Notes for 3/21
Reviewing videos: Your Woman and the robot opera

This video thoroughly freaked me out when I found it about a year ago. I thought I would share it now, since it seems applicable to Barad and what we're talking about in class.

Gotta love the mindfuck.

To be honest, I don't know if our idea of happiness is all that important. How often do you see a person, perhaps a little like Thassa, and actually believe that person is real? When we watch a movie or read a book in which characters are happy or things turn out well, how believable is it? I tend to find myself dismissing "happy" characters and stories as completely unrealistic and often silly. Thassa to me does not seem like she could ever be a real person. Stone on the other hand does. I can relate to Stone in many ways. His flaws, his thoughts, his failures all seem realistic. I know people like him. I identify with him. This makes me think that depression=realism and happiness=a facade.

               I am admittedly kind of divided on the subject of feminist science studies. On the one hand, I love the idea of combining the sciences and the humanities (as I have been trying to figure out a career path that combines the two). There is definitely a place in the sciences for an examination of women’s role in developing the scientific field. We have been kept out of the highest positions in science for too long, and I admire those who are fighting to change that reality.

In our Thursday discussion group, we considered the stereotypes and generalizations associated with scientific studies vs. areas within humanities. We came to the conclusion that science connotes ideas of the future, of progress, and positivity. On the other hand, humanities often seems static, “tragic”, and stuck in the past. Nevertheless, as an English major, I was grateful when my classmates argued in defense of my interests. In combination with their thoughts, I’ve come to see story-writing as a limitless, eternal opportunity for creativity, communication, and catharsis.

 Do people really even know what will make them happy? 

In Professor Dalke’s discussion on Thursday we discussed Powers’ style of writing, and how he writes as though he’s present in the actual world of the characters, but does not allow the reader to lose himself in the story. In addition, he creates a disconnect between the reader and the characters, adding to the difficulty of the plot to be truly engaging to the reader. This lack of connection to the characters arises because Powers is constantly reminding the reader, “you know this story”, assuming therefore that we must know these stereotypical characters.

 Reading through Power's Generosity, I was constantly reminded that "I know the story" and that in addition to the story itself, there was also another story line in a sense that told the story of how the story was being written.  I held the same sentiment as Professor Grobstein when he felt that if one was to question the reasoning behind one of the stories, then there will simply be an infinite regress and the reasoning may never actually be possible to arrive at.  So I wondered to myself, what on Earth could have been Power's purpose in structuring this book this way.  Once I asked myself this, I was reminded of another incredibly confusing novel that I read last year: Juan Rulfo's Pedro Paramo.

 I'm not sure where I stand in regards to my feelings about this book, Generosity. On one hand I find myself itching to underline so many quotes and passages that resonate with me, that I find funny, or that I find thought provoking, but on the other I feel so distant from the characters, so isolated from the book that I just want to take a sledgehammer and break through the narration to get to the characters. The plot I like, the narration not so much. In our section on Thursday Anne stated that this was indeed a novel of ideas, not of characters. I agree with this- and it really pisses me off because I really like what I do see of the characters and the plot and the relationships that are forming.