Difference between revisions of "Discussion"
Kobywarren (talk | contribs) |
Phenggeler (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
So in this chapter is basically an excommunication trial transcript. In the transcript, the woodworms are on trial for excommunication. | So in this chapter is basically an excommunication trial transcript. In the transcript, the woodworms are on trial for excommunication. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Chapter 5=== | ||
| + | I thought this was one of the most interesting chapters so far. I read this chapter as Barnes approaching the painting with an awareness of meta-narratives. Here is a link to meta-narratives on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanarrative. A meta-narrative is basically a way of reading history as having a singular unity; for example, feminists would say that patriarchy has taken a phallocentric approach to reading history. Historical events are given meaning in a meta-narrative in the way chapters in a novel are given meaning by their relation to what came before and after (does this book refuse to be read that way?). | ||
| + | |||
| + | So, Barnes analyzes how Gericault chooses what to paint in order to make the whole event make sense in line with a meta-narrative. I think that if we take the idea of events making sense in a particular reading of history, then perhaps every chapter of this novel has tried to provide a different meta-narrative. We always read history as humans, but what does history look like to a woodworm? | ||
| + | |||
| + | I wonder if you guys buy this idea of the meta-narrative. I think it is fascinating. It is interesting to be aware of these meta-narratives in our own lives and cultures - especially since, as liberal arts majors, I think that we are likely candidates to perpetuate these meta-narratives. | ||
Revision as of 01:28, 24 October 2010
Return to Philosophy Proseminar
Contents
"A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters" by Julian Barnes
Chapter 1
In case you were curious about Noah's Family...
Chapter 2
...
Chapter 3
So in this chapter is basically an excommunication trial transcript. In the transcript, the woodworms are on trial for excommunication.
Chapter 5
I thought this was one of the most interesting chapters so far. I read this chapter as Barnes approaching the painting with an awareness of meta-narratives. Here is a link to meta-narratives on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanarrative. A meta-narrative is basically a way of reading history as having a singular unity; for example, feminists would say that patriarchy has taken a phallocentric approach to reading history. Historical events are given meaning in a meta-narrative in the way chapters in a novel are given meaning by their relation to what came before and after (does this book refuse to be read that way?).
So, Barnes analyzes how Gericault chooses what to paint in order to make the whole event make sense in line with a meta-narrative. I think that if we take the idea of events making sense in a particular reading of history, then perhaps every chapter of this novel has tried to provide a different meta-narrative. We always read history as humans, but what does history look like to a woodworm?
I wonder if you guys buy this idea of the meta-narrative. I think it is fascinating. It is interesting to be aware of these meta-narratives in our own lives and cultures - especially since, as liberal arts majors, I think that we are likely candidates to perpetuate these meta-narratives.
