What is the role of oral tradition in constructing identity and maintaining power? Or, to put it another way, how does Hank keep his “stock” from going “flat”? We have discussed the issue of credibility before, and certainly it is in the back of all our minds whenever a new ‘magician’ arrives, but I feel like that is more a symptom rather than the disease itself. What I think we really are looking at is how a social structure is being maintained through the use of a social behavior (specifically the creation of a group narrative).
Whenever a civilization expands it doesn’t magically become a cohesive and happy kingdom (unless of course you are within the realm of Disney); there has to be a restructuring of sorts, a solidification of power (and it’s always helpful when the ‘natives’ buy into the new claim of authority). To this end, it becomes vital to create a sort of narrative which binds all these different groups together and creates a collective identity (for it is surely better to be known as the peasantry of a victorious society than the freeman of a conquered one).
In our own Camelot, we see how ingrained this narrative is into the social consciousness; everyone knows the adventures of Arthur and his various knights. Magicians, knights and monks all share the tales of their grandiose adventures; such tales then are transmitted (and internalized) by the peasants of Camelot…despite the absence of such people from virtually all the stories.
It’s really a great way to maintain power—even Hank quickly realizes this. No one questions it because that would be like questioning what it means to be an Englishman; it would threaten to irrevocably damage the foundation upon which the individual’s identity is built; it could destroy one’s very notions of right and wrong, or strip the very meaning from their life. Okay, so if you’re a peasant your life pretty much sucks and isn’t worth very much, but at least you know exactly what your place/value is. The narrative provides a structure, which then is mirrored in the realities of life; knights tell stories about how great they are, monks how holy and wouldn’t you know it—they’re treated as holy or superior. Conversely, the peasants view themselves from the perspective of the ‘story tellers’ and begin to internalize the same mentality towards their positions that the gentry have. Such lessons become so integral to the person that Hank then can do little to combat them, despite all the schooling or reason he can throw at them.
This is “training” at its best.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past…
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
-T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton I
I could not stop thinking about this passage while reading and I believe it raises several interesting observations/questions about our Connecticut Yankee and Camelot:
*The new Camelot which Hank is building literally is ‘time future contained in time past’.
*Does time travel make time redeemable?
*If the past is eternally present, then are we really constantly making progress—or getting closer to perfection?
The first statement is more of an observation—a fundamental thought on which we could maybe build an argument. As such, it’s probably more prudent to jump straight into the second issue—the question of whether time travel makes time redeemable. After several hours of consideration, I have arrived at, well a headache, but also the following conclusions:
First, I should explain for the purpose of clarity that I am considering ‘time’ to be a largely linear concept—it has the irritating habit of constantly moving forward (particularly when one is close to finals or graduation). Working with this as a starting point, it seems that Eliot’s assertion of time being ‘unredeemable’ is correct.
By sending Hank Morgan back through time, Twain plays on our desire to “get back time” or, further, to “change” things of the past. Put another way, he teases us by suggesting it is possible to redeem time. “Redeem” is a tricky little word though. To illustrate my point, below is a list of definitions from the OED in the order they were presented (note that the ‘biblical’ definition appears first, Morgan would be so thrilled):
1. “Deliverance from sin and damnation”
2. “The action of freeing a prisoner, captive, or slave by payment; the fact of being freed
in this way”
3. “Expiation or atonement for a crime, sin, or offence; release from punishment”
4. “A recompense, a compensation”
5. “Purchase of membership of a society, guild, or company”
To take each of these definitions in turn and apply them to the notion of time yields some intriguing results:
1. Does time require ‘deliverance’ from some sort of sin? Maybe the passage of time is a form of damnation in and of itself. It could be that Time is the one which is troubled by the requirement of continually moving along (much like Sisyphus and his boulder or Tantalus and the fruit which can never be reached).
2. The second definition seems to have two important elements; the thing being freed must be in a forced custody, and the freeing must require ‘payment’. Time, then, would either be a prisoner or a payment. Or maybe it’s both. It would seem to me that the figures of Chronos and Kairos lend themselves to the latter. Also, prisoners and payments are of great concern to Hank Morgan.
3. Can time atone? Does time have anything to atone for? Is it innately neutral, or not so much? Morgan seems to invest in the concept that progress occurs—thus the lack of time, or the ‘younger/barbaric’ ages have some atoning to do.
*then the definitions tend to switch in their nature
4. Time as compensation—this is only one step away from being a gift. If time is compensation, what is it for? What is the act or event which requires this recompense? Is Hank being compensated via his time travel? It certainly paid off for him initially.
5. If time is unredeemable, then it cannot join a society? Okay, this one may be the most interesting as it implies that time is not a currency which can ‘purchase’ membership. But isn’t the aristocratic set-up of Camelot based in families being of ‘old’ stock? Nobility comes at the very price of time; ie the older one’s lineage the greater his position?
See, very headache inducing. And all this is simply general speculating on the matter—you should see my notes for the next blog.
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past…
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
-T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton I
I could not stop thinking about this passage while reading and I believe it raises several interesting observations/questions about our Connecticut Yankee and Camelot:
*The new Camelot which Hank is building literally is ‘time future contained in time past’.
*Does time travel make time redeemable?
*If the past is eternally present, then are we really constantly making progress—or getting closer to perfection?
The first statement is more of an observation—a fundamental thought on which we could maybe build an argument. As such, it’s probably more prudent to jump straight into the second issue—the question of whether time travel makes time redeemable. After several hours of consideration, I have arrived at, well a headache, but also the following conclusions:
First, I should explain for the purpose of clarity that I am considering ‘time’ to be a largely linear concept—it has the irritating habit of constantly moving forward (particularly when one is close to finals or graduation). Working with this as a starting point, it seems that Eliot’s assertion of time being ‘unredeemable’ is correct.
By sending Hank Morgan back through time, Twain plays on our desire to “get back time” or, further, to “change” things of the past. Put another way, he teases us by suggesting it is possible to redeem time. “Redeem” is a tricky little word though. To illustrate my point, below is a list of definitions from the OED in the order they were presented (note that the ‘biblical’ definition appears first, Morgan would be so thrilled):
1. “Deliverance from sin and damnation”
2. “The action of freeing a prisoner, captive, or slave by payment; the fact of being freed
in this way”
3. “Expiation or atonement for a crime, sin, or offence; release from punishment”
4. “A recompense, a compensation”
5. “Purchase of membership of a society, guild, or company”
To take each of these definitions in turn and apply them to the notion of time yields some intriguing results:
1. Does time require ‘deliverance’ from some sort of sin? Maybe the passage of time is a form of damnation in and of itself. It could be that Time is the one which is troubled by the requirement of continually moving along (much like Sisyphus and his boulder or Tantalus and the fruit which can never be reached).
2. The second definition seems to have two important elements; the thing being freed must be in a forced custody, and the freeing must require ‘payment’. Time, then, would either be a prisoner or a payment. Or maybe it’s both. It would seem to me that the figures of Chronos and Kairos lend themselves to the latter. Also, prisoners and payments are of great concern to Hank Morgan.
3. Can time atone? Does time have anything to atone for? Is it innately neutral, or not so much? Morgan seems to invest in the concept that progress occurs—thus the lack of time, or the ‘younger/barbaric’ ages have some atoning to do.
*then the definitions tend to switch in their nature
4. Time as compensation—this is only one step away from being a gift. If time is compensation, what is it for? What is the act or event which requires this recompense? Is Hank being compensated via his time travel? It certainly paid off for him initially.
5. If time is unredeemable, then it cannot join a society? Okay, this one may be the most interesting as it implies that time is not a currency which can ‘purchase’ membership. But isn’t the aristocratic set-up of Camelot based in families being of ‘old’ stock? Nobility comes at the very price of time; ie the older one’s lineage the greater his position?
See, very headache inducing. And all this is simply general speculating on the matter—you should see my notes for the next blog.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Intro
testing, testing testing...
About me-->feel free to facebook stalk me for more information (most will probably do it anyway)...there's better pictures there...of University of Redlands bulldog puppies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)