In many of my articles I have often discussed the difficulty of appropriating language to events and the recurrent issue of ?I can?t put it into words?. I believe that, however, a monumental example of this is the case of ?revolution?. It is therefore ?revolution? I will discuss not only in terms of impact upon language, but upon literature.
The definition of ?revolution? is a hotly-debated issue, and as language is, considering our speaking registers for example, dependent upon context. ?Just as you wouldn?t address your boss or teacher as you would address a close acquaintance, it initially seems that one has very little to draw in similarity between ?The Bolshevik Revolution? (Russia) for example, and ?The French Revolution?.
Hence, it could be seen that the definition of revolution lies within the theory of the term ? what must be a fundamental necessity for revolution to have taken place, with factors such as violence, overthrow and armies often proposed. Yet The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 seemed to lack a certain emphasis of these ?fundamentals?. Some may argue ?What about the storming of The Winter Palace?? ? though its is worth considering that the version of the ?storming? commonly known today has been dramatized by communist propaganda through film. In reality the Bolsheviks entry to The Winter Palace received little resistance, with many Tsarist soldiers defending the area putting their guns down when told to by the Bolsheviks. Considering the revolutionary scenario in Russia and the medium of films and language used to try and embody the revolution, those in favour of revolution, were also apparently employed the subversive use of language more than ever before. ?Let us consider ?Lolita?, which?is a nickname for Delores. It is also a term used to describe a prepubescent or adolescent girl who is appealing and sexually interested and in terms of this article, the highly controversial novel by Valdimir Nobokov.
The novel, written a significant time after the Bolshevik Revolution, in 1955,? is ?tragicomedy?narrated by the protagonist (and seemingly his own antagonist in attempting to fight his desire for Lolita) Humbert. Humbert infuses the narrative with word play?and observations of American culture, which, on first observation may appear to have little relativity to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and its subsequent impacts on communism. However, as a novel concerning the narrators desire for a minor (and the subsequent debate whether it can be defined as an erotic novel, a novel in its own right, or as criticized ?pornographic trash?), and hence displaying the gross manipulation of moral boundaries, such could seem an exploration of tyranny. The modern-day reader may perceive Humbert as a tyrant, yet there is also implication of the narrator perceiving Lolita as deceitful, a tyrant with his emotions. This array of contradictions within the controversial theme, installs the novel?s tragic-comic quality.
?
Conflict and contrast is a key element of ?revolution? in talking one side to displace the other. In terms of such, in his essay on Stalinism??Koba the Dread,? Martin Amis?proposed that?Lolita?is an extended metaphor?for the totalitarianism?that degraded the Russia of Nabokov?s childhood. It was reported that Stalin, active at the time, spent much of his time signing death warrants personally, evidently surveying over the carcass of communism as a vengeful dictator. Seemingly, the entrails of the ?Bolshevik Revolution? sustained no single side and this is perhaps reflected in the tragic closure of ?Lolita? in which it is reported that both Humbert and Lolita die. Humbert dies soon after finishing the manuscript implying the novel as a representation of wasted life, the embodiment of life in document. This could emphasize the possible consideration of communist ideological works following the revolution, in which the ideology was encompassed in set texts and as seen in China, in ?the little red book?. Thus the book echoes the aftermath of revolution ? a life condemned to print, as communist could be now considered.
?
There does appear moral difficulty however, in interpreting a book with so eloquent and so self-deceived a narrator, but as reflected in revolution ? the perspective which it can be judged from and the overview one should take, is almost indefinable. For myself, the novel ?Lolita? does not necessarily reveal a subject so grossly explicit, but an observation of a relationship flawed from the onset, as often seen in? revolution, which potentially inspired much of Nobokov?s thematic structure.
The violation of innocence and assertion of blame is also a common theme as seen in the history of revolutions, and as is seen in ?Lolita?, and the?frustration?aggression?displacement theory, attempts to explain why people attach blame.?The theory, developed by John Dollard and colleagues, says that frustration causes aggression, but when the source of the frustration cannot be challenged, the aggression is displaced onto an innocent target ? this may be considered as authorities crushing rebelling masses. Considering The French Revolution of 1789-1799, the monarchy may have indeed felt frustration at the masses embracing new Enlightenment ideas of equality and rights. In The French Revolution, the?monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation, as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges were broken down following sustained revolt in the towns and from peasants in the countryside. This involved the radical replacement of an aristocratic organisation with a secular, radical, democratic republic.
Hence, it appears a key issue of ?revolution? is the questioning of moral values, what constitutes ?innocence? and ?corruption?, ?good? and ?evil? ? often a prevalent theme of literature. In Mary Shelley?s ?Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus?, possibly inspired by revolutionary themes as her husband Percy Shelley was, this fine-line of balance is evident (and still violated today, with many people believing that Frankenstein is the monster, not the doctor) and as the alternate title suggests ? a creation born out of conflict in the modern World. This could imply the state of the changing human race just as much as it could potentially the state of England, America and France in revolution.
In a haunting resonance, a little like Frankenstein, in France, the guillotine?became the symbol of a string of executions and the implication that ?revolution? was an event severing often vital connections with morality. The symbolism of this complete social change is implied in Romantic Literature which grew to embrace a new style and even a new people. ?Previously to the revolution, much European poetry embraced a style of Grandeur often the subject of study of the upper-classes and rarely the lower-classes. Therefore it seems almost a necessity that a common theme among some of the most widely known romantic poets was acceptance of the French Revolution.? As the guillotine then, romantic poetry by poets such as Shelley and Bryon, there was representation of the clean cut away from scientific reductionism and instead an embrace of the permanence of things that are true and beautiful. This is seen in Shelley?s ?Arethusa? ???with her rainbow locks/Streaming among the streams??. The use of sibilance here potentially reflects the new freedoms people faced, and that the commonly-termed ?mad Shelley? embraced.
?
To understand further the nature of revolution, especially considering The American Revolution, during the last half of the 18th century where 13 colonies decided to break away from Great Britain, such has undergone a consideration of the hearts and minds of the people involved. John Adams concluded in 1818, looking back: ?The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.? From 1750 onwards, an emerging literary style accompanied this. It was indeed the gothic, with the archetypal gothic novel often considered to be ?The Castle of Otranto? by Horace Walpole, published in 1764. ?The Gothic?, now often viewed as a key literary period was often characterised in terms of conflicts not only between characters but within the individual. This was the implication of repression leading to evident forms of hysteria, which Freud himself proposed years later in terms of his psychoanalytical theory. ?The Castle of Otranto? evidently portrays conflict against authority, as almost immediately into the text, a member of the aristocracy is killed by a giant helmet invading the castle grounds ? the possible implication that the ?strongholds? of the upper-classes, as people grew to recognise at the time, were not necessarily the case.
It is therefore through the exploration of literature and revolution that it can be appreciated that both act to give depth and even areas of definition to each other. The extent of writing emerging at the time of these revolutions allows not only history to be illuminated, but literature embracing its very own revolt.
?
erin brockovich dodgeball 2012 pro bowl postsecret ufc on fox 2 supercross christina aguilera etta james funeral
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.