I was very intrigued with Johnson's "The History of Rasselas". I also found our conversation in class last Tuesday regarding this text very interesting as well. So, is this really a story where nothing happens? Are the characters in exactly the same frame of mind at the end of the text as they were at the beginning? Possibly. But I have the feeling that there's much going on underneath the surface of this rich text.

I think Johnson is dealing with very visceral, primal human qualities. I think he realized that humans have a basic tendency to always be longing for something more. We achieve so much and yet we still want so much. I can definitely apply this logic to myself. And I could certainly say that it applies to many people I know, if not most.

We could get into a very lenghty, heated debate about whether or not all there is to life is a relentless pursuit of dreams that will never be achieved. Personally, I choose not to believe that. I don't view dreams as silly or whimsical, in fact I would say that we all have a basic desire to pursue a dream, or to at least reach some other plateau. But that is strictly my own personal belief.

I have a friend who tends to be rather morose and doomy. I've gotten to a point where I am quite used to it. Our personalities are so wildly different in that respect that sometimes I honestly wonder how we are still friends. But I don't try to understand such things. Sometimes there really is no explanation. All I know is, despite our wildly varying personalities, we still "click", for want of a better term. I see dreaming as critical, whereas I feel that my friend tends to view it as futile and a waste of time. So be it. That's his belief. I have my own.

I have always been of the belief that having the dream is ultimately more important than achieving the dream. I think goals, or anything that teases us and won't let go can be very frightening things, yet to ignore them is even more frightening. One of my favorite lines I've ever heard in a song is in the track "Lemon" by U2. The line goes "Man dreams of leaving so he always stays behind". I think there is a profound truth to that.

When I was 17, I saw a 15 minute film that changed my life. It was an interview with Maritime poet Alden Nowlen, which I think was shot not too long before his death. He said things in this film that completely effected my views of life. He spoke of death (I think we touched upon this a little bit in class last Tuesday). It is easy to misconstrue such ramblings as depressing or morose, but I don't think that's the case. I am paraphrasing, but he said something along the lines of "I think it is very important that everyone thinks about death for at least 10 minutes every day. I don't mean to sound morbid, but I think if we all really sat down and thought about the fragility of life, how short our time on this Earth is, I think that would have a profoundly positive impact on us all and make us really appreciate out lives so much more". No truer words have I ever heard.

Anyway, to make a long story short, and getting back to "Rasselas", one thing I took from this text is something that I always believed in anyway: I strongly think happiness is entirely a choice. Life really is what you make it. To my friend, he feels that life is full of dead ends and desparation, but I choose not to see it that way. I have too much I want to do. :)

I first read "The Rape of the Lock" about two years ago, in an intro to poetry class. I didn't care much for it then and it seems like my fondness for this text has not grown any over the past two years.

Firstly, I think this is one of the most overblown, dense, and unenjoyable texts I have ever read. Of course, I do not deny the fact that this text is not without style, or intelligence, or a clever execution, but it's overall "thick" quality just makes it very unpleasant reading for me.

I do understand that a major component of this work is the fact that Pope is taking something so insignificant and blowing it up into epic proportions. I get that. But one of the ramifications of this inflation, in my opinion, is the fact that it just ends up being way too long and way too pompous. Yes, there is a visual beauty in this work that is undeniable. But overall it's long-winded nature really just annoys me.

I think much of my dislike stems from the fact that I simply do not like any form of art that I perceive as being unnecessarily too long. I like art that gets right to the point. I can say this about movies, music, literature, pretty much anything. If I perceive that something has just trudged along for far too long, my sensibilities tend to get quickly offended. I think the old adage of "less is more" is pretty much gospel.

But that's just my opinion.

Also, when Pope started talking about Sylphs, Fays , Faeries, Elves and Daemons, I became even more uninterested. I began to liken this work to "The Lord of the Rings", another series which I never cared for (neither the books nor the films) for pretty much the same reasons I mentioned above...I perceive it as being a case of too many characters, too many creatures of differing races, too many warriors, too many battles, blah blah blah. Again, I'm sure there is a multitude of metaphors and clever symbolism in the works of Pope and Tolkien, but that doesn't make it any more appealing to me. I simply gravitate to art that is simple and understated. K.I.S.S.!!!

Plus, the whole swords and sorcery/fantasy genre always left me cold, so I guess that could be another reason why I have such a dislike for "The Rape of the Lock".

Maybe I'm crazy, but over the past while I've been thinking a lot about our conversations in class regarding "Gulliver's Travels". I was especially fascinated by our discussions of his "insanity". Frequently, it was brought up that Gulliver spent much of the later part of the book talking with his horses. But I really have to wonder....does this qualify him as insane?

First of all, I must admit that I have always questioned my own sanity, so maybe much of what I'm about to say is nonsense.

I have never met anyone who never spoke to their pet. I know that I myself have spent a great deal of time speaking to the various cats and dogs that I have had as pets over the years. And I know from my own personal observations that I'm not the only person who does this. I see people talking to their pets all the time. I think this is perfectly normal.

One dimension that I got from reading "Gulliver's Travels" is that animals are portrayed as being more civil and more rational than humans. Frequently, humans are portrayed as barbaric, senseless, and violent, whereas animals are noble. I think Swift probably had more faith in animals, since they do tend to accept without prejudice. Therefore, having Gulliver speaking to his horses at the end of the book seems perfectly natural to me.

I am hesitant to label this as "insane" behaviour.

As I am making my way through "Gulliver's Travels", I am thinking about any and all times in the past that I may have been exposed to this story. Our discussion last week really made me stop and think if I had ever been exposed to this text in my childhood. Honestly, at least to the best of my recollection, I don't think I ever was.

I do vaguely (and I mean very vaguely) recall the old animated version of "Gulliver's Travels" being on CBC television eons ago. I believe this was a version that would have been made in the 30s or 40s. It had that old fashioned animation look to it, sort of like the old Disney or Max Fleicher cartoons. My attention span was brief, however, when I was a child, so I don't think I watched it for more than a few minutes.

By the way, if anyone is interested, I think I saw this old animated version on DVD in the cheapie bin at Wal Mart for less than $5. This was a few months ago. I don't know if it's still there, but it may be worth a look.

After our discussion last week, and reading other people's blog comments on whether or not they knew of "Gulliver's Travels" as children, it amazed me how often something that was originally intended for an adult audience can be watered down and passed off as kiddie entertainment. I understand that the original "Popeye" character (as he appeared in the comic strip in the 40s) was a very violent, loud, misogynistic drunkard. I guess his character was tamed down a lot for the child market, or so I've read. I guess some businessmen figured they could make more money if they tamed the sailor down.

I'm about to go off on a really wild tangent, but bear with me.

As a teenager, I was a voracious consumer of comic books. It was quite an obsession for me. At the time, one of my favorite comics was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. No, this wasn't the mutant turtles featured in the popular animated series. What many people don't know is that the Ninja Turtles started out as a very dark, underground comic printed on black and white newsprint. In the early days, the pages featured endless amounts of graphic violence...it was a very bloody comic definitely not intended for young children. But, the powers that be got a hold of it, homogenized it and groomed it for a mass audience of waiting children.

I've also seen pictures of Woody Woodpecker in his very early days, and he looked quite scary. He had sharp, serated teeth, and a wild bushy hairdo. And a maniacal look in his eyes. Google "Woody Woodpecker" if you don't believe me.

Anyway, I guess the whole point of this entry is that I am not the least bit surprised that "Gulliver's Travels" has been modified and "kiddified". I think that happens more than we realize.