Reflecting on Gender Discourse Analysis

I always love a good debate about Gender Rights, and since I've just completeted a Critical Linguistics module, and having re-read Fairclough, I will attempt to be as linguistical and social as possible. With regards to statements made by local political leaders in the 1980's that Women should be responsible for maintaining the family unit, the central assumption is rooted in a very classical "Asian" Ideology, free of the feminist emancipation of the West that were taking roots then and concretized now. As far as I can remember, that was one of the few statements they did regret in later speeches and interviews, and perhaps also the entire doctrine of social engineering, i.e the graduate mother saga, enforced sterilization by consent(!!!), etc. However, they are also adamant that they believe strongly in that view that Women, historically, have more important roles in the family. In view of the classical, some say natural, order of the family, the wife acts as the caregiver and the husband as the breadwinner. Considering the physical, mostly (heh), advantage of the males in agrarian and early industrial economies, that was the appropriate order. After the Industrial Revolution, and with the Agricultural Revolution, the Machination of Production, Socialism, Universal Suffrage, and other crucial paradigm shifts in the social order, the social practice and the order of discourse should adequately reflect the new paradigms. However, as Fairclough would put it, the existence of that natural order, and by the dominant force, deny the change in discourse and social practice, while trying to maintain their present ideology which is archaic and contradictory to the new paradigms and situations. Negotiation by consent begins to fall apart, and sides resisting and propagating it begin to emerge, and views begin to become extreme and at times, absurd, due to the need to differentiate themselves. Any remark made in support by either camps will be shot down and ridiculed, as feminists will claim the supreme defence of patriarchy and domination, while chauvinists will claim the defence of history and biological power. Is there a natural order? Is everything a result of patriarchy? Is there imaginary domination? Does Biology supercede all? There is no clear or easy answer, but a defence against natural and sweeping defences needs to take place. Take the men, since I am unfortunately and fortunately one, for example. Men need to reflect social changes in their discourse, and realize that the good old days are over, and that there is no such thing as a god-given right to dominate and propagate. Women, on the other hand, need to think about the situation, measure it, and analyze it before jumping to conclusions (though hardcore feminist will say that analysis is a patriarchal construct, but what better system is there to offer?), and mostly, not abuse their "dominated" status. Well, since it seems that I offer more advice to women than men, I appear to be propagating a male ideology. But women, or wimmin, or whatever feminists choose to label it nowadays, have the greater part to gain from such changes, and they must realize social order and ideologies are far more difficult to change than to reinforce. Ok, I am beginning to sound preachy...Let me move on.

The assumptions our political leaders made is a reflection of their ideology, and a reflection of their generation's ideology, and probably reinforced by the many evidences that they had experienced: that a good family is one that needs a strong caretaking force in the home, which has somewhat been empirically proven. That force could be Male, and Feminists are right to say that Males must take on the responsibility in the home sphere. Unfortunately, and not an excuse, Men, by and large, are terrible at home. Besides the few grunts made each day by fathers, little communication seem to take place in early-mid 20th Century homes between father and child, or husband and wife for that matter. Feminist Linguist Deborah Tannen states that Males, however, are able to be eloquent and speak a lot in formal situations, and tend to use language to establish authority and for social gains, which I think is already presumed present and thus not necessary to propagate in the family setting. Interestingly, the Patriach model can be observed to be generally dissipating in the modern family, with males communicating by and large more with their children, and hopefully, their spouses. The "caring father" image is now more acceptable, and fathers are now "allowed" to play and show affection for the children in public, when previously, it was usually seen as a sign of weakness, especially in pre-20th Century Europe (reflected in much literature and biographies of from that era). The amount of discourse is one thing, but the manifestation of discourse is still another. Baby Step: More words. Next Step: Better words. I totally detest "baby shows" on TV as they are so contrived and "acted", but the images and words are in great contrast to earlier ages in TV and photos, where the Male is distant, and adopts a different posture and demeanour. Of course the factors of increasing exposure cannot be ruled out, but the frequency in which you see the fathers cradling their children, and the father speaking affectionately, even though contrived at times, is frighteningly unmistakable. Being a father is now cool. Sigh. The uncoolest thing in the world in a man's mind is now fashionable and nice. Father talk columns are now appearing in most major newspapers, while parenting books for Fathers, which would have sold zero copies pre-1920's, are bestsellers. Men and Women, Husband-Wife, Boyfriend-Girlfriend communication books are bestsellers by miles, and every book of such genre, crappy or well-written, appear to be read by someone someplace for some reason. And it is not just females who are reading or buying it. Men, though secretly, buy it and read it in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I read Tannen's "You Just Don't Understand: women and men in conversation" secretly in a library, with books by Foucault and Marx strewn on the table. Heh. It was cute, and enlightening to a large extent, though I did have many contentions from an academic point-of-view. When my ex-girlfriend forced me to read "Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus" to salvage our relationship, she became my ex after I finished the book. Heh. True. Men are hopeless creatures, and Women are hopeful ones. Sweeping statement, but in the New World Order, the converse is happening. When balance for a Utopian society would be two sets of hopeful beings, the increasing frustration of hopeful women at their hopeless men is causing a rapid decline into Hopeless Women and Hopeless, though learning to be Hopeful, Men. Hope is much quicker lost than gained, so it seems. Increasingly acrimonious discourse between both parties seems to reflect this. Lawsuits filed, divorce made, controversies stirred, relationships ended as Idiotic Men meet Frustrated Women. Politicians' past statements reflect that of the Idiotic Men (hope I am not liable for libel here!), which was the status quo in their generation, and perhaps during the time of the utterance (1984, nice!). The utterance was reflective, yet almost doctrinal to the army of Idiotic Men, and acknowledged by the less Frustrated Women. The discourse uses guilt as a tool to manufacture consent, and uses their "authority" to sanctify that Ideology and maintain it among the dominant class (Men). Such weight did their words carry that even the most-educated of Men use that to justify their reactions towards their wives' alleged failings in the home. Feminists were right, Women were unfairly thrown two Herculean tasks to fulfill. Given the finite resources such as Time, Attention and Energy, Women usually made the sacrifice. The status quo of the dominant male is reinforced through this discourse and subsequent social actions. However, changes in the social, economic and political landscape have resulted in changes in this order. The lure of the dollar, and the increasing importance of Consumerism, a hallmark of capitalist society, have attracted the female workforce, and the corresponding rise of women in authority. All the "bosses" I've had, at Media agencies and the schools I've taught, are females, an unlikely phenomenon a generation ago. While the "glass ceiling" exists, it is merely reflective of the absence of qualified women in the age-group of the high-powered class that so few women rise to the top. With the increased number of women in the workforce, and taking on leadership positions, women have begun to break many glass-ceilings, and will break many more. I am naive, I guess. But statistically, and logically, it makes sense, and the position of women in society will only continue to rise, and continue to meet resistance from dominant ideologies, untill an equilibrium takes over, and all efforts in social practice and discourse will then lend itself to maintaining that equilibrium as the status quo, while manufacturing consent among the new resistance against that equilibrium from groups that are displaced.

Lastly, I would like to comment on a statement made that "[the] ability to care for the family, like having a career is learned – not something intrinsically found in either men or women". It is well-phrased, and has much truth in it. Unfortunately, Hopeless Men that we are, we have not had the opportunity to "learn" how to care for the family in discoursal terms, and in practice. Much of social learning takes place through role-playing and modelling, if you were to believe social scientists. Men in my unfortunate generation are thrust into that parenting role when they've had rather rubbish models to look up to. One study by Jane Sunderland was of particular interest to me, in the sense that Girls did not mind "pretending to be boys" to achieve social gains, but Boys, on the other hand, will never do the converse. Men of my generation, and I believe those before mine, were nurtured by their mothers but model themselves after their fathers. When as kids, we play silly games pretending to be in some occupation or tasks, Boys, and many a times, girls, will take on their fathers' role, and highly unlikely to take on their mothers' (though both of my parents were Police Officers, I always chose the more "macho" type of cop that my Dad was rather than a thinking type like my Mum's). Fortunately, I never became a Cop (else the streets will be full of confused policemen and grateful criminals), but I took on my mother's first occupation, a teacher. Strange, isn't it? I digress. Reforming Hopeless Men of my generation are caught in a mire, as we have no models to look up to, have never role-played the scenario, and have been enlightened in equal ownership of the home, yet confused by remarks made by figures in authority such as Politicians, Philosophers, and religious Leaders. Such paths to take and choices to make are heavily influenced by the conflicting and contrasting discourse we Hopeless Men receive each day. The media preaches equality in theory, but demonstrates female subjugation in many of its programs and advertising. Our female friends and family remind and warn us to treat them with equal respect, but our male friends and family remind and warn us that we, historically, have been superior and should be superior. The government sings a different tune in different age, other governments sing different tunes we cannot relate. Woe it is to be a man caught in such transition! Woe it is to be a woman fighting in this transition! The point is, no one has it easy, and no one is holier than thou. Is this the equilibrium I was talking about? Perhaps, but unlikely.

The mainstreaming of feminist discourse (the less biting and more sane ones, compared to some of the underground feminist publications I've read), and the mainstreaming of attitude towards women in society have occured simultaneously. Some feminists focus on the discourse in the hope of shaping attitude, while others focus on the attitude in the hope of shaping discourse. The final aim is to readjust social reality, and to see that the social practices reflect the social reality. Discourse reality, at times, can exist independently from social practices, especially at the institutional and individual level. Hardcore feminists will always mention "Patriarchy" and "Oppression" at every instance and era, while along the continuum, many feminists and chauvinists will drop out at different stage to declare "equality" and "freedom". Issues of society is embedded within our discourse only as far as we perceive that social reality to be true and sacrosanct. Everyone seeks to pursue a Utopian ideal, and the dominant will seek greater dominance, while the dominated will seek greater equality first, then dominance and then greater dominance. Negotiation will take place perpetually, with victories won and lost, presented and forfeited. Critical and Left-Wing papers were banned in most countries during the rise or threat of Communism. Critical and Left-Wing papers have the highest circulation and readership across Europe today, with most countries adopting a Socialist Democracy in their political doctrines and discourse. Marx's contribution, as well as post-Marxist thinkers, cannot be discounted. His recognition of the class struggles resulted in a gradual acknowledgement of workers' rights and equality for all. Practitioners such as Stalin screwed it up, and there was skepticism and fear. But it raised an understanding and acknowledgement that would be unprecedented without his analysis. Similarly, Feminist "Marxes" have risen up to report their observations and analysis, and the general public have stood up to listen to their preachings. They have awaken from the dead. Some practitioners of feminist ideologies have messed it up, giving the chauvinists ammunition to shoot it down. Skepticism and Fear creep into the minds of the neutrals or the unassociated. When the dust settles, the primary truth in Feminism would arise to become an acknowledged and accepted truth. Some will bicker, just as anti-Marxist do, but they cannot fail but acknowledge the contributions in the shifting landscapes of the Social Desert. This is the victory for the Feminist, just as it had been for Marx, lying in his grave glad that the world has changed for the better from his contributions. Again, I am naive, eulogizing, and displaying my biased Marxist Ideologies (this posting is going to get me arrested and charged many times over!). But there are undeniable truths that you may disagree in minute forms, but you would have to acknowledge in the greater whole of reality. Again, I digress. My apologies. Perhaps reading too much Fairclough is not a good thing.

In our observations of social and discourse reality as well as it practices, I am sure we can intuitively gather the shifts in gender power. Women no longer stay silent, and while Media has been slow to catch on, discourse about media, published by media and hallowed social institutions such as government and universities, have increasingly placed gender portrayal and ideologies among the forefront of its concerns. Using CDA in its most nitpicking form to challenge media would create a politically-correct but attitudinally wrong media. Using CDA to remind media to renegotiate its ideologies, to reflect social changes, will foster an attitudinal change in this most-powerful and patriachal patron of society. Lip service is not the desire of Feminists and Critical Discourse Analysts, though they sometimes appear to be heading myopically into that direction. The frustration of Feminists and Linguists comes from Lip Service, and the absence of Attitudinal Change. Correct Discourse means little, and proponents of Gender rights agree. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that Language shapes reality is usually accepted in its weak form, and most, if not all, common people or those with vested interest would prefer reality over language any day. CDA have picked on lots of examples from Media, and justifiably so as the role of Media as the Fourth, and perhaps most important as Hobbes puts it, Estate is guarding and promoting the rights of the citizens. Like the sad Hopeless Men, Media is changing. Once unprintables have been printed, once taboos have been commonplace. The media needs reminders time to time to crush its perceptions of invincibility, but more importantly, it needs to be bestowed faith in its sanity that it will choose to do the right thing and reflect the real social reality. The Socially-responsible press is a pipe dream, just as the Libertarian Press is under siege from Economic interests of a capitalist society. But discourse, images, programs, themes, doctrines, and the establishment, in Media have changed so much so that a bigot in deep freeze since the mid-19th Century would drop his head in disbelief after sitting through 24 hours of TV-surfing. Media has changed with the times, and it is the times that must be changed, not only the media. Discourse in the media, as Fairclough has theorized, is the favoured vehicle of Ideology in the Modern Mass Media Age. The opacity of past discourse is the cause of the propagation of present ideologies, and as Bordieu's Paradox reminds us that "It is because subjects do not, strictly speaking, know what they are doing that what they do have more meaing than they know". The media is not only an instrument of ideology, but a subject as well. With greater clarity, through greater observations of society, the past ideologies that it formerly legitimizes and reinforces begin to lost its meaning, and over time, fade into a new unconsciousness brought about by another dominant force, which likely would be gender equality as it now beginning to carry that ideology commonsensically in its discourse while being greatly conscious of the discourse of patriarchy amongst its practitioners. PHHHHHEWWWW.... the end!

Reflecting on Media Truths

I began my professional life as a media practitioner, a journalist chasing ideals and dreams of freedom of expression. Influenced by my Editor then at Mediacorp, I took up Economics as a an academic pursuit to understand the forces of society and the groundings necessary for a Journalist (from god knows when till this day, Philosophy, Politics, and Economics seem to be the favourite course of study for budding journalists in Singapore). However, after a long, hard look at myself, I decided to choose Education as a career to influence and inspire a new generation of conscious Singaporeans. After 3 years as a teacher, I decided that I will take a, ahem, sabbatical, to reflect on my own fruitless life chasing fruitless dreams.

Anyway, this post is not for me to whine and cry over the futiliy of my existence, but as a primer to understand the contexts of worldviews. In lieu of the above, the following account might appear somewhat more coherent. I vividly remember my first experience covering an international story of interest for a news agency. The agency had just bought a photo-story from me in early 1998 on the issue of Migrants in Singapore, and they called me in one morning in May 1998 to cover another story which was gaining interest internationally. The beginning of the Reformasi riots, which eventually toppled Suharto's regime, was taking its toll on its regular correspondents and "stringers" there. The amount of stories generated on the riots was inadequate to fulfill the demands of the International Media, and some of the agency's writers refused to cover the story due to ideological conflicts, fear of violence and inability/refusal to understand the local context in the rioting areas. Bravely, I jetted in and wrote several long, well-researched articles on the riots, and was jetted out as soon as my services were not needed. Looking back, I reflected on the objectivity of the trip and the coverage of the riots by the media.

Prior to the riots, newpapers and media around the world paid scant coverage on the escalating discontent and the irregular development of the country. Analysing the "clicks", or use by the international media on the regional stories, it is estimated to be less than 20 stories per day by the agency's more than 200 subscribers, which would include the notable papers New York Times, The Times (England), The International Herald Tribune and our own beloved The Straits Times. With the onset of the street demonstration and violent crackdown by the authorities, thousands of "clicks" were noted each day, and hundreds of Journalists performed the "parachute" mode of journalism by entering the country to cover the riots for their own media.

However, Western or Northern media often ignored the ideological background of the riots in lieu of the gore and violence surrounding the riots. A discursive one-liner "the riots started after students from a local university were shot by the military", followed descriptions of gore worthy of an Anthony Burgess novel. Further emphasis were given to rape and looting of Chinese Indonesians, and did not reveal "fractured lines of societal differences", but a mere stereotype of racial discontent. Rape didn't occur along racial lines, as people were fond of believing, but at random outbursts. Native Indonesians were also victims, and rape-squads against Chinese were also rumoured to have developed. These remained rumours. The central issue in the Reformasi Riots of 1998 was against the oppression of social classes, rather than a racial one that we were led to believe. Disparity between the rich and poor was neglected by that Administration, and Suharto's crucial financial backing by the rich led to the promotion of capitalism and cronyism, which were forced onto the oppressed classes who struggled in a society of disparity. Looting against Chinese shops were overemphasised, as looting took place not along racial lines, but among geographical belts of wealth and the value of the shops. Indigenious Indonesian shops were not spared in the looting, which happens as a capitalization of riots anywhere.

Famous pictures of graffiti on shops and carcasses labelling the "Chinese pork consumers" were proliferated across news media. However, many and most other pictures of violence and shops in various states of destruction were of indigenious people and ownership. One photographer of a major Western newspaper was even observed coaxing rioters to scribble racist graffiti on a looted shop, car, and carcasses of dead men and women who were obviously non-Chinese. The official government denial on a "racial riot" was disparaged by the skeptical Western media who drew their conclusions too quickly that it was a government-backed riot to purge the Chinese race from its society. Distortion of the news by Western Agencies, censorship by the local press, rumours from the grapevine and false perception did lead to the migration of the richer, more mobile Chinese community, who read about threats to them from Chinese and English-medium newspapers, which in turn took many of their stories from Western Wire Services as well as major newspapers, even the Straits Times, whose influential columnists were condemning the oppression of the people and passing on the perception of racial attacks. However, many Chinese did not take heed to the "ethnic cleansing", or who were less mobile than their Upper class counterparts (there are lower-middle class Chinese Indonesians, you know, unlike the stereotypical filthy rich ones), and stayed in their own homes, cowering in fear as much as their indigenious neighbours who know that opportunistic rioters know no race.

An interview I did with Trisakti students, whose deaths led to the riots, indicated that most of the rioters were ideologically aware of the need for reform rather than senselessly manifesting their primal nature of violence as Western media are fond of believing, and that Indo-Chinese students were among the most vocal of supporters of reform. Ironically or aptly, the University has labelled itself as the Campus of the Reform Heroes, distancing itself from the violence and celebrating its ideologies. I was jetted in at the height of demand from Western and regional media for its violence, and axed after three days as the media gradually lost its attention towards the riots, or perhaps as I tried to provide a counter-perspective derailing the Western myths and stereotype on lesser, that is to say, Asian, cultures. My investigative reports averaged 20 clicks, way below the agency's average for the riot coverage, and they were heavily "scrubbed" by Western media before publication, at times merged into other stories as a cross-perspective, though usually at the rear of the article, where readers gradually lost interest. My Editor told me that my trip was a high-risk loss-making venture, but celebrates the achievement of "factual" journalism at its height and glory and meeting the ethos of news. However, it was pulled from the archives after 3 months, citing the need to create space for other stories. Hmm..

Anyway, the anecdote is not to portray any "holier than thou" criticism of the Western media, but a reflection on the everyday nature of news in media, which if I interprete rightly, will be a central feature of the study of written discourse, as the great proportion of authoritative discourse in written form today takes place in the media. Media selection, framing, its hidden ideology, the secret symbols in its discourse, and the hegemony between the North and South will allow us to reconsider what we see each day, and allow us a critical perspective on the "truths" media attempt to deliver, and the "truths" we reify in our minds.

The End of Adjectives and The Last Word

A rather famous literary advice was proposed by Ezra Pound, a semi-great critic and above-average poet, to the regardable yet quintessential genius of Ernest Hemingway, which became greatly influential to Hemingway's writings and the development of post-Hemingway writers, especially in the short story genre. Pound claimed famously that "the true poet is most easily distinguished from the false, when he trusts himself to the simplest expressions, and when he writes without adjectives". Hemingway himself rethought his writings, and was greatly hailed for his sparseness in prose to convey literary effects. A personal favourite story of mine was the aptly though strangely titled "A very short story", which used the sparseness of its prose and adjectives and its detached, perhaps even aloof, narrative style to convey the strength of the message. This does contrasts somewhat with the weightier perennial favourite and critically-acclaimed "Snows of Kilimanjaro", which applied somewhat greater style and premodifying adjectives in its language.

As Pound and his studio was deeply influential in his era, many modernist writers were indebted to his influence in assisting their publication. Though it would be foolish to generalize the thought, was Modernism reshaped, and the loss of the Adjective proliferated as a result of Pound's considerable influence and thoughts? In school, we taught and learnt that "beautifying" quality of the adjectives in textual production. Personally, I teach the disorganized use of adjectives, sparseness combined with proliferation to create a literary effect. However, does the economy of text result in the economy of thoughts? Will this short discourse and my intent or style lose its effect if I eliminated all the adjectives here?

Consider this extract from Samuel Beckett, a Modernist who obviously ignored Pound's advice against superfluous use of adjectives and adjectival phrases. Though Beckett's strength lies in his Minimalist and pessimistic interpretation of the human condition, his trilogy of Molloy, Malone Dies, and the Unnameable, as well as the superb novella "Murphy", demonstrated his indulgence in using adjectives, both superfluous and apt, to describe the human condition. James Joyce, somewhat more influenced by Pound, applied his streams of consciousness in his characters more economically. As an aside, I have experimented on the criticism on interpretation before analysis, which I totally agree with. I will place the extract after my opinions and perspectives on Beckett. Did your opinions on this text change after having read these "prederived notions"? Would it have been different if I omitted the adjectives "Minimalist", "Pessimistic", "Superfluous" and "Apt" and the Adverb "Obviously", as well as the prior information on Pound's economy and Beckett's rebellion?

"It is on my back, that is to say prostrate, no, supine, that I begin to feel best, bony. I lie on my back, but my cheek is on the pillow. I have to only to open my eyes to have them begin again, the sky and smoke of mankind. My sight and hearning are very bad, on the vast main no light but reflected gleams. All my senses are trained full on me, me. Dark and silent and stale, I am no prey for them. I am far from the sounds of blood and breath, immured. I shall not speak of my sufferings. Cowering deep down among them I feel nothing. It is there that I die, unbeknown to my stupid flesh. That which is seen, that which cries and writhes, my witless remains." Malone Dies, Samuel Beckett (1956).

Anyway, to end my confused discourse, just wanted to pose a few questions which carries predisposed notions on literature.

1) Modernist and Post-modernist writers, influenced by Pound, would create texts sparse and symptomatic of the human discourse, in contrast to the "richness" of the Renaissance and Enlightenment period, where hardly a sentence went by without an adjective thrown in for good measure, such as the writings of Shakespeare, Milton, Laurence Sterne (whose Tristram Shandy was famously described by Dr Samuel Johnson as a "period piece" and would not last), Cervantes, etc. Several literary critics lament the declining richness of literature, and blame the media (Film, TV) for creating "quickies" for the attention-deficit audience, resulting in textual construct in literature to follow Pound's advice and ditch adjectivals and adverbials to create fast-moving texts. Has quality in texts actually declined in the post-modern age with the "smoothness" emphasized? Is the avoidance of adjectives to create "Richness" and "Musicality" as purported by Pound actually successful in modern poetry and prose, or is it even possible to construct texts, musical and rich, while consciously avoiding superfluous adjectives?

2) The famous yet controversial Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of Linguistic Determinism causes one to reflect on the dearth of adjectives in text. While the English Lexicon is increasing daily (six words a day, some claim), the avoidance and gradually declining use of adjective may result in the craft of "functional" literature, bare-boned and audience-centered, realigned around a limited set of words. Language reflects reality, and as Sapir and Whorf claim that reality reflects language, the pertinent question is whether reality in the post-modern age is losing its richness. Classicists harp about the "good ol' days". Are they justified? Will we as a society decline further unless we return to 'richness'?

To sum up this long post, it is my opinion that we take a "long, hard look" at modern literature and analyze its content and descriptions. Is Modernity taking its toll on Literature, which is a reflection of society? Has society declined, or has only Literature declined? Are those who carry on the bastion of "richness" in description fools who live in a different age, detached from reality? Before we lose ourselves, perhaps we should ponder if the article's title, borrowed somewhat from Fukuyama, is actually true and happening.

Thanks for the patience to read this, do comment and argue, both reinforcing and rebutting.

Met Me Met Mad

Was feeling way out of my league (not in a positive sense) during today's lesson with my glaring technical weakness in linguistics creeping in. Sought reprieve through the reading of various madmen like Lacan, Saussure and Derrida. Set me thinking on the use of Metaphor and Metonyms in Discourse. Set me writing this short rant on it. May not be accurate, but does reflect present, mad thoughts.

Linguistic analysis requires its practitioners to possess assumptions that communication and its communicator is conscious. Lacan's development of Freudian Linguistics and interpretation on the unconscious slippages which constitute, to a large extent, the contents of daily discourse, causes one to pause and reflect on the adequacy of such assumptions. Therein lies the difficulties in a Pragmatic Analysis of Metonymy and Metaphors, as they are reflection on the unconscious, rather than conscious, speech.

The difficulties in understanding text belies a simplistic notion that every unit in language is able to be understood. A signifier attains meaning only in relation to its contrastive signifier, e.g. "pleasing" and "painful". This results in infinite chains of reference in the language, and with further chains within a single word developing, the tasks of mere perception and linkage of chains in understanding discourse may prove inadequate. Linkages may not be linear, i.e., they may have to create a net-like structure, in contrast to its various opposites, to create a full meaning of the signifier. Metaphors and Metonyms are reflection of a non-linear linkage.

The nature, function and the effects created by Metaphors and Metonyms create a far greater problem for Pragmatists as Metaphors are deliberately used to emphasize the separation of the real from the present state, and any analysis could only reflect the seperation, not the state. Metonyms, on the other hand, use symbols to elicit further qualities on the signified. Again, the problem lies in the description of the qualities: though it may create a mental picture of the signified, the signified is only seen through its qualities and loses its being, which is akin to the post-modern "I-Me" differentiation.

Communication and Linguistics has evolved to a present post-modern state where Centrality, Static States and Statements, and Objectivity has had to give way to a Diverse, Fluid, and Subjective Universe where traditional assumptions and notions have to be reconsidered. The use of Metaphors and Metonyms is but a small reflection of this new state, and "Me" in relation to reality may have to give way to the "I", which in turn may evolves into "-"?

Considerations in pragmatics

As JL Austin noted, it is amazing how few instances of miscommunication take place daily amidst the wondrously confusing and ambiguous use of "Standard" and "Non-Standard" language. In prescriptive grammar, there is an assumption that use of non-standard forms of language results in communicative ineffeciency and ineffectiveness, and the coherence of any text or utterance will be greatly diluted even with available context and co-text. In the Cambridge Grammar, an authoritative, or should I say Authoritarian, text on Grammar usage and errors, thousands of instances of miscommunication can take place hypothetically, and in some cases, realistically.

In the study of pragmatics, there is an assumption that communication is successful when speaker's intention and listener's interpretation are met. With that, it would require that reference, inference, denotations and connotations are successful to some degree. When we interpret and analyze these discourses, it may appear commonsensical to us, and with the assistance of theoretical understanding, we are able to apply labels such as "anaphora", "antecedents", "connotations", "denotations", "success", etc to them.

However, considering the commonsense in us is inadequate to apply an understanding into the functions of human communications and relations. We are able to see that context applies in communication, and the necessary background information and logical explanation allows us to fully understand such utterances. Our various "domains" in which text are formed and uttered is bound by several key factors in the understanding and genuine interpretation of such communicative subtleties. Consider the following and decide if these are legitimate considerations, and changes in each attribute might somehow alter our perception of communicative success, and the resulting implications on Connotations and Reference.

Power: Jenny Thomas states that Power alters our discourse pattern, i.e., we speak differently to people "in power" and to people with "lower power" than us. As in most sociological study of power, it remains true that the class in power tends to overpower and shape society, as do those without power either aspire to communicate in the norms of the powerful, or totally rebel against it. Examining this relationship, we can look at the X-Men dialogue with a differing point-of-view. Grey, being mutant, observed to an extent the positive connotations of "mutant" and "mutation". However, consider the overall success of her communication? Was she able to convince, or perform a perlocutionary act, or was she only able to inform, which is an illocutionary act? Consider then, the next speaker, Senator Kelly, who obviously was able to communicate his connotation more successfully than Grey. Did his audience understand him and were convinced as he possessed greater power, thus heightening his perlocutionary force in his connotations? Did the senators equate his connotation as they were all "alike" in power, status, humanity and "gender" as opposed to Grey's contrastive differences? Did real authority of listener over the speaker alter the communicative relationship? How then, can we ignore Tamir-Ghez's assumption of Speaker's Authority over Listener? Did the Forced encoding and resulting understanding of the connotation alter in relation to the speaker or the authority?

Ideology: Similarly, Ideology shapes the connotations and references of lexemes. Kelly's connotations were more agreeable to the audience as his, and perhaps the prevailing ideologies, were Right-wing and Classical, while Grey appeared to be sympathetically Left-leaning as well as Liberal. Similarly, connotations to us which may appear derogatory yet commonsensical such as "Normal", "EM3", might have different connotations to the more sympathetic and Liberal, or to those who reject the existence of connotations for the literal. Other ideological clashes such as Theism, Epistemology, Realism, Structuralism, etc. do result in differing connotations of words, both functional and descriptive, which I will not expound further lest it leads to a full 300000 words thesis.

Culture: Our interpretation of language, as clearly understood in the lectures on Sociolinguistics as well as pragmatics, is bound by Culture as well as Context, which I would simplistically list as Time, History and Heritage. Meanings are bounded by Time, as expressions of my generation such as "spastic" or the recent "SMS" could not be understood clearly in a different age. Furthermore, the sentence construct and syntax do differ across Time, with notable differences in Academic/Literary writings through the ages, leaving remnants of their culture and norms for the Modern Reader to determine. Again, this is a consideration more for sociolinguistics than Pragmatics, thus I will not continue. However, do consider the use of Vernacular language and dialect in informal discourse, as well as in politcal rallies (as in the recent elections), and its communicative effectiveness over the formal, standardized language in the Formal Parliamentary sessions. Did the semantical understanding of the audience or Speaker's intentions cause such alterations from their daily speech? Was the utterance better understood when informal speech is used in a formal context (rally), or did Hearer's comfort and alliance reshape our discourse pattern? Why did the examples from Yule, Lyons and Thomas, risk ambiguity and indirect difficulty to construct sentences in this manner?

Sylistics, Artistry and Aesthetiscism:- Written and Spoken Language: The prestige of written words and its natural tendencies to rely on antecedents and endophora rather than the spoken word that uses more exophora causes a necessary code-switching. Is speaker's intent and reader's intepretation better served with fullness in formal written text than an informal spoken text relying on exophora? Again, this is bound by power attributed to written discourse and its supposed aestheticism over the common spoken word, perhaps devoid of beauty. -Absence of signifiers: Eden, Eden, Eden, a disturbing book on child prostitution, caused a relook into the perspectives on language. There was no signifier, and the intensity of the language, the vulgarities, the narrative mood, the actions, the descriptions, leads to a text that celebrates not content, but the disintegration and the explosion of language. As in many Modernist/Post-Modern approach towards text, essential meaning in language is inessential, and words themselves never ever convey the intent of the speaker and the Hearer never fully understands the Speaker. How then, can pragmatics function as a discipline which endeavours to understand the functions of text in human discourse? Is there a greater problem in analyzing critical discourses such as philosophy, and Rhapsodic Texts such as poetry and literature, which produces texts for effect rather than to communicate any reality to its readers?
Furthermore, artistry raises more problems from pragmatics as frequently, literature has raised many issues into language such as the Indecision of the speaker, a deliberate misinterpretation of speakers' intent, Deception of the speaker, self-deception of the listener, notably in Marcel Proust's Remebrance of Things Past and Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. The indecision of Proust is elemental to his discourse, which means to us, was the speaker/writer successful in his communication, and does and can his reader understand Proust's prose? His sentences, even if many fulfill Grice's Maxims, can mislead his readers, and his prose stylistics which flouts many of Grice's Maxims, do allow the reader to understand (?) his intention.Further problems in Art for pragmatics would raise the problem of the Real and Implied Writer and Reader.

As it is, I shall neither bore nor confuse you no further with my rantings, except to note that
"There was a notable absence of patterns".

Creating cultural texts through Film and Literature

NOTE: You may disagree with the definition of some terms and theories. However, as an introductory lesson, its objectives is not to discuss theories nor terms, but to use them to demonstrate relevant examples.

What is film?
- motion picture or movies? recreational? banal?
- a cultural text? intellectual/sociological? profound?

Is film a cultural text?
-traditionally, cultural texts have been restricted to written works and paintings.
-high/classicist view (harold bloom) classifies literature only as "written works of high intellectual achievements".
-universal/modern view (allen bloom) classifies literature as cultural texts which reflects the everyday practices and everyday life.
-Taking the modern view, Film in its form is therefore a cultural text.

Film or cinema theory:
- We will consider four main theories in our study:
1) Auteur theory
2) Realism/Fantasy
3) Semiotics
4) Narrative theory

Auteur theory
In film, as in writing, the power of the film lies greatly in the vision of the author/s.
Looking at CITY OF GOD, the power comes from the author of the book, the director and the actors who understand the realness of the events in the film, and are able to deliver it to the audience with great impact.

In Miyazaki, his feminist and environmentalist attitude, and his view of bildungsroman, leads to his inclusion of these themes in his films.

Simple definitions
Feminism: belief that women are equal, extremely rare in Asian context, esp Japan.
Environmentalism: belief that human progress is bound by the environment, and that the
environment must be protected.
Bildungsroman: the coming of age, maturity and development of a person through time and experience. (eg. Alice in Wonderland, Pinocchio, Narnia.)

Which parts of the film does Miyazaki demonstrate his
a) Feminism
b) Environmentalism
c) Bildungsroman

We move on from people in the auteur theory to the bigger picture, the world.
The world in which we as writers create can reflect reality, as in City of God, or Fantasy, as in Spirited Away.
In realism, it reflects "the world as it is to you". You may not identify with the streets
of Rio de Janiero. Can you identify with Jack Neo's I not Stupid?

What can and can you not identify with?
Consider this:
- Place
- Time
- Language
- Behavior
- Thoughts

In fantasy, it reflects another world beyond that we live in. Common themes include science fiction, horror, magic, fairy tales.
Another more important and perhaps, frightening theme, is the concept of Utopia and Dystopia.
Simple Definition:
Utopia: a perfect place where people are in harmony and free.
Dystopia: A supposed Utopia with major flaws.

Think about it for a minute, and write down a short paragraph describing your Utopia.

Now, write one flaw into your Utopia, which will cause the collapse of your world.

One of humanity's main considerations is the absence of crime, sadness and the presence of an intelligent world.

Three films portraying a Utopia gone wrong:

Intelligent world: The Matrix-perfectly artificial intelligent world. But the creators of the world had to write in suffering and pain to make the people alive, and later, the program tries to take over humanity.

Absence of pain: Equillibrium- no sadness, but society stops being able to feel. No "good" as well as "bad". Just equillibrium.

Absence of Crime: Minority Report.

Look at what happens when there is a possible world where there's no crime?

What's wrong with the world in Minority Report? What do you think will happen next? Do you think John will commit murder? Was it his choice to kill, or was he tricked into killing? Is there a difference?

We move on from the ideas or themes in a film to the elements which "decorate" a text and gives it greater meaning.

Semiotics: -The study of signs.

In semiotics, we attempt to link elements in the text to one of greater meaning than just a
sign itself. For example, a telephone booth, in the movie "Phone Booth". What does the telephone symbolize? It can be linked to communication, the need for love, loneliness,
truths and lies, etc.

Every element in a (well-made) film is thought out before its execution. The framing of the picture (why close-up?), language, props, names, time, place, etc are crucial parts of a film, and gives it greater meaning.

Using semiotics, what do these things symbolize to you?

Minority report could only be made in the 21st Century, as technology is far more advanced.
Steven Spielberg spent much time and effort getting the various props in the film to look right. Though the story was written about 50 years ago, it wouldn't have looked right without the special effects and gear.

Let's look at Hindi Cinema, one of the most important film industries today.

Kabhi Khushi Khabie Gham (Sometimes happy, sometimes sad) is one of the most popular Hindi Film ever.

Looking at the frozen screen, where is the place and time? Which symbols tell you that? What else do the symbols represent? Are you correct? (let's look at the actual excerpt)

There are lots of props and decoration in Hindi films. Why? What do they represent?

The movement of the people, the beats of the songs, the expression on their faces, what do they represent?

We move on from the content of a film to the styles which are closely related to writing.

The last section of the lecture deals with narrative styles. In literature, what narrative styles do we employ? What kind of narrator do we have? (Excerpts from Thomas Mann, Samuel Beckett, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, James Joyce, Thomas Lim, Jorge Luis Borges, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Rainer Rilke, Virginia Woolf: Western Canon?.)

Key narrative styles and moods:

1) Stream of Consciousness (Joyce and Woolf)
2) Omniscient Narrator (Lim, Borges)
3) First person Protagonist (Unreliable): (Camus, Dostoyevsky, Beckett)
4) Judgmental: (Mann, Rilke)
Films have a similar narrative style
1) Monty Python???
2) Amelie
3) Memento, Rashomon (multiple view), Fight Club
4) Rarely do films employ the judgmental, but they commonly use the invisible. There is no clear narrator. They story is carried through the actions/speeches/scenes. Most common film narrative.

Practice in Narrative Framing.
Practice in Writing a short paragraph detailing a character's Odyssey, with attention to the world, Symbols, Framing, embedding of personality and observable idiosyncracies.

Conclusion
Film and Literature attempt a converging path in the 21st Century with the proliferation of mass media. Is the creation of a mass culture necessarily bad? Is traditional qualities in literature "dumbed" and "watered" down to accomodate the masses? Or are the masses enriched through the availability of such mass cultural texts? These issues are greatly debatable, but as budding writers, these factors should influence you to maintain the integrity of your writing. Writing is a supreme art, and good writers are able to use the observations of the abstract in Texts, as well as embed their experiences, thoughts and feelings into their works. Owning a text is crucial to the development of your writings, and the various examples in the texts analyzed today allows you to see the quality in textual production which adheres to the presented principles. Read well, look well, think well, live well, write well.

A functional return to paradise lost

Am returning to this blog, long after it was abandoned. The function of the blog will no longer be a showcase of minor works for only one or two (if any) readers of my materials. This will be mainly used as a reflection on learning in the courses currently undertaken. Since there appears to be much overlap in the courses, I hope that the materials put up will "score points" in all the courses I am taking. Heh. Worry not for I will not crap about my horrible day, nor the dearth of good-looking girls in University campuses, etc. I will share some lesson plans as well and materials where possible to assist teachers and aspiring ones to consider. Caveat: Some of the lesson plans are not actually executed, as I don't teach Lit or English at Secondary level. However, I do have a keen interest in the subjects and will try to give my perspective as a non-Lit teacher in hope that teachers will find it useful. Anyway, first up will be a lesson to share on Literature, Film and Culture, which I will be conducting for the Gifted Education Branch in a workshop later this month. Do plough through it and use whatever is necessary. Resources available upon request (don't want to get sued for copyright infringement by putting the texts/clips here!).

To the Man

Mister, Mister, such arrogance.
Treating us like the potted ferns.
You’ve gotta analyze,
supervise,
scrutinize,
Values within your puny mind.
Mister, Mister, you will get returns.

Mister, Mister, what’s this gesture?
Shoo, Be gone, Hookers and Beggars?
We just wanna,
gotta,
hav’ta,
Change you for the better.
Mister, Mister, not fit to father.

Mister, Mister, wait a moment.
Do not shrug off our sentiments.
Our arguments
are Singaporean,
never, not Western,
Sounded from people’s concern.
Mister, Mister, rethink your judgment.

Mister, Mister, News of the Day!
Who will marry you anyway?
What’s that word? Obey?
No way,
José.
We’d rather be nuns who pray
“Mister, Mister. Misters, go away!”

Mister, Mister, there are no Eves.
God should have made Adams and Steves.
No temptress shall deceive,
conceive,
perceive,
Then there will be Peace.
Mister, Mister, more egos to please.

Mister, Mister, you’re to marry?
We are feeling very sorry
For that life you will ruin,
not funny.
With money,
You buy and she bought her virgin.
Mister, Mister, we prefer the ferry.

Mister, Mister, what’s everything?
Those beings are at least living.
You called them friends,
buddies,
kakis.
Now you treat them as fiends.
Mister, Mister, you are appalling.

Mister, Mister, please don’t deny.
Have you been awake through the night?
You look a troubled,
worried,
married,
Man whose life has crumbled.
Mister, Mister, shed that poor disguise.

Mister, Mister, her temper blew
At the Cauldron of “Love” you brew.
These bitter potions
of wrath,
of graft,
Have poisoned her disposition.
Mister, Mister, don’t say you’ve no clue.

Mister, Mister, control your thoughts.
She’s paying you with what you taught.
The stereotypes you conform her,
expectations
of false passions,
Will only serve to make her bitter.
Mister, Mister, she’s happier than when she’s bought.

Mister, Mister, read the by-line?
The writer’s one you left behind.
A classmate whose letters you’ve torn.
You used to call her
“as stupid
as Cupid.”
But please remember
“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
Mister, Mister, what’s troubling your mind?

Mister, Mister, farewell for now.
At last, we see you on(in) the brown.
Soaked in Red,
on the pews.
How it feels
to be ewes
Slaughtered, a sacrifice for the dead.
Mister, Brother, Martyr for this town.

To the Women

(Reading Instructions: Read this once, then read again in synchronized paragraph with To the Man.)

Ladies, Ladies, Please! Wait your turns.
At least wait till the butter’s churned.
I’ve gotta analyze,
supervise,
scrutinize,
Matters beyond your puny minds.
Ladies, Ladies, you will get your turns.

Ladies, Ladies, cease this banter.
Look elsewhere for your cheap chatter.
I just wanna,
gotta,
hav’ta,
Climb this social ladder.
Ladies, Ladies, sob to your mothers.

Ladies, Ladies, Wrong! Bad Judgment.
I’m the Scholar of the Government.
I have returned,
to Singaporean,
no longer Western,
Armed with modern acumen.
Ladies, Ladies, redo this assignment.

Ladies, Ladies, I am to stay.
Let’s get married without delay.
All my words you’ll obey,
everyday,
any way,
After we walk down the aisle at the Quay. (Fullerton?)
Ladies, Ladies. Ladies? Where are they?

Ladies, Ladies, are hard to please.
I wish they’re made like good ol’ Eve.
Guess I’ll have to look overseas.
A Chinese,
Japanese,
Russian, Malaysian, maybe Vietnamese.
Ladies, Ladies. Ladies that will please.

Ladies, Ladies, I’m to marry.
Bet you are now feeling sorry.
Bought her for a handsome dowry.
Her virgin,
examined.
Unlike you, she’s sweet, not sultry.
Ladies, Ladies, honeymoon’s Paris.

Ladies, Ladies, how’s everything?
Why are you dating those beings?
Some were my peers,
inferior,
“Heartlanders”.
Now I’m their superior.
Ladies, Ladies, this is so shocking.

Ladies, ladies, everything’s fine.
Wife’s expecting, thus she’s confined.
Zhou Mi’s such a beauty.
Cranky?
Maybe…
But she gives me enough pocket money.
Ladies, Ladies, I’m more than fine.

Ladies, Ladies, she’s got the blues.
Threw me out with only my shoes.
Where can I go?
To Dad?
I’m Sad
That I haven’t cuddled my Regent Goh.
Ladies, Ladies, I still have no clues.

Ladies, Ladies, I’ll be in Court.
Bloody Bitch screwed the man from Courts.
That Bastard’s his,
that Regent.
Religion
Keeps me alive through all this.
Ladies, Ladies, there! There’s the trio to the Court.

Ladies, Ladies, Skip the Headlines.
The bitch’s been spouting all these lies.
I’m a Chauvinist?
Me, Impotent?!
Incompetent?!
She might as well call me a Communist!
Ladies, Ladies, disregard these lies.

Ladies, Ladies, farewell for now.
Here I’m taking my final bow.
My life’s taken a torrid twist.
Commotions,
demotions.
Devotions.
For in this Church, I slit my wrist.
Ladies, Ladies. Blessings, God Bestows.

The bed

In a darkened room, there were two. One was asleep, the other was awake. He slept in fear of the sunset. She slept to avoid the blinding sunrise that might compromise her sight. He would never sleep before dawn to wonder at the lustre of the breaking day. She will never sleep before dusk to feel at one with the commune. He feared the gradual shift from light into darkness, from elation to melancholy, any symbol associated with it, especially the sunset. She feared diversity, any behaviour associated with it, and saw it as rebellion. He feared transition. She wanted to experience only night and light, ignoring the transition. In his sleep, he confronted fear. In her wake, she dreamt of satisfying equality. He struggled, frustrated. She conformed, satiated.

A tinge of regret

Well, this blog will probably end up as a platform for me to share my B-grade writings with the world. Pardonez-moi, but I will try to increase the quality of my posts. Most of my early works will probably end up here in this crappy wasteland, the better ones will be kept for my first book, which should be out in most obscure bookstores this lifetime. Will appreciate your feedback periodically on the stuff written, and please be kind to me, OK?
This is free publishing, ah, so don't expect Borgesian or Joycean-quality works, just the selected rantings of a madman. Will try to publish only short pieces, as I don't wanna waste your precious time reading my junk, even though you have been great friends of mine. I know many of you have no life, but please go read The New Paper or something. Get out of the blog. Shoo. Shoo. For cheapos intending to plagiarize this, however unlikely and stupid it might be, this stuff is copyrighted. Citations available on request, some of this crap has actually been published. Anyways, have fun ploughing through this. Bumper issue today, two pieces of crap will be served up.

The Island of Dreams

Hey, ho, away we go!
There goes another shipload.
Hey, ho, away we go!
Here comes another busload.

Mother, Mother,
Look! The pirates are here,
Raise the flag. You, come on out,
Get in line, over here.
Hurry! Please! Don’t make me shout.

My Dear, My Dear,
It is starting to rain,
Hang the babies out to dry.
Nuisances yet again,
They do not but eat and cry.

Sisters, Sisters,
Put on your girly grins.
May, you saving on make-up?
June, your dolls in the tins!
Please?
And put away those tea-cups.

Good Sirs, Good. Sirs,
Welcome to the Jungle.
Have a good look. Take your time.
Good choice, she’s just a girl.
Fear not, this is not a crime.

Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir?
That’s June, she’s real hot!
Sorry, got no more like her.
Why not give May a shot?
She’s twelve, a little older.

No, Sir. No. Sir,
It’s bad for my image.
Her? She’s my eldest daughter.
Not passed the legal age,
Only six. Wait till next year.

Please, Sir! …, Please Sir.
Sir, fancy a double?
Quick to please, that’s her mother.
Great. For ten more roubles:
Buy mature tease, my mother.

Reader, Reader.
Welcome to the Island of Dreams. Welcome to My parallel universe. Yes, I am sick, sickened. The primal instinct of my inhuman nature overcame, eroded, negated, atrophied, exfoliated, whatever, the remains of my affiliation to kinship. Pursuing the permanent merger of my soul to my shadow, I have swung to the tide of them: The timeless tide of time. Pretty Pity.
Detached, I poison my restless mutant carcass, yes, a carcass, for I was born, made, a minute less than Human. Madam, please. Perceive, Receive, Preserve me in my present disposition, I am perfectly whole in my homeostasis. Status Quo. Simple question. I know what I mean. Ah yes, Joyfully inhuman. Inhuman?
Reader,
I am caught between two lands: The North and The South. The busloads from the North, the shiploads from the South. Who dictated that The North and The South will be greater than the Middle?
I’m fine. For as in all Vortices, the Middle is that in which all forms revolve to and through. Perhaps I am not fine, after all, anymore. This Vortex is senseless- it does not conform to the laws of Being. Perhaps it is not a Vortex after all. Perhaps.
Reader,
Imagine. Perhaps? Imagine. Imagine yourselves as the fence between North and South. The in-between. Imagine. Imagine yourselves as the Island of Dreams, perpetually used by North and South. Imagine a land of permanent darkness amidst the lands of the Light. Imagine they name this land the “Land of Ceaseless Light”, the Island of Dreams. A land of Ceaseless Night, really. A land of Ceaseless Red Lights.
Imagine I like red. Imagine I like the red lights. Imagine the red lights as the warning lights of Being. Imagine, hustle-bustle-scatter-scuttle-helter-skelter through the warning signs of Being and enter the realms of Dreams in the Land of Ceaseless Light. Imagine the ferocity of the Dreams that lies in wait in the Island of Dreams. Imagine the dreams, of pleasure, of pains, of your deepest being. Imagine the source of all truths, the Categorical Imperative, lies within the realms of Dreams. Imagine the key to that entrance lies only in the Island of Dreams. Imagine the dreams of Dreams. Imagine the Dream of all Dreams, that which shapes the route of your human Vortex. Imagine Sulphur, Imagine Ice. Awesome sight, awesome fright. Nice. Perhaps you should Imagine. Remember to Imagine. Imagine your Remembrance of Things Past, A la Recherche du temps perdu. Look forward backwards: Imagine hiding in your future. Imagine Inhumanity? Imagine Supra-humanity. Perhaps.

Another Star has fallen.
This is a good sign.

I must awake a different being.

Let’s Dance. Mori, the messenger of Time has arrived. I am leaving to live forever. Imagine.

Imagine I am learning to live forever. Imagine my image: An undying Being. Just Imagine.

Hmm, this rain shows no sign of abating. Perhaps I had better release Jason from the clothes-line. What then? Should I drown him like my brothers, and his? Or should he live on?

Perhaps

In the Island of Dreams: Singapore, gone wrong.
Really wrong.

May, May
You come to my room. Now!
I want to sleep. Now!

I will awake a different being. A Dieu.

Hey, ho, away we go!
There goes another busload.
Hey, ho, away we go!
Here comes another shitload.

Poem for a rainy day

Bored shitless, waiting for rain to subside.
To? Questioned? Somehow I feel an insight
Awaits the eager eruption of sorts.

Mind mined with mimes and neighs, my mind minds mine.

A little groove returns, timely discords,
Sounds of Wonders, sounds of highs, wonder if
and Eve will if. Current. Blest, take me, thief.

Sanctions undone by a blessed fate, teach.
Creations succumb on blessing's plate, which
Aimless arcades sway with the arcane one
Fused unloving, forgiving, the night's done.

Underscore an overscore, and wilt, down,
Hindsights, oversights, foresights the blinds crown
Glorious regents upon Mandalay.

Take me to the sun and the day. _____. Kneel.

The Chorus resounds to the Tune of Day
Rhythms of Prose beat. Beat Beat. Awkward clips.
Amazed, aloof, time of day. Six. One. _________

Res _____ Dead ______ Com______ Help ______ Down _______
Click Click Click Click Click click click. click ______ click.
Knock, click, click, knock, when will this ever stop!

Calm breeze, sadly ceased. Compose, decompose
Banal intruders in a needless cause.
I think I know more than you think I know.
Crush, deluge of weak paint fall. All, farce, Force.

Imprints, leave imprints. You beseech, implore.

An everlasting struggle to the Call.
Whose? Yours? Mine? The same? You say, the same way
As you always have said. Unchanging, stay.
Gliding away to that new you, newly

you

never

you

us

needless

thus.

GOSH!

Gosh... I've succumbed to peer pressure and started my own blog. Giioiosh. Really hope I will not degenerate into some stereotypical attention-seeking, wallowing-in-self-pity, whining-injustice-in-the-comfort-of an-air-conditioned-room, describing-everything-from-what-they-did/ate/wore/thought/said/saw-during-the-day blogger. Ooops. You've had to be a no-lifer, or a great friend of mine (who has to has no life anyway), if you are reading this blog. Save your life, save your time. Go out and play, and click that nice red X on the upper right of your screen right away. Or contradict myself and yourself: While you are here, make the most of it. Leave some comments and I'll read them when I feel insecure. If you hate this blog, blame Luyang (http://alifealitbythetruth.blogspot.com/). If you like it, feel free to rain praises on me and wax lyrical about it to all your friends. Will update this blog only when I feel insecure (which my close friends know as perpetual). Watch this space.

Le flaneur in the Dystopian Flanerie

Capitalist urban societies have been presented by popular media in two lights: The Utopia and the Dystopia. The Utopian city celebrates the diversity of its cultures, the organization of its cityscape and its economic structure, and the wealth and comfort of its space sets alight the infinite possibilities of humanity. The Dystopian city scrutinizes the hollowness of the individuals and the cultures, the entrapment of the diminishing space, conflicts and madness of its inhabitants, and the erosion of its humanity by the daunting cityscape.

Popular media in the last century have devoted much of their resources in depicting urban life, and have presented it in contrasting lights. Films, for example, ranged from the dark representation in Fritz Lang's Metropolis, to the violence in Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange or David Fincher's Fight Club, to the innocent expression of love in Charlie Chaplin's City Lights, and the comical desperation for relationships in Woody Allen's Manhattan. This article, however, will focus on the Dystopian perspective of the Urban from another media text, that of Popular Fiction.

While cinema has captured and enraptured its audience with its visual representations, books have had a significantly longer relationship with the masses, and serve as perhaps the best documentation of history. Furthermore, books interpellate their audience through a textual narrative, rather than a visual one, which forces the reader to create a mental conception of the dystopian landscape, rather than interpret that which is created by filmmakers. This representation is far greater pronounced than that which is visual, as it encompasses the situation in context with the general narrative, the characters, and represents the totality of the landscape synchronized with the imagination and experiences of the reader, which creates an effect arguably superior to that of the experienced world. The choice of books and writers is critical for this analysis, and will focus on canonical writers, both western as well as non-western, who have provided the perspectives of Urban Dystopia prior to the age of the cinema.

Literature portraying the Dystopian city usually employs the perspective of the Flaneur, or Flaneuse, to represent the city. The Flanerie, be it set in Moscow, Paris, Beijing, or a fantastic city, is panoptic, stifling and hollow, with the flaneur, being supra-human, the only disengaged and conscious party in the materialistic masquerade. The Flaneur, as defined by Walter Benjamin (in Yue, 2003), is focused on the spectacle of life on the streets, in the arcades, and modernity is embalmed into the mind of the Flaneur at 4 kilometers per hour. At the turn of the 20th Century, the tortured Czech-German poet, Rainer Maria Rilke (1964) described the spectacle of life on the Parisian walkways as revolting, and lamented the impending death of Life despite the "lively" activity on the streets. Rilke opened his "The Notebooks of Malte Laurid Briggs" with this observation: "So then people do come here in order to live; I would have sooner thought one died here. I have been out. I saw: hospitals. [...] The street began to smell from all sides. A smell, so far as one could distinguish, of iodoform, of the grease of pommes frites, of fear. All cities smell in summer." Rilke's emphasis on the stench in his opening paragraph depicts his contempt of the cityscape encapsulated in its smells. The iodoform represents the sanitarized environment in which its inhabitants dwell in, while the grease and the french fries represents the working class lifestyle which he deemed culturally simplistic, and the fear as the primary motivation of the Parisians subjected to the daunting Le Corbusier wonderland they dwell in.

The panoptic environment of the Dystopian City is an issue which has been further developed by later writers, most notably Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. In “1984”, Orwell's society is urbanized, and centers around a "Big Brother" system of control over its inhabitants (Orwell, 2000). The subjects live in fear, and will gradually become soulless and hollow if they did not rebel. Huxley (1964) emphasized the theme of Hollowness in his “Brave New World”, and captures a vivid account of controlled minds and controlled lives. Control is a major urban issue, as urban societies are deemed to be the liberated, and thus free, but the inhabitants of urban spaces are controlled by the politics, economy, and geography of the environment. Space becomes scarce as cities develop, and the structures, both physical and metaphysical, become cells which imprison the inhabitants. Surveillance is everywhere, and as portrayed by Huxley and Orwell, the closest kin and friends are secret agents propagating the ethos of urban society, resulting in the conformity to Bourgeois, mass-produced cultures and lifestyles. Cultural jammers, therefore, are the rebels of the system, and are the ones who are deemed liberated.

The Dystopian city bears another hallmark which is often portrayed in popular fiction, that of a materialistic society. Emile Zola demonstrates his resentment with his many crafted short stories shedding light on Paris in the late 19th Century. In "The Thin and the Fat", Zola (2003) describes the scene of Paris at sunrise as the “preparations of the great daily orgy”, which “for a paltry copper the passers-by would purchase a glimpse and a whiff of springtide in the muddy streets”. The Materialistic landscape provides the opportunity for a Flaneur to scrutinize the inner sanctums of the city, and examine its decadence. Oscar Wilde's Flaneur, the protagonist in "The Picture of Dorian Gray", in his most lucid moments, observes the urban landscape of London as that of comprising “black-shadowed archways and evil looking houses” filled with “drunkards chattering to themselves like monstrous apes”, wild women, and “grotesque children huddling on doorsteps” (1994). Virginia Woolf (1996) highlights the materialistic Londoners as pretentious, and their behaviours, contrived. Her protagonist, Mrs Dalloway, paints a ridiculous picture of the vanity of the British middle class with their fur coats on an open top omnibus on a warm day. The contrived nature of the urban cities led to the formulation of Samuel Beckett's famous opening line in Murphy (1957), “The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new”, where the newness and the renewal of life in Dublin is far removed, leaving caricatures of half-insane inhabitants seeking a tragic-comic end to their inconsequential lives, which duly happens in the manner that the city deemed fit.

Fashionable Western cities such as Paris, Dublin or London are not the only setting of a Dystopian City. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Moscow, in “Notes from the Underground”, contains the inhabitants of the city mired in abject loneliness and hopelessness. Jorge Luis Borges, the Argentine, develops his fetish for the labyrinth in urban South America. His nightmarish vision of the city, portrayed in the allegorical “The Immortal”, led the Flaneur in the story to describe the city as “so horrible that its mere existence contaminates the past and the future and in some ways jeopardizes the stars”. Lu Xun’s Urban China is no different, and in his various short stories, he has portrayed Chinese cities as a farcical theatre of stupidity and injustice, which empties the souls of the common man.

Cultural representations of the Urban Dystopia have been heralded and presented to its audience for centuries, and recent media texts have heightened this awareness to a new degree. The efficacy of such portrayal is of interest to some, while others adopt a more resigned attitude towards these portrayals, while the majority is generally apathetic towards this Dystopia, preferring to remain as cogs in the urban machinery. Instead of celebrating or criticizing the Urban Dystopia, the inhabitants or the media texts’ representation, more fundamental issues need to be addressed by text writers before launching head-on into the production of such texts. Lu Xun offers a perspective, a dilemma perhaps, which would serve these writers well as they endeavour in their portrayal of urban life, a topic close to the hearts of many:

“Suppose there was an iron room with no windows or doors, a room it would be impossible to break out of. And suppose you had some people who were sound asleep. Before long, they would all suffocate. In other words, they would slip peacefully from a deep slumber into oblivion, spared the anguish of their impending doom. Now let’s say that you came along and stirred up a big racket that awakened the lighter sleepers. In that case, they would go to a certain death fully conscious of what was going to happen to them. Would you say you have done those people a favour?”

References

Beckett, S. (1957). Murphy. Grove Press: London.
Borges, J. (1998). Collected Fiction. Viking: New York.
Dostoyevsky, F. (1992). Notes from the Underground. Dover Publications: New York.
Huxley, A. (1964). Brave New World. Bantam: London.
Lu, X. (1990). Diary of a Madman and Other Stories. University of Hawaii Press:
Honolulu.
Orwell, G (2000). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Penguin: London.
Rilke, R.M.(1964). The Notebooks of Malte Laurid Briggs. W.W. Norton & Company:
New York.
Wilde, O. (1994). The Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin: London.
Woolf, V. (1996). Mrs Dalloway. Wordsworth: London.
Yue, A. (2003) Shopping in Interpreting Everyday Culture. Martin, F.(ed.). pp.124-131.
Arnold: London.
Zola, E. (2003). The Fat and the Thin/La Ventre de Paris. Lightning Source Inc: London.