Great presentation. I do take a small issue with your saying that Ottilie's physical attributes make her a part of the family; I know that the hair and cheekbones (and probably other Muller features) are there, but the narrator's description of Ottilie's twisted body as a victim of some disease that he/she thinks is probably congenital keeps him/her from realizing that Ottilie is a Muller until late in the holiday. Maybe it's not relevant to your discussion of silence, but the narrator's inability to place Ottilie as a Muller, despite certain resemblances and because of her early illness, seems important to Ottilie, the isolated whole person in a fragmented community. Maybe it could tie into your idea of physicality dissolving the language barrier?
I'm pretty certain that if you can take the joy you feel at Porter's work and transfer that, along with your ideas, to the page, you'll have a damn good paper.
Ah, good point. I need to make sure I emphasize the distinct point at which Ottilie's Mueller features become apparent. The narrator doesn't recognize these features until she has seen the picture of Ottilie as a young girl---she looks from Ottilie to the picture and back to Ottilie before she recognizes her. And that is a moment when she comes close to understanding Ottilie's subjectivity. So you're absolutely right, I wouldn't want to suggest that Ottilie's physicality helps her be a part of the Mueller's communal identity right from the beginning of the story. Thanks, Austin. I really appreciate it!
I feel as if you have a very sound argument and you know exactly where you are going with it. I like how you not only incorporate the actual silent character but you also bring in the silence of everyone from the narrator to the Muller family because all of them are silent in their own way. The point you made at the end of your presentation was very stirring: We rely too much on the substance of our everyday speech when in reality the truth genuine thoughs lie in the lack of words. It is important to listen to what is said through silence. There is a proverb that says, "We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak" - I'm not sure who said it but I feel as if this statement may apply to your paper.
I guess I posted this in the wrong place the first time:
Sarah. Great job, great ideas. I am really interested in your claim that the purpose of silence is to reaffirm a person's humanity. To play the devil's advocate, I would ask you to offer your opinion on the notion that speech and the ability to communicate is actually what defines humanity. It separates us from all other animals--even chimpanzees, our closest animal "relative" who can communicate via sign language. The ability to formulate words is strickly human. How then, can the lack of speech, inversely define us and separate us as humans? I would address the other side of the argument to make yours stronger.If you can acknowledge the strenghts of the notion that speech defines humanity, then disprove it with substantial evidence(almost like a philosophy paper) then I believe your argument would hold much more ground. I love the idea, though, that it isn't what we say that turns us into people, but what we don't say. This response came from the last portion of your presentation. Again, your ideas are fantastic.
4 comments:
Great presentation. I do take a small issue with your saying that Ottilie's physical attributes make her a part of the family; I know that the hair and cheekbones (and probably other Muller features) are there, but the narrator's description of Ottilie's twisted body as a victim of some disease that he/she thinks is probably congenital keeps him/her from realizing that Ottilie is a Muller until late in the holiday. Maybe it's not relevant to your discussion of silence, but the narrator's inability to place Ottilie as a Muller, despite certain resemblances and because of her early illness, seems important to Ottilie, the isolated whole person in a fragmented community. Maybe it could tie into your idea of physicality dissolving the language barrier?
I'm pretty certain that if you can take the joy you feel at Porter's work and transfer that, along with your ideas, to the page, you'll have a damn good paper.
Ah, good point. I need to make sure I emphasize the distinct point at which Ottilie's Mueller features become apparent. The narrator doesn't recognize these features until she has seen the picture of Ottilie as a young girl---she looks from Ottilie to the picture and back to Ottilie before she recognizes her. And that is a moment when she comes close to understanding Ottilie's subjectivity. So you're absolutely right, I wouldn't want to suggest that Ottilie's physicality helps her be a part of the Mueller's communal identity right from the beginning of the story.
Thanks, Austin. I really appreciate it!
I feel as if you have a very sound argument and you know exactly where you are going with it. I like how you not only incorporate the actual silent character but you also bring in the silence of everyone from the narrator to the Muller family because all of them are silent in their own way. The point you made at the end of your presentation was very stirring: We rely too much on the substance of our everyday speech when in reality the truth genuine thoughs lie in the lack of words. It is important to listen to what is said through silence. There is a proverb that says, "We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak" - I'm not sure who said it but I feel as if this statement may apply to your paper.
I guess I posted this in the wrong place the first time:
Sarah. Great job, great ideas. I am really interested in your claim that the purpose of silence is to reaffirm a person's humanity. To play the devil's advocate, I would ask you to offer your opinion on the notion that speech and the ability to communicate is actually what defines humanity. It separates us from all other animals--even chimpanzees, our closest animal "relative" who can communicate via sign language. The ability to formulate words is strickly human. How then, can the
lack of speech, inversely define us and separate us as humans? I would address the other side of the argument to make yours stronger.If you can acknowledge the strenghts of the notion that speech defines humanity, then disprove it with substantial evidence(almost like a philosophy paper) then I believe your argument would hold much more ground. I love the idea, though, that it isn't what we say that turns us into people, but what we don't say. This response came from the last portion of your presentation. Again, your ideas are fantastic.
Post a Comment