Category: Commonplace Book (Page 1 of 2)

Hey Jen!
Just putting in my calling card.
I have been keeping up with your CPB entries and noticed some trends. You have a way of finding a deeper meaning to specific phrases or lines in the book. A specific passage in a book that may seem straight forward to some (me included) you have a very amazing way of finding what the author may have meant when he/she originally wrote it. This, I feel, is a very strong talent and ability when it comes to reading books, especially novels that were published decades ago. I have noticed that novels published decades ago typically want to mean something beyond a book about a monster. These novels seem to be trying to say something and it is sometimes hard to find that deeper meaning. Even when we talked in our small groups you were very good at finding those hidden meanings in books.
I also observed that you find very accurate outside sources and images that support your point even more. Scrolling through your CPB entries at first glance their are always images that at first, you wonder how you were able to tie them into parts of the book but after reading your entry it always makes a lot of sense. I wonder if these thoughts of outside connections come to you as you read or do they typically come to you after you have read the book and when you look back at your notations?

Hey Olivia!

This is my “calling card” on your CPB entries

Your CPB entries have been so different but that speaks volumes to what spoke to you during different parts of the book. It was always fascinating seeing what passages jumped out at you and how you were able to see them in a different light. I always found it hard to find outside materials that matched my points but you were able to find matches perfectly. I saw a trend of you being able to find outside sources that criticized a specific part of the novel. This to me was interesting to see due to the hidden meaning that most of these books tend to have.  It seemed that the British Library was a big resource for you which is a very good source to find that outside material. I wonder if you always agreed with what these critics said? Or if you just found it interesting as to their ideas of what the book may be saying. I think this would be a great topic to discuss when you do your final reflection as to how you were able to find those connections and if they made you think twice or just interested you. Sometimes I would read critics discussing a section of the book and wonder how they came up with that…

I just wanted to also point out that, like my entries, some weeks were just a picture and quote, and others where more in-depth which I found to actually be more strong then you may have thought. When we read certain chapters, sometimes it was hard to find anything worth pulling and analyzing but you always found at least one passage that meant something and that got you thinking. You also always found beautiful graphics. Whether it was a short CPB or long, it always meant something to you. I have really enjoyed reading your CPB entries and they always made me think twice about a passage that I had already read once but did not think much about at first.

Seeing what people toke from the last few chapters from the book always interests me. I saw someone find evidence that Stroker said that the book was nonfiction. I had commented that it would not surprise me with the advanses that we have made through history and how people continue to change and evolve. It reminds me of the question as to if there is life besides here on earth. My anwser always is that their has to be others besides us. I had also commented that Frankenstein could be possible as well. I do no think back when the book was written could a creature such as Frankestein be possible but now a days definetly.

I also visited sites that just toke what quotes spoke to them the most. Some quotes talked about Dracula and how he seemed to take his time with his female victims. He seemed to be in no rush because he had time. I had commented a connection to The Beetle and how in both books the creature seemed to enjoy the torment of not making the duration of the torment quick. This instantly makes me think of them as an evil monster. I did also see quotes about other characters who to me seemed to be the focus of the book. I wrote mostly about Mina and her journey but every character seemed to have a big role to play with the defeat of Dracula and the protection of the people he affected.

” There is a poison in my blood, in my soul, which may destroy me; which must destroy me, unless some relief comes to us.” (286)

” Then I shall tell you plainly what I want, for there must be no doubtful matter in this connection between us now. You must promise me, one and all- even you my beloved husband- that, should the time come, you will kill me.” (287)

Mina’s strength through this book was incredible. She was strong for both her and her husband, excluded and bitten but through all of that she still had the courage and strength to ask to be killed if the time came.

I visited many sites and saw a trend with many people finding outside sources that analyzed the novel for the many things that it could be. It seemed like with every novel that we read, there were many critics that can take the interpretation of the novel either way, good or bad. Some even go as far as to find a very different view of what the author may be trying to say. It is very interesting to see how someone can find what is book may be saying while another finds a whole different meaning. Many critics go as far as to break down who the author is and his history to find the deeper meaning.

Also, many cites that I visited, if not all of them, had very different pictures of Dracula. It is interesting to see what pictures people found and which ones they felt matched with how they saw the book while reading it. Other pictures where just depictions of what modern-day Dracula looks like. Something I find interesting is how different a character is portrayed in a book that has been out for some time compared to what TV and movies portray them as. I always wondered if the modern-day monsters were designed from the original interpretations of these monsters or if modern-day monsters are just thought up to look like pure evil or romantic. Vampires modernly are very romanticized, from the series Twilight or the show Tru Blood. It seems as if modern-day interpretations of monsters have to show them as beautiful creatures that always seem to have a romantic relationship. They are also always beautiful. But reading these books, it seems like monsters are never beautiful. I wonder why we have the need to romanticize monsters to make them seem more human?

“‘ Monster, give me my child’……. Somewhere high overhead, probably on the tower, I heard the voice of the Count calling in his harsh, metallic whisper. His call seemed to be answered from far and wide by the howling of wolves…..I could not pity her, for I knew now what had become of her child, and she was better dead.” (48-49)

“Judgment in my case has still to be given. You will find that I am not the guilty wretch you apparently imagine. And there are few things more disagreeable to one’s self-esteem than to learn, too late, that one has persisted in judging another man too harshly.” (182)

Paul Lessington seems to be a muitually disliked person but why. Just cause he is a politician with a mysterious past, one of which no one has any knowledge of. Whether it be good or bad and Paul does not seem eager to share with anyone. There seems to be something further going on with him.

CPB Reflection

3/25/2020

Paige Hussey

            After reading the Commonplace Books from a few classmates I did see a pattern. Many of my classmates found a lot of information about the author, Oscar Wilde, and the connection that many thought he had with the fictional character of Dorian Gray. I myself did read that many thoughts that the character Dorian Gray was a homosexual and this to some meant that Oscar Wilde was a homosexual. Even going as far as to use the book against Oscar to prove that he was a homosexual. People making connections like this to me seems odd. Odd in the fact that this is a book of fiction and to use a book of fiction against a writer seems like a stretch. It may have been true that Oscar used this book as a sort of outlet for his sexuality but to make that assumption is interesting. We all know at the time of this book’s creation, homosexuality was not normal, or okay. Maybe that is why this book was received so awful due to the stigmas around sexuality. When a book is published that has a very real and controversial message or even a part in the book that may not be entirely clear, I can defiantly see why people ripped it apart. Of course, reading it now I see no issue with its content and see no need to break apart ever word to try and find a hidden meaning as to what the writer was thinking. It makes me wonder if people used to read books like this and just try to find something wrong with it or something to pick a fight about. Could it be the times in which things were so controversial that people felt the need to protect the world from controversial topics?

“Campbell felt dominated by him.” (203)

Dorian seems to have to show his inner evil in order to get Campell’s help. This whole time after killing Basil and coercing Campbell to help by blackmailing him just goes to show how right Basil was about not knowing who Dorian was anymore.

“‘ Let this be a warning to you not to take vengeance into your own hands'” (221)

Dorian felt as if Sibyl’s death was his fault, at first until Lord Henry poisoned his mind again. If Dorian was so broken up about Sibyl, he must have believed at one point that vengeance was justified. Not only did Dorian lie but he turned the guilt that belonged to him, on James. Is Dorian’s guilt finally catching up to him….

“‘ I always agree with Harry, Duchess,’ ‘Even when he is wrong?’ ‘Harry is never wrong, Duchess.’ (226)

I wonder where this blind allegiance can from with Dorian’s total faith in Lord Henry. Could it have been Dorian’s need for someone to tell him that he can do bad things and it is ok because he has beauty and power? Or, could it have been Dorian’s need for an excuse as to why he can do awful things to people? I wonder if he will blame Lord Henry when it all blows up in his face.

Dorian wanted to change and in this desire he wanted to kill the thing that reminded him of how horrible of a person he was/is. His beauty, which was so important to him, was saved by the portrait absorbing his age. But what I think the portrait was absorbing was his inner beauty deteriorating as he became ugly on the inside.

“These Hydes are still unpredictable and aggressive, but they use their volatility for good and maintain a moralistic agenda.” (235)

“Because the monster hero has fewer moral qualms and enhanced physical abilities, he is an effective and strong fighter.” (239)

“If the Other is accepted as being within the self, as Domsch argues, then instead of disclaiming the Other as a monster, we can accept monstrosity and redefine it and its role in society.” (241)

“He does no expect others to change their views of him, and he also does not deliberately try to change his monster status.” (242)

“The twentieth- and twenty-first-century versions of the Hyde figure demonstrate a modern belief that external destructive forces represent a greater threat to society than repressed psychological or biological evils within one’s self.” (247)

“I felt younger, lighter, happier in body; within I was conscious of a heady recklessness, a current of disordered sensual images running like a mill race” “I knew myself, at the first breath of this new life, to be more wicked, tenfold more wicked, sold a slave to my original evil; and the thought, in that moment, braced and delighted me like wine.” (78)

“Men have before hired bravos to transact their crimes, while their own person and reputation sat under shelter. I was the first that ever did so for his pleasures” (80)

“He had now seen he full deformity of that creature that shared with him some of the phenomena of consciousness, and was coheir with him to death” (88)