Lovely day

             The sun is shining (above the covering of clouds), the grass is green (when I say green I mean it has the potentiality of becoming green) what little of it is left. the trees reach out  like bare skeletons to the uppermost parts of the sky hoping to pierce the clouds, and miserably failing. Everyone is red, cheery and ready to strangle you (that could be my imagination). Wind is gently blowing past people and knocking them off their feet, or the ice. Such a day makes one feel as if it is good to be alive. 
                Yes in fact I am rambling and yes I am serious as to its being a good day. Some days one doubts if the sun is shining behind the dazzling curtain of evaporated water.
                By the way deconstructionism is dead. I am Nieztche and it is dead.

I hate the deconstructist theory

                The Deconstructist theory is the theory that says of language that language is fluid and we can never really know what the meaning of a text (this is a literary theory for those of you fortunate to never come across it). They deny that there is an objective and correct meaning to any text. They say words change from era to era (that is true). They say that there are many ways to interpret a sentence (that is also true, but we can usually figure out what the intention of the author or speaker, by the context, by the inflection, by the social understanding and by the person themselves). Is it an exact science, no. Can you understand to a certain extent, yes. Are you going to make mistakes, yes.
       Furthermore  I am not sure what the reason for deconstructive theory‘s deconstructing a text. If meaning is fluid than dosen't this deconstructionist writing need to be deconstructed? Then that other deconstruction needs to be deconstructed. It is just a theory that you can go on and on, because there is really no starting point.
            You cannot make a good argument without a basis that there is no proof of. They are trying to undermine that basis.
         If you want to say there is no at least somewhat objective truth of a text, then what is the use of any criticism, if you throw out logic, how can one be expected to argue? If language is so fluid then what is the use of talking?

Charicutures

         I have found that like most people I have a fascination for caricatures. Not the ones done in artwork because those are usually really ugly. I am talking about characters in stories. That might be why Dickens is still being read. I mean do we read his works for realism? Not really. For some historical value, yes that is one reason we still read stuff like Dickens. His characters may not be particularly realistic, but they are interesting.
          One of my goals in what I am writing is to make some characters like Dickens. I do not want to copy them, but I want to use the method that he used for that particular subject. Insofar as the rest of my writing is concerned, I doubt it will be anything like his. But someone told me that the best way to learn how to write well is too read good literature.
         Now there is too mistakes people make about the classics's. One is too assume they are boring. Dickens can be hilarious, and for those of you who like dramatic literature, their is always the Bronte sisters. Although the passion that they portray in their books, makes me laugh. Jane Austen and Elizabeth Gaskell, as of yet, seem to be the only romance writers that I can thoroughly enjoy. Then there are some other exciting books that are dramatic and adventurous books like Zorro, Captain Blood (yes his last name seriously is blood, isn't that brilliant?) and the Scarlet Pimpernel. The Scarlet Pimpernel also makes me laugh.
              The other problem is just because they are old and are called classics does not make them great literature. I hate Robinson Crusoe. Although, I am glad it exists, if you ever read the Moonstone you'll understand why. There other books that are just not well done, that although as an English major I am glad I have read, I would not necessarily recommend them to the public at large.

I have this very difficult class

The sad thing is that it is an intro level class. Just reading through a chapter that is a little under a hundred pages of technology related things is hard fot me. I have a disturbing feeling that many of the people in the class are doing it for an easy A. Whereas I am thinking that it will be harder than my 400 level classes. Se le vi. Which is French for I can't spell (no not seriously).
         I have a word of advise to all of those concerened with your own welfare to
               Never tell a masochist 'do unto other's as you would have them do unto you'. No I am not being randomn.

It's been awhile

        Hello, between being busy for awhile and not very consistent access to a computer (I think I've fixed that) has slowed down my blogging. Still here I am. Actually, I am taking an interesting class this semester on Victorian Literature. More specifically on Dickens's. I love Dickens and I hate Dickens. There are so many problems and mistakes in his books, but they are brilliant mistakes. Besides he was just beginging to explore the serialization method of writing novels.
          I have also been studying the Victorian time period (well hello,  it is a class on Dickens). I have a somewhat similar regard to that time period as I do for Dickens. It was about the 'triumphing' of puritans and meateralism. At the same time there was so much good. And they had a few brilliant writers. It was also the time that education became more accesible to the masses. But then the Utiltarian philosphy that came out and we are still struggling with to this day also appeared.
                   So, yes I hate it and love it.

Is Narnia an Allegory?

              I thought that since the newest Narnian movie seems to be such a success and people who have watched it tell me I should see it, I decided that I would write about the books.
             So back to my original question is Narnia an allegory. No.Well, if we took The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by itself then yes it is an allegory. However the other books make it or at least Aslan less of a Christ figure (no I am not off my rocker). Aslan is not a symbol for Christ, in the series he is Christ. The definition of allegory I learned is that it tells a story through symbols, it uses archetypes.  Actually, I have found a good  for allegory on wikipedia (don't tell my teachers, please) Allegory is a figurative of representation conveying meaning other than the literal.
               The thing is Aslan, is literally in the books, Christ, not a represantation of Christ. In the last chapter of The Silver Chair Aslan tell Eustace and Jill the next time they came to his country (heaven) they would stay. Therefore he must be the same redeemer for both worlds. In the last chapter of The Last Battle the book describes how Aslan is changed in wonderful ways when everyone had gotten into heaven.  Finally in the last chapter of The Voyage of the Dawn Trader Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund that he is known by a different name in their world.
                  Is the stories close to be an allegory? Definetly. Am I being picky in pointing out that it is not quite an allegory? Well Yeah! Does it matter? You can be the judge of that. People can make a job out of being picky, although the ideal is to be paid for that job.