Before Sunset

Before Sunset offered a vastly different perspective on Jesse and Celine’s relationship. Jesse is clearly the more romantic character – he was the only to return to Vienna six months after their first meeting. Although Celine comes prepared with an inarguable excuse, she seems to find some humor and entertainment in the situation. Initially, she wasn’t able to remember certain aspects of their meeting very clearly, although she later claims to remember perfectly. Jesse, on the other hand, wrote a book to both celebrate and lament their relationship in the hopes of inciting another run-in with Celine. Additionally, throughout the course of the day, Celine seems to be somewhat disinterested in Jesse’s advances – All her speak of love and relationships is tainted with cynicism. He is still hopeful and clinging to his image of desire, whereas Celine seems to have given up hope.

Perhaps Jesse finds his other relationships to be unfulfilling because he is still holding on to the unshattered, idealized image of Celine. His unrealized desires run a constant loop of doubt in his mind, leaving him with an unsettling feeling about his various significant others. Celine experiences a similar phenomenon, but it seems to be less pronounced. I’m inclined to believe that Celine has learned a thing or two about desire since their first meeting. She explains to Jesse that she prefers to be with men who are away on business or otherwise traveling the majority of the time. Although this preference may not be a conscious one, it makes sense. These relationships would be easier for her to maintain because the ideal image of her significant other is more difficult to shatter. She largely constructs this image by herself while her lover is away and not around enough to shatter it.

In my opinion, Before Sunset fell flat in comparison to Before Sunrise. During their initial meet, they were complete and total strangers, but by the time they reconvened nine years later, they had formed countless preconceived notions about one another. There is something more raw and honest about an intimate conversation with a complete stranger. You’re not being careful to tiptoe around certain subjects and there is no need to feel embarrassed if you’ll never see that person again. Once a relationship has been established, it’s natural and, to some extent, uncontrollable to censor the information shared. For example, Celine and Jesse were hesitant to talk about their respective significant others. There were a few brief occasions that they did broach the subject, but they emphasized the insignificance of these relationships. If the two had never met before, this likely would not be the case. The content of the conversation is fundamentally different. 

Steve Almond: No Introduction Needed

I am a technical person – I do my level best to base my arguments on logic over emotion. However, if Steve Almond were trying to argue me into falling in love with his character’s beloved, he would not have a hard time. It’s one thing to observe the consequences of desire in literature, it’s another thing completely to feel the character’s whirlwind of emotions that make the consequences irrelevant. I think this is what I found to be most remarkable about Almond’s readings – he’s able to show the yin and the yang of love. Where many authors seem to get caught in either romanticizing or being bitter about love, he was able to let the character’s emotions in the moment shape the tone. 

Steve Almond did the most beautiful job of showing the delicacy and the value of love and desire despite their inevitable downfalls. He was able to describe the situation from the perspective of the person in love in a real and relatable way, which is a difficult feat. While we were reading The Bad Girl, the general consensus of the class seemed to be that Ricardo was being outrageously pathetic for his lover. I didn’t feel Ricardo’s burning need for the Bad Girl’s acceptance – it seemed like the reader had to delve deeper into the text to feel any character empathy. Similarly, Madame Bovary was overwhelmingly disliked for her flightiness and poor decisions. Although I found her relatable in some ways, I had a hard time mustering up empathy for her situation because I didn’t feel as though I had a raw understanding of her emotions. If Ricardo and Emma were Almond’s characters, I don’t think I would have doubted their intelligence or motives in the least.

I am nothing even reminiscent of a creative writer – the characters in my writing are typically Greek letters and symbols that appear in equations. However, I still found a lot of value in what Almond had to say about exposing his characters emotionally through sex and desire. When in love, I believe people are most vulnerable. Realizing a desire, or acting on that desire opens a certain window of vulnerability because to our desires define what we lack. In Skull, for example, Sharon’s desire for Jake to be turned on by her false eye reflects the lack of acceptance she’s felt in the past.  Steve Almond’s ability to convey that message so clearly is incredible; if anyone else had tried to summarize Skull, my overall reaction would most likely have been skepticism and doubt. He tackled something of a mountain in this piece. Almond makes such a strong emotional argument about the intimacy of skullfucking (I genuinely could not think of a less vulgar term to use here) that you can’t even question it. It doesn’t seem strange or taboo, and I can honestly say that there are very few things that can alter perception that thoroughly.

On a casual sidenote, I went into the lecture with no preconceived notions about Steve Almond, but left absolutely enchanted. I very much enjoyed his readings and I feel as though I took a lot away from that lecture. I surprise myself in saying this, but he actually made me wish I were a writer. This may not sound noteworthy, but I can’t remember ever wishing to be anything other than a mathematician. Although I still don’t anticipate any career changes in my future, Almond certainly made me see and appreciate the art of writing in a vastly different way.

Sexuality and the Police State in Férid Boughedir’s Halfaouine

Sexuality and the Police State in Férid Boughedir’s Halfaouine

Robert Lang

Noura is a boy stuck in the stage between childhood and adolescence while simultaneously making the complicated transition from being ‘one of the kids’ to ‘one of the men’. In one scene, two older boys are talking to a girl, and the boys will not let Noura join because, “this isn’t kid stuff.” Shortly thereafter, several younger boys splashing each other by the water fountain and ask Noura to join and his response is, “I’m not a kid anymore.”  Although Noura wishes to assimilate into male society, he finds that the men are less accepting of childish characteristics than are the women.

At the beginning of the movie, he does not know how to express his desire, or even what to make if it in the first place. Towards the beginning of the film, he frequently observes women respectfully and from a distance.  In this way, he is flirting with desire without falling under its full effects.

The women in the film act as a shield and shelter for Noura to the harsher aspects of adult male society. It is his mother who protects him from his father’s violence and cares for him, both in the physical and emotional senses. However, Noura’s budding desire for the opposite sex is driving a wedge between himself and his shelter. These women have raised and nutrtured him, but his budding sexuality faces him with the conflict of assimilating into male culture. It seems as though the women perceive desire, sexuality, and love as a private matter – a taboo, of sorts. The men that Noura interacts with, however, are very open when discussing these matters. Due to this dichotomy, he finds himself incapable of expressing his own desire in the female sphere – it is only among the men that he is able to talk of desire. Although the male society is less tolerant of childhood nuances, it offers a well-established norm for the expression of desire.

I found Professor Lang’s quote about finding the soul and beauty in the Tunisian culture as a means to overlook the oppression to be very applicable. The police prove to be a hostile force of opposition throughout the film, but his enchantment with the new experience of desire keeps these worries from Noura’s mind. Last semester, we saw this them appear in several of the pieces we focused on, most notably in the Object of Desire. We have seen lovers overlook terrorism, oppression, and death to enslave themselves to desire and bask in the rapture that is their beloved.

Love and Desire in the Penny Press

Love and Desire in the Penny Press

By: Elizabeth Burt

It came as no surprise that love, weddings, elopements, and divorces were frequent topics in the penny press. People want to read something that they can relate to on some level, and the emotions associated with love are a fairly universal experience. I found it somewhat amusing, to be honest, that many of the stories Professor Burt was able to find about love and desire in the press were about love gone wrong. This is fitting, considering the overall tone of our analysis and discussion of love and desire last semester.

It has long been established that the images and articles published in the press have a significant impact on how we create gender roles.  Depictions of women in the Penny Press contributed to the idealized image of a woman at the time. Likewise, the depictions of men had an impact on the expectations that women had of them. Many newspapers portrayed women as delicate, demure creatures who were to be courted by men. Although this depiction was derived from societal norms, the penny press reinforced the image. Many men, in turn, used fragments of this gender role to ‘fill in the blanks’ of their idealized image of their beloved. Similarly, women had certain expectations about men that molded their idealized image of the beloved as a strong, chivalrous provider.

Additionally, the alteration of messages sent by the press can cause a shift in relationship norms. I would be interested to see the relationship between the number of divorce articles in the press and the divorce rate. My inclination is to say that as divorce was discussed more openly in the media, it became more common and socially acceptable. Professor Burt explained that as the years went on, the Penny Press began publishing divorce stories far more frequently. This observation falls in line with the idea that press on divorce varies directly with the divorce rate, which saw a nearly linear increase from 1860 to 1930 (See: http://www.thecurseof1920.com/images/image002.jpg). This relationship is fairly intuitive – if divorce is seen and heard of more, it will happen more frequently.  Also, by extension, the converse is true – as divorce happens more frequently, it will appear more frequently in the press.

---

Love and Desire: Examples from Ancient Art and Archeology

Dr. Freund’s lecture put a very heavy emphasis on the creation and worship of images. Although the images of which he spoke were primarily religious, I can see the relation to the concepts about love and desire that we explored last semester. The way we construct images for gods and other mythical characters is very similar to the way we create an image of the beloved and in many ways, we also worship the object of desire.

I found it interesting that the Jewish and Catholic traditions call for the complete banishment of false images. Creating a false image of god theoretically creates a barrier between you and your perceived divine being. To create an image of another is to infuse the other with your own desires. It seems as though the banishment of images was enforced so that followers wouldn’t merge the concept of god with their personal desire for what god should do and be for them. This concept sounds somewhat similar to the Buddhist belief that desire is the root of suffering. In the Catholic or Jewish traditions, this ‘suffering’ would be the separation between the individual and god.

Several of the major symbols Dr. Freund outlined were of the avian sort – the swan and the eagle. At the start of this discussion, my mind immediately went to the falcon that appears in the first scene of Celestina and I would be curious to know what the falcon symbolized in ancient art. I am not well versed in Greek mythology, but it seems that in the story of Zeus and Leda, Zeus forces himself upon his victims much like Celestina would enchant her victims. Can this possibly be interpreted as another piece of literature that enforces the concept that there is no escaping desire?

Seeking Love after Divorce: Changes in Dating and Love after a First Marriage

It seemed like Aimee Miller-Ott had not only done extensive research in her field, but was passionate about it as well. I’m curious what led her to the topic of communication after divorce and the reason for her fascination with it.  As a child of divorce, I found much of her research to be relatable. I can distinctly recall watching my parents go through all the stages of establishing comfortable levels of autonomy and reliance that worked for both of them. The overwhelming message I took from the lecture was this: Divorce is the master-balancing act. Not only do you have to monitor communication with all parties involved, but you also have to be concerned about others’ feelings while still reeling from your own heartbreak.

Divorced partners cannot escape desire – it’s just a matter of whether they desire their ex-spouse, a new dating partner, or simply being alone. If there is a mismatch in the foci of desire, then it becomes a problem of feelings being hurt and jealousy. One partner may end up in a place of feeling wronged and abandoned while the other feels guilty or restricted. In this case, desire can be the unraveling of platonic love, as well as romantic love.

It seems intuitive that the desires of one partner can affect the desires of the other. If, for example, one partner desires a new relationship and begins dating shortly after the divorce, their ex spouse may be prompted to move on and desire the same thing for themselves. Conversely, if one co-parent has a strong desire to fix the marriage, the other may feel guilty for desiring a new relationship.

I would be interested to see how many divorced couples end up back together. Is it possible that they’re merely attracted to their perceived image of what being single is like? Perhaps, some marriages fall victim to the deceptive nature of desire. After all, marriage, like love, seems to attempt to contain and control desire. This leaves a very fertile breeding ground for illusions of the splendor of ‘the other side’ or being single. How many, if any, people get out of their marriage and realize that the illusion is nothing like the reality?

“Love and Friendship: The Platonic Sources of Postmodern Politics”

“Love and Friendship: The Platonic Sources of Postmodern Politics”

Catherine Borck, Assistant Professor of Politics and Government, University of Hartford

The relationship that Professor Borck was describing between friend and enemy seemed reminiscent of the relationship that we explored between love and desire last semester. The enemy is the antithesis of a friend just as desire is the antithesis of love. The flip side of this duality, as Schmitt philosophized, is that you cannot know your friends without knowing your enemies, much like you cannot evaluate love independently of desire.

I am not in the least way knowledgeable about philosophy, so I will tread carefully in this arena. It seems like Schmitt heavily relied on the friend enemy antithesis to keep the political structure stable – in the absence of this dichotomy, he believes there would be anarchy. Similarly, we rely on desire as a tool for motivation to move forward on both a personal and societal level. If every desire were fulfilled, what would be the purpose of advancement? Although his philosophy about friendship is rigid and unaccommodating, I can see merit in his logic.

My personal school of thought lies most closely with Plato’s teachings. Although Derrida’s philosophy is attractive to the idealistic portion of my mind, there are far too many uncontrollable human elements to predict the feasibility of an operational society without enmity. I think in some ways, Derrida overestimates the kindly nature of humans. Schmitt, on the other hand, seems to underestimate the natural, overwhelming draw to others. The friend enemy antithesis does not leave very much space for the emotional being to flourish. This is another point that the two converge on – the biggest barrier to their philosophies naturally taking hold is the unpredictability of the human element. Plato’s point of view, to me, is more logical and intuitive than Derrida or Schmitt.

Last semester, we spoke of the self being defined by what it is lacking, rather than what it is possessing. This sense of lacking is also a contributing factor in friendship. If there is a deficiency, the desire to erase it will cause individuals to seek out friends who have the thing that they are deficient in. In this way, we let human nature take the wheel in choosing friends and relational partners.