A touch of TrAnSfOrMaTiOn

Elias Canetti - Crowds and Power

This mysticism and the unexplainable notion of how the Bushmen are able to sense and predict when someone is approaching is incredible, and yet so very true and human. If I reflect on my own experience, and consciously remember things, I do believe that occurrences like these happen to myself all the time as well. When there is somebody that I am waiting for coming over to my house for instance, I can sometimes sense their arrival seconds before they knock on my door. Now this doesn't happen always, but they seem to be far too many in number to be chalked up as mere coincidence. And yes, it seems to be unexplainable. It's a mystical sense, felt in the body.


In regards to the myths of the bushmen, the relation of cannibalism and transformation parallels the myth of Dracula, and the aspect of gothic creatures like Vampires who are initially human, but are transformed into Vampires when they are bitten by other Vampires; And then can only survive by drinking the blood of living organisms. In folklore there is this organic tendency to transform. As Canetti points out, it seems to be innately human to have this urge to transform.

Another concept I enjoyed in the article is that man is the ultimate simulator and thus "the lord of the animals" (372). Man is the only being able to dissimulate as the myth of the Washerman and the donkey reveals. So in a sense he is able to use animals through simulation in order to benefit for his own survival or play. The whole origin of simulation seems to be triggered from the man and animal relationship. As well as the idea of masking which is essentially a form of dissimulation. It is conceivably only that of a living organism that man can essentially simulate. The idea of simulating a tree for example seems to be almost too inconceivable, thus the idea of simulation and wanting to transform must have originated from the studying of animals. This would be a possible explanation for the Australian myths of the bushmen and many other myths passed down from ancestors of aboriginal tribes all around the world connecting the relationship of man and animal.

Wolf-Alice

The Angela Carter story was intriguing. It was a very gothic and reminded me of something written in the romantic era like Dracula or Frankenstein. The idea of transformation is very key in this story. Wolf-Alice starts out as a wolf in a woman's body who slowly transforms into a mother-like womanly figure at the very end of the story. Wolf-Alice's transformation takes place with the help of the mirror in the Duke's Castle. Wolf-Alice is able to visually gaze at her bodily appearance. Initially she believes it is a friend, but it is in fact a surrogate self that mimicks her actions. And indeed she sees that it has breasts and notices that she does as well. The figure as she finds out is in fact mimicking every action that Wolf-Alice displays. Although she is not keenly aware that the image is indeed herself, through a reflection she does identify with it in some way. Interestingly her transformation from her primitive state to a more human-like role needs triggers such as the bride's dress and the connection with the Duke along with the visual display of her human body. All these object things are human, and paradoxically these elements help transform her even though as primitive as she may be, she is able to identify their use without any human example. Of course we can assume that the nuns tried to show her how to act like an appropriate young lady, and then ideas of what it is to be human may have laid in the subconscious. This is not the main focus of her transformation though, it is the fact that although she masks herself in this animal state she eventually becomes her humanness represented in the mirror. Her true identity underneath the mask. She becomes her appearance. Although acting like an animal she is in all appearances a woman. Carter is suggesting that her resolve is not through relating signs (the bride's dress to a seeing woman in dresses) from her past, as I have suggested as a logical answer for the transformation. She seems to say that there is this mystical power of love that actualizes her identity. Both the Duke and Wolf-Alice sheath their animal-like behaviour and become human through a pseudo-sexual interaction; completing the male-female puzzle. This explanation, follows in the same suit with philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau who believed that man would remain primitive without the interaction with a fellow man. Thus 'Society', this 'togerthiness' is what humanizes (human?) Wolf-Alice and the Duke. Without which they are mere primates. At the end of the story when the Duke's reflection in the mirror appears for the first time, Carter uses this to highlight the Rousseauian come-full-circle humanization of both the Duke and Wolf-Alice. If the two are lost at sea (in a level of semiotics) in each others presence will their identity be actualized.

Carter for arguments sake may be commenting more on the connection between man and woman, but it either case a sense of 'togertherness' is a common element in the process of transformation. The difference between solitute and a being in a crowd perhaps is that without the presence of another individual one cannot undergo a transformation. It may be the influence of another person or the mere presence that evokes a type of change. Indeed in all of the stories in the readings for this week each transformation took place in the presence or of the influence of at least one or more individuals.

Doubles and Doppelgangers

" Zelig " - By Woody Allen

In respect to the Zelig the Woody Allen film, the product itself is an imitation. The fact that Zelig is a 'mockumentary' so to speak ( a fictionalized movie in the form of a documentary) is in itself copying. I enjoyed the movie tremendously. There was a very creative element to the film. In that sense it was poignantly original. The element of transformation to invariably 'fit in', as Zelig does, and does so well is shown and scrutinized by Allen as something that is innately human. When we are in groups we try to fit in. The character of the doctor shows how there is a disorder in the way that this idea has turned Zelig into a chameleon. Ironically, Zelig who tries to blend in with everyone else, is actually very different. He is alone because he does not have an identity. The idea of a human chameleon intrigues people, but in it has a circus-like spectacle air to it; Just as we adore celebrities today (and even in the 30's the time of Zelig) Zelig is has the adoration of everyone because he is different. This juxtaposition of difference and sameness in the idea of transformation shows not only the positive elements of transforming, but the negative elements as well. As we see when the doctor cracks Zelig by mirroring his actions (showing himself to himself so to speak), Zelig transforms into a person becoming of identity. It is when his celebrity status as the human chameleon catches up to him and he has an abundance of lawsuits thrown at him that he changes back into his original state. Allen shows us here that like animals who use blending in as a means of survival, so to do we. Zelig blends in not only to feel like he's a part of something, but also as a survival tool, to avoid being imprisoned.

Warner "Doubling" from Metamorphosis and Other Worlds

I thought this was a fantastic article about the history and mythology of the doppelganger portrayed through western culture. The idea of the inner eye intrigued me. Everyone sees an image or shadow of oneself, a sort of likeness. It really does make sense. It reappears regularly in our literature and in our art. There are so many examples throghout the ages from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to Peter Pan to Fight Club. The inner eye seems to be a Freudian world though, one of the superego, one seen in fantasy in dreams. It is interesting how it surfaces. For the sake of argument, how does it surface? How is one even able to conceive of an idea if it belongs only in the back of our minds. How does it reflect on our conscious mind?

Another element of the article I enjoyed was the part about James Hogg's novel the "The Private Memoirs" where the main character ponders whether he "had a second self, who transacted business in (his) likeness, or else (his) body was at times possessed by a spirit over which it had no control". And he asks how would that be possible to be "in a state of consciousness and unconsciousness, at the same time" (181). It would seem impossible, and yet it is still explored. We see the same idea in Fight Club where the main character (the narrator) paradoxically has a doppelganger (Tyler Durdin) that is in actuality his (the narrator's) unconscious-self that operates in his body when his conscious body is asleep.

Platonic and Aristotlian Display

Ok, I've finally put the blogs up. They should be coming now on a regular basis. Please, I insist on harsh critiques, ideas, comments, concerns, arguments...FEEDBACK in any way is pleasurable. Cheers, Aidan


On Republic Book Ten:

I have always enjoyed Plato and the way in which he fashions his arguments. Again in this excerpt from his famous Republic we have him talking with Socrates on the notion of art and poetry, and the theory or standards of it. I find it quite fascinating how he breaks down the idea of mimesis or imitation rather, and subordinates this type of artistic representation. He rejects or downplays what the artists and poets do by reappropriating something solid like the example of the bed: an object made by God, and then founded and physically duplicated by men such as carpenters. As he argues if God is the author, then the carpenter is second removed from the original, and finally the artist by representing the object rather than manufacturing it is “ at third remove from reality ” (425). Although, as I aforementioned I quite enjoyed this piece of literature, I agree with one of the two arguments that Plato puts forth. I agree that yes there is this distance from the tangeable object, and what the artist does in imitating it through a different medium, but I disagree that this is altogether a bad thing. Plato seems to be worried that art will corrupt society. In my experiences as someone living few thousand years after Plato I have found that art has enhanced the mental environment and social environment through it’s ability to make us think, and think creatively, and it has also been an effective tool for keeping corporate and political powers in check.

On Poetics:

I have read Poetics in the past, and it is a great guide to anyone studying Shakespeare or Greek Tragedies, Comedies, and Epics. Aristotle does a good job of categorizing and defining the specific species of the early literary genres. Focusing on the idea of imitation I found it interesting that Aristotle felt that in connecting humans with literature, and what we gravitate towards is rhythm, language and melody. As he states this happens “ either separately or in combination ” (4). It is therefore not that strange that music seems almost second nature to us. Music and language are obviously very interconnected, and the creation of poetry at such an early period of humanity seems fascinating. Origins gave a brief but logical explanation of why we imitate objects around us, and I agree, I think it is because we seem to have this need to understand and then define everything. We try to categorize, explain, and therefore control our environment; there is this feeling of power that is attached to accumulating knowledge.