deseo. Todo es existencia. El marco teórico de un Terreno Común del conocimiento acaba por ordenar el procesamiento del conocimiento de la siguiente manera: hay una situación que se contextualiza, se buscan patrones de repetición en los contextos, se decodifican su símbolos y se transforman, a través del lenguaje, en el pensamiento que descubre o esclarece el conocimiento. La humanidad está sobrecargada de conocimiento. Hay conocimiento verdadero, fisionómico o abstracto, y conocimiento falso, la ficción. Por motivo de supervivencia, se aprende a diferenciar el verdadero del falso, el útil del inútil. Con el advenimiento de la tecnología, la comunicación se volvió instantánea, la información accesible como nunca antes. Hay un exceso de información, de conocimiento, y las categorías sirven para distinguir no sólo cómo nos servimos de él en la vida, sino cuál es el que, según nuestro contexto, mejor nos corresponde. No es inesperado que, al estar atravesado por el lenguaje, el género humano tenga un Terreno Común, ya que tiene la herramienta para expresarlo e identificarlo en sus semejantes. El Terreno Común es vasto, comprende todo lo que llamamos cultura, que también ha costado diferenciarse de la naturaleza (se ha cuestionado si ésta existe, gracias a la introducción e influencia de lo artificial). El hecho de que se comparta una existencia prácticamente obliga al individuo a pensarse en un conjunto, por lo que su discurso no puede quedar aislado. El conocimiento está implicado en todo, incluso en el lenguaje con el que lo pensamos. El conocimiento se vive.
Notas adicionales:
1. El ensayo refiere al texto “Tipos de conocimientos en el procesamiento del discurso” de Teun A. van Dijk.
2. Los libros de autores aludidos son Humanismo del Otro Hombre de Levinas y Contra el Método de Feyerabend.
3. Badiou plantea definir a la filosofía como un “centro de la totalización de la experiencia de una época” en el documental Philosophie et Vérité (1965).
#van Dijk#Levinas#Feyerabend#Badiou#filosofía#conocimiento#procesamiento#discurso#cultura#marco teórico#lenguaje#humanidad#Raúl DJVP
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Sobre “A qué volver” de Mónica Lavín
Cuando se comete un acto de infidelidad, se aprovecha de la confianza de la otra persona, y quien hace esto demuestra una falta de compromiso o de seriedad respecto al pacto que una relación romántica representa. No le importa, se puede asumir. No obstante, hay casos como el que la historia presenta, donde alguien de la pareja opta por la infidelidad como solución a una larga relación infructífera, donde no se termina de congeniar, y por el peso del pacto matrimonial (y familiar, por los hijos) se prefiere aguantar la insatisfacción.
Victor es afectado por la partida de Marta de forma preocupante. El suceso lo vivió con cierta insensibilidad, diciendo que el paraíso estaba "solamente a su lado". Pero no sintió indiferencia después, sino que todo lo que recordaba, reflexionaba y pensaba estaba relacionado a ella. Los meses sin ella los pasa en soledad, bastante triste; cuando ella regresa, duda que pueda sentirse menos solo o triste.
Ante la posibilidad de aceptarla de nuevo en su vida, Victor hace especulaciones sobre qué fue de Marta y saca conclusiones pesimistas sobre el amor.
El amor deviene posible, explica Domenico Cosenza, cuando algo falta en la vida del sujeto, y una persona puede ocupar el lugar del objeto perdido. Victor siente una falta tanto en la ausencia como en la presencia de Marta. Incluso sus memorias de antiguo romance describen su vida como bastante monótona y enfatiza los detalles que lo irritan. Da la impresión de que el amor no lo llegó a vivir con Marta.
Marta no hizo lo correcto al ser infiel. Pero la vida insatisfactoria que abandonó brevemente explica su acción. Esto indica que prefería salir de la relación a ayudar a su marido en problemas. Pero quizás él nunca expresó sus problemas. Quizás guardó para sí sus celos por el cariño de el hijo Julian a ella. Quizás su advertencia narcisista sobre el paraíso la tomó por sorpresa. El impulso por agredirla no se justifica tampoco por su frustración. Victor claramente tenía una afección emocional que con atención terapéutica posiblemente habría ahorrado todos los años de amor disfuncional y forzado. La moralidad yace en el apoyo a otros, sobre todo a aquellos cercanos, no en aplazar la confrontación y evadir la comunicación con una tregua de silencio que solo condena a más infelicidad.
#Mónica Lavín#A#qué#volver#ensayo#análisis#amor#desamor#infidelidad#moralidad#narcisismo#depresión#matrimonio#familia#Raúl DJVP
2 notes
·
View notes