Scott McCloud's Ideas Related to Satrapi's Persepolis

Scott McCloud’s lecture unleashed a bounty of ideas and knowledge relating to the comic book art form that now sheds new light on Marjane Satrapi’s methods of creating Persepolis. What appealed to me especially was the idea that comics are sequential art, temporal maps. Throughout history, as early as the ancient Egyptians, humans have possessed this innate and basic inclination to represent versions of reality through series of images that use space as a means to move through time. These two dimensions are inextricably linked in the human mind, and we are able to extract all five senses, emotions, and memory solely through the visual. The brain has a “desire” almost to find connections and patterns through images to relate to a broader understanding of the essence of reality. It does this through recognizing resemblance and through abstraction. There are certain ideas and images that are innately known to us, such as that of a face, and there are some that are known only through experience, learning, and exposure. Either way, the art form of graphic novels allows the reader to gain a deeper understanding of the story and experience through using this intrinsic faculty of the mind to recognize a different facet of the image without reading the captions or knowing the context. It is also through this faculty that we are able to connect these images using the space between them. Our imagination and subconscious understanding fills the blank and allows us to become a part of the story. To McCloud, the frames on the page of a comic book become windows through which we are able to escape our present reality and reenter the world from a different perspective. This in turn gives us a multi-faceted, complex, and comprehensive understanding of truth, reality, and the world.

All of these ideas are present in Satrapi’s Persepolis. The images arranged on the page give the reader a sense of time and sequence. She interestingly manipulates the space on the page to convey varying intervals of time or, sometimes, the absence of time or eternity. One example of this is on page 71. After she finds out that her beloved uncle has been executed, and she argues and rejects God on page 70, she escapes her physical world and floats in space. This feeling of eternity and lightness is depicted through the use of the entire page for one frame and the use of space within the frame, making her seem small and lost in the vast universe surrounding her. An example of Satrapi using the image to evoke the essence of the event or action taking place through the use of recognition and abstraction on the part of the reader is when, on page 36, she portrays her younger self and her Mehri sitting on the bed with shadows of the slaps they were given by her mother. While the marks were not literally left on the girls’ faces, the image stirs up the sense of touch, emotions of shame, sadness, and pain, and perhaps memory of similar experiences for the readers, allowing them to reach a higher level of understanding of the situation. The reader is also involved in the story when he or she fills in the blank between two frames on a page. An example of this is on page 145 when Satrapi’s mother becomes angry with her for disrespecting her religion teacher and risking imprisonment. In the second to last frame on the page, her mother is shaking Satrapi, and her face is wrought with anger. However, in the last frame, her face is consumed with sadness. The reader imagines the change of expression on the mother’s face and understands the true fear felt by her. In all, Persepolis gives readers throughout the world a new and very personal perspective on the history and current state of Iran. Through her use of the comic book art form, Satrapi does this effectively, providing readers with a window into a world removed from their own.

Last Blog to Comment On, Yahooo !
Judging Others

Marjaine Satrapi in the Persepolis presents many issues that occurred during Iran’s revolution through presenting the mind of a little child. It is clear from the book’s words and imagery that Satarpi faced so much pressure in her childhood that formed her as a rebel at the end. Being forced to wear the scarf without understanding its meaning and purposes made her hate the idea of covering herself. For her it was just like taking her freedom away, and we see that though she puts the scarf on, she gets called for not putting it properly!

She presents how women were forced to wear the veil and cover themselves. As a result the veil becomes a part of their image whether they liked it or not. Satarpi also mentions that the way people dressed indicated their political views and religious thoughts. For example, the fundamentalist woman covered herself from head to toe but the modern woman showed her opposition to the regime by letting few strands of her hair show. Clearly, Satarpi conveys the importance of imagery in her book. In page 75, Satarpi’s mother comments on the dressing of one of her neighbors and says “Look at her! Last year she was wearing a miniskirt showing off her beefy thighs to the whole neighborhood. And now Madame is wearing a chador. It suits her better, I guess.” “chador” is a farsi word which means, a loose traditional dress that covers the body of a female except her face and hands.

The headscarf is not a social or a cultural issue, it is a religious issue. In the Perespolis, Satarpi presents how the scarf becomes a cultural issue, because no matter what you believed in, you had to put it on! It is interesting how imagery is looked upon in Persepolis. People are judged by their images, then their words and ideas. If images are more important than words, then we will end up judging others’ images not thoughts or thinking.

Do you judge people before you know their thoughts and ideas? Do you judge people based on how they look and dress or what they think and say? Image is important but does it mislead us and shape out thoughts? What do YOU think?

Abstract Images in Persepolis

Throughout her childhood, Marjane Satrapi experienced terrors no child should ever be exposed to. In her graphic memoir, most of the images portray actual events quite realistically. The characters interact in relatively predictable ways; the illustrations of characters lounging on couches, playing in the park, and talking with each other are realistic and relatable. However, throughout the novel whenever young Marjane experiences strong or confusing emotions, the graphics become more abstract. In the first frame on page 6, the background is clearly imagined and represents her conflicting feelings about wearing the veil. The humanoid figures running toward the door at the bottom of page 15 slowly morph into terrifying spirits near the top. Knowledge of this massacre must have terrified young Marjane, and this abstracted image does a much better job showcasing her feelings than a realistic one ever could. In the final frame of page 39, you can see that Mehri and Marjane have black hand-shaped imprints on their faces. In actuality, the mother’s slaps would not have left a mark on the girls’ faces, but by including the handprints in the image, Satrapi shows the shame that she and Mehri felt for having disobeyed her mother.

Satrapi’s abstract depictions of God are more problematic, however, because it is unclear whether young Marjane actually had visions of God in her bedroom at night or whether she was simply overcome with a feeling of God’s presence in her room and then attempts to tangify this experience through her illustrations. On the final page of today’s assignment (page 71) the caption, which reads, “And so I was lost, without any bearings… What could be worse than that?” tells us her feelings, but it is the abstracted image on that page that shows us exactly how she feels. For me, this novel solidifies the point we have raised earlier in this course: There are some things that simply cannot be fully expressed using only words. How does this compare with the views of the Empiricists? With Blake? As we discussed in section today, Blake’s images are largely subjective; Satrapi’s are less so. How does this impact your reading of the text? Where do you see instances of Satrapi’s successful use of images to convey complex and, especially for a child, terrifying emotions? Are there any instances where Satrapi’s images fail to successfully convey her emotions?

Dustin's Blake Analysis - Please Comment on This

Blake Plate Analyses

Plate 10

Many of Blake’s Proverbs of Hell directly contradict what would otherwise be deemed “good” or “Christian,” but Plate 10, the fourth and last listing of the Proverbs of Hell, contains some “good” and some “bad.” Unlike the previous plates written in fiery colors, Plate 10 has the rosy tones of a sunrise on the sea. The first several lines follow this mellow tone. Calling the head “Sublime” and the hands and feet “Proportion,” and even calling the heart “Pathos” and the genitals “Beauty” all could work within a classical view of Enlightenment. Blake continues in contrasts with the crow who “wish’d every thing was black, the owl, that every thing was white” up to the exclamation that “Exuberance is Beauty.” This climax of harmony is accompanied by small sketches of dancers jumping on clouds.

But here there is a shift. The previous lines placed creatures in their appropriate places—“The sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible”—and everything had a black and white nature. The next lines suggest placing things out of order. Blake talks of a lion “advised by the fox,” of “crooked roads without Improvement” and of nature being “barren” without man. He even writes, “Sooner murder and Infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.” Blake aims for the reader to consider these oddities as possible truths, and adds this warning: “Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not believ’d.”The reader not only deciphers each line, but necessarily puts stock in its message. I think here, Blake is not praising Romanticism or Enlightenment, but as a conclusion to his proverbs presents a warning to reconsider everything that is told. He asks, “Enough! Or Too much,” directly inviting the reader to make decisions about the text instead of just passing through it.

Note: The image at the bottom of the page shows three figures, one on the left writing in a blue gown, a winged figure kneeling and pointing out a long scroll to the first, and a similar figure in a blue gown also peering over at the first. The writing figure could be like writing good proverbs, the winged creature (possible demonic) pointing out contrary proverbs, and the third an onlooker trying to write its own but examining the others.

Blake Plate Analyses

Plate 10

Many of Blake’s Proverbs of Hell directly contradict what would otherwise be deemed “good” or “Christian,” but Plate 10, the fourth and last listing of the Proverbs of Hell, contains some “good” and some “bad.” Unlike the previous plates written in fiery colors, Plate 10 has the rosy tones of a sunrise on the sea. The first several lines follow this mellow tone. Calling the head “Sublime” and the hands and feet “Proportion,” and even calling the heart “Pathos” and the genitals “Beauty” all could work within a classical view of Enlightenment. Blake continues in contrasts with the crow who “wish’d every thing was black, the owl, that every thing was white” up to the exclamation that “Exuberance is Beauty.” This climax of harmony is accompanied by small sketches of dancers jumping on clouds.

But here there is a shift. The previous lines placed creatures in their appropriate places—“The sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible”—and everything had a black and white nature. The next lines suggest placing things out of order. Blake talks of a lion “advised by the fox,” of “crooked roads without Improvement” and of nature being “barren” without man. He even writes, “Sooner murder and Infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.” Blake aims for the reader to consider these oddities as possible truths, and adds this warning: “Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not believ’d.” The reader not only deciphers each line, but necessarily puts stock in its message. I think here, Blake is not praising Romanticism or Enlightenment, but as a conclusion to his proverbs presents a warning to reconsider everything that is told. He asks, “Enough! Or Too much,” directly inviting the reader to make decisions about the text instead of just passing through it.

Note: The image at the bottom of the page shows three figures, one on the left writing in a blue gown, a winged figure kneeling and pointing out a long scroll to the first, and a similar figure in a blue gown also peering over at the first. The writing figure could be like writing good proverbs, the winged creature (possible demonic) pointing out contrary proverbs, and the third an onlooker trying to write its own but examining the others.

Blake: Art and Movement

As has been pointed out in both section and lecture, the contrast between the static and the dynamic is an important theme in this work. Blake shows a clear preference for the latter in his strong advocacy for energy (on Plate 4 he writes, "Energy is the only life... Energy is Eternal Delight."). This viewpoint is visible in his accompanying artwork: on the front cover, the barren, still landscape in the top section is easily overshadowed by the vibrancy and motion of the lower, which depicts interaction. The artwork on the inside plates continues to swirl with the same sort of colorful lines.

It is interesting, therefore, to explore how the dynamism of Blake's art reinforces and/or contradicts traditional Romanticism and his own personal philosophy. For instance, the figure on Plate 21 automatically recalls (at least for me) the Friedrich painting we looked at in lecture in its depiction of a solitary man dwarfed by the power of the cosmos. At first glance, the image seems to dovetail perfectly with the Romantic principle that man is not the center of the universe. The figure's upturned face shifts our attention away from him and towards the light source in the corner, suggesting that the most important element in the scene is not the central figure but what lies just outside the frame.

But Blake's work differs from many Romantic paintings in its palpable energy. While the figure in the Friedrich stands calmly at the brink of the abyss, still and passive, Blake's figure is tense and full of barely-restrained motion. Is it possible to see in this depiction support for the idea that Blake may not entirely agree with the Romantic notion of man's insignificance in the world? Instead, one can argue, he believes in the importance of man's involvement and emphasizes the necessity of remaining engaged - actively utilizing human creative energy - rather than passively accepting knowledge from some higher source. It is the dynamic motion of the figure, after all, that forms the center of the image - it is man that turns his head and takes the initiative to understand. Can we reconcile Blake's association with the Romantic movement with this firm belief in a human's power to affect change in the world?

The Truth and the Charioteer: Blake & Plato

While reading The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, I found myself drawn to the connections between Blake and Plato. At several points, Blake seems to directly contradict Plato, but at other times he seems to build on Plato's arguments, especially those concerning the nature of truth. The image on Plate 5 appears to illustrate Plato's concept of the soul as a team of horses, virtue and desire, driven by the charioteer, Reason. Blake's drawing shows a man who has lost control of a horse, and both man and horse, turned upside down, appear to be falling toward Hell. Meanwhile, darkness appears to be descending from the upper right-hand corner. Below this, Blake writes, “Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or Reason usurps its place & governs the unwilling.” Blake believes, like Plato, that Reason controls desire as a charioteer manages a horse. However, Blake believes that this only occurs when the desires are weak, and he advocates casting out Reason, overturning the chariot as in the illustration, and descending toward Hell, and its Eternal Delights. However, if this Plate is an allusion to Plato, then why is there only one horse? It is reasonable that the white horse of virtue would fall, without the control of the charioteer. However, if the Plate were a direct representation of Plato's theory, and Blake meant to show Reason losing control of desire, the charioteer would have lost control of the dark horse, not the white horse. Is the dark horse represented in the menacing blackness in the upper right-hand corner? Or do the man and the horse represent different concepts here than in the Phaedrus?

Blake also seems to echo Plato when he discusses truth. Plato claims that to be successful at persuasion, one must know the truth about what one is persuading. To believe something is to be persuaded of it. On Plate 10, Blake states, “Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not believed.” This means that if truth is properly presented, then it will be believed. When this is taken in conjunction with Plato's view, it forms the following logical argument: if one is to be successful in persuading another, one must use the truth, and if one uses the truth properly, one will succeed in persuasion. Blake also asserts that “Everything possible to be believed is an image of the truth” (Plate 8). This seems similar to Plato's theory that perceptions, things that humans can believe in on the earth, can remind a person of truth. While it appears implausible that all things that can be believed can represent the truth, the use of the word “image” indicates that they are not necessarily true; images can be misleading. Here, is Blake echoing Berkeley, who believes that truth was subjective? Or does Blake agree with Plato that “images of the truth” can be misleading, and that although they might be helpful in finding truth, they will only be helpful if properly used and interpreted?

Heaven and Hell

William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell constantly compares heaven and hell and always relates them to each other. Blake concludes that if there is a good, there is also an evil comparison. "Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy.Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell" (xvi). Notice that "Reason" and "Energy" are both capitalized and he intends his audience to view Reason as good or heaven and Energy as evil or hell. William even states that evil and good are inside all of us and relate to the five senses we have. Is Blake trying to instill the same message that Plato did in The Republic, that humans are divided into parts of good and evil, and how we react to these parts decides how we think?

In The Republic, Plato says our souls are divided into three parts, the reasoning part, the part that feels ashamed or angered, and the appetitive part. He then tells us the example of the charioteer and his two horses. One of the horses was good, and the other bad. These horses were supposed to represent parts of the soul. I suggest reading Plates 3 & 4 in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell because they tell about what Blake believes of the soul and body. Are Plato and William Blake relaying the same overall message about good and bad/evil? If not what are the differences in their themes of their respective texts.

Thoughts, Ideas, and a Supreme Being

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume begins by stating that memory is never as accurate as reality. Therefore, Hume divides all perceptions of the mind into two categories: the “less forcible and lively” thoughts and ideas, and “the more lively” impressions. He draws the conclusion that “all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones”. Hence, all our ideas and thoughts can be broken down into simple ideas that came from different impressions. Berkeley, as Cesar said in the last post, talks of abstract ideas as “more compounded beings, which include several coexistent qualities”. Do Berkeley and Hume agree about the origin of thoughts and ideas? Later Hume states, “all the abstract reasoning in the world could never lead us one step towards the knowledge of it”. How does this relate to Berkeley’s attitude toward abstract thinking?

Hume later presents evidence against the presence of a Supreme Being. He states that some philosophers believe “it is the universal Creator, who discovers it to the mind, and renders it present to us”. Therefore, a supreme being places all thoughts and ideas in our minds. Hume has three issues with this argument. First, he argues that these philosophers “rob nature, and all created being, of every power”, taking away the ability of the mind to independently create a thought or idea. Second, he believes that the argument cannot be made because it “carries us quite beyond the reach of our faculties”. The conclusions drawn are regarding a world beyond our existence, and “our line is too short to fathom such immense abysses”. Our methods of argument cannot be assumed to hold in this alternate space. Thus, we cannot make assumptions about a Supreme Being. Third, Hume believes that we do not understand the workings of our own minds so we cannot claim to know how the mind of the Supreme Being works. All we know is what we learn from impressions and reflections on our own lives. Therefore, we created a God from our own experiences and impressions. As we know, Berkeley opposed Hume in that he believes God perceives all external objects, and therefore external object always exist. I am not a religious person, so Hume’s argument resonates with me strongly, but I am curious as to the response of religiously affiliated people. If you agree more with Berkeley or believe in a Supreme Being, how do you respond to Hume’s arguments?

Abstract Ideas and Words

George Berkeley introduces his essay A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge with the idea that uncertainty, doubt, and contradictions arise from the “imperfection of our understandings.” Berkeley believes that a root cause of this failure is the notion of things, or what he calls the “abstract of ideas.” The abstract ideas that the mind conceives are surreal. For instance he writes, “And as the mind frames to it self abstract ideas of qualities, so does it,... attain abstract ideas of the more compounded beings which include several coexisting qualities.” Berkeley exemplifies this idea with an example. A person may see three men, of different statues and color, and pick out common abstract ideas of the single particular men and then form a larger abstract idea of what a man is. In this larger abstract idea however, the peculiar nature of each man demonstrates many more abstract ideas. Does it make sense that Berkeley believes that we can’t have an abstract idea that applies to many distinct ideas? For example we can’t have an abstract idea of motion because it is neither swift not slow, not curvilinear or rectilinear; it’s many distinct things. What can we say about the perception of an individual and the way each person tries to form an abstract idea of something? More specifically, how do people grasp abstract ideas?

Secondly, Berkeley discusses the way words come in to play when talking about abstract ideas. He states that by annexing a meaning to a word of what we perceive this word should mean, then the idea becomes general by being made to represent for all other abstract ideas of the same sort. By combining all perceptions of that same abstract idea we can formulate a word which represents the overall general perceptions of the concept. How, if possible, can we state Berkeley disagrees with Locke in the way each depicts the understanding of an abstract idea through words? There’s a strong belief that Berkeley uses universality as a basis for what words represent, “universality, so as far as I can comprehend, not consisting in the absolute, positive nature or conception of any thing, but in the relation it bears to the particulars signified or represented by it.” Furthermore, he believes words that represent abstract notions were not only created to communicate but to transcend emotions such as passions, fear, love. etc. We can conclude that Berkeley believes in clear, and concise use of words when trying to convey ideas. Is there a a way then in which we can compare and contrast Locke’s and Berkeley’s view on words and how they should be used? How do the views of Berkeley criticize those of Locke when talking about the use of words to convey abstract ideas?

Locke's and Plato's Quest for Understanding

Locke's discourse on words is a more pragmatic and broad approach to Plato's ideas of the rhetoric of truth. Locke begins by stating that understanding comes about by perception and reflection. In this definition, he proposes several flaws, specifically about perceptions, that resonate with Plato's critique about bad rhetoric in the "Phaedrus." Foremost, Locke argues that the senses are not perfect in collecting information about the world. He states when discussing sound and hearing "A sufficient impulse there may be on the Organ; but it not reaching the observation of the Mind, there follows no perception: And though the motion, that uses to produce the Idea of Sound, be made in the Ear, yet no sound is heard." While, Plato argues for good rhetoric and grounding in words to discover truth, Locke presents a different viewpoint. Locke acknowledges the inherent flaws that we have in discovering truth.

Locke, criticizes words because they can result in a fragmented understanding. He raises the point that our biggest downfall is the application of words to collections of ideas. He represents this point in two ways. One example he utilizes is the element gold. He proposes the several ways in which we can come to define that element such as solubility, color, value etc. However, to each individual the word gold will elicit a different blend of all those qualities which it comprises. Further along, he exemplifies how words not grounded in reality, such as words dealing with morality, which have no standard basis from which to measure are impossibly difficult to reconcile.

Plato, similarly, touches on this point when he chooses to define love so as to be specific to his argument. However, Plato chooses to focus more on the rhetoric aspect of finding true understanding. Plato is concerned with the overall dynamic of writing as a means at reaching the essence of ideas. Locke focuses on suggesting that many of the differences that arise in meaning are due to the ambiguous and varying definitions that individuals assign to complex ideas. How do you suppose we can reconcile these two views on reaching understanding, if at all? Do you see more merit in one approach more than the other?

The Officer and Reality

There must be a deeper meaning to the officer in "In The Penal Colony". The narrative is driven by his explanations. From him, we learn about the machine, about the commandant, and about the enlightenment at the sixth hour. His words and arguments, however, are less convincing when we examine them in greater detail. Furthermore, the assumptions he makes about his surroundings color his narrative. Those problems lead us to ask the question whether or not he is a reliable source. Or, to put it in a Platonic perspective, whether perception has distorted his view of reality.

What is it, for instance, we know about the machine? From the officer's explanation, we learn that it now "works all by itself" (141), yet when the machine is in action the wheels creek (149) and the straps break (161). He even somewhat takes this point into consideration ("it can't be helped that things are breaking or giving way here and there; but one must not thereby allow oneself to be diverted in one's general judgement" (151)). The only proof we have that the machine ever worked comes from the officer, and neither the prisoner nor the guard offer support to his claims.

There are multiple occasions where the officer's world view may not correspond with reality. When we hear about his assumptions about the Commandant or the explorer's intentions, we clearly see the gap. When we hear about the size of the audience or their amazement by the enlightenment, we wonder what really happened. What does his character tell us about Kafka's view on words? Authorities in Kafka's texts often hide behind words, and the officer is no exception. When we examine the officer's claims, however, only he establishes his own authority. If we can point to these holes in his world view, can we believe him as a character? Does he have any authority at all? It seems easy to write off his world view simply as wrong or flawed. When we keep Kafka's style, the other characters, and the officer's narrative in mind, can we draw a more nuanced conclusion?

Perfection, Messiness, and The Penal Colony

Throughout the Penal Colony, the officer repeatedly posits that the colony and the system it operates under is perfect in several ways. First, he says that the former Commandant organized the penal colony through his own work, arguing that "We who were his friends knew even before he died that the organization of the colony was so perfect that his successor, even with a thousand new schemes in his head, would find it impossible to alter anything, at least for many years to come" (141). The officer continues to say that through its torturous techniques the Harrow produces enlightenment in its victims (150) and that even though the officer is the single judge who convicts and executes without the victim having a chance to defend him/herself, "they [the people who witnessed the Harrow in action] all knew: Now Justice is being done" (154). Through his detailed description of the Harrow's mechanisms, the officer concludes that all things considered, "its one drawback is that it gets so messy," a seemingly meager tradeoff for the pursuit of a perfect colony (147).

The officer later, however, shows fairly clearly that the system is not perfect. The justice system appears to be lopsided against the common person, and the Harrow ultimately malfunctions when it operates on him, stabbing the officer to death rather than making any design. The officer concedes that he is the Harrows "sole advocate" (153), and talks a lot to convince the explorer that the machine is an ideal implement for justice.

The Harrow seems to be frought with problems because of its messiness. The officer explains while describing the machinery that he has failed to maintain its many parts since the former Commandant died (151), and that a prisoner who did not know what was happening would immediately become revolted when he/she is forced to wear the same gag used by hundreds of people before. Even the design that was supposed to say "Be Just" was just a mess of scribbles on paper rather than anything meaningful.

Through the apparent contradiction between the officer's description of the Penal Colony and the Harrow and the way that they actually work, Kafka reveals that people have to be exceptionally careful about the way they uphold their own beliefs. The officer's logic behind why the Penal Colony and the Harrow are perfect are insubstantial and "messy"--namely, he bases his beliefs on the how the Harrow is a marvel of technology and his admiration for the former Commandant rather than anything logical or explicable, and that senseless zeal becomes apparent in the way that he treats the machine. On the other hand, the explorer relies on actual moral consideration after traveling throughout the world and learning about many cultures and thought systems for why the Harrow is an unacceptable implement of justice, and hence, has a far more carefully considered, "orderly" view of the world. I therefore believe Kafka does think the written word is a useful tool for discovering truth, but only when it is done carefully, and with thoughtful moral consideration.

The Power and Weakness of Language

The most prominent example of use of words and images as well as imagery in The Penal Colony comes through the words of the unnamed officer. Unlike the taciturn explorer and the almost entirely uncomprehending soldier and prisoner, he uses an excess of words, describing in exhaustive detail the torture that the machine inflicts, and yet still insisting that there is even more to tell, if he only had more time. Kafka then juxtaposes this unending stream of words and descriptions with the character's deep-seated belief in the power of words. He believes that words can be used as weapons, as a powerful and unstoppable force of persuasion, even concocting an elaborate plan to save his way of life by having the explorer shout his approval of the machine from a balcony (Kafka 159).

From the events that transpire, however, it seems that Kafka doesn't agree with the officer's belief in words as the ultimate source of power. All the officer's stream of description isn't enough to fully convey what he wants to about the machine. His powers of persuasion don't extend to overturn the basic human decency of the explorer. And even more importantly, his vaunted words, and his belief in his precious machine aren't enough, in the end, to grant him the beauty and serenity of true enlightenment he claims that others have had. For Kafka, the officer, the one who relies the most on the use of words, dies bereft of the hope and beauty that come with true understanding. Kafka seems to imply that revelations cannot come from speech, from crude and man-made words. This is reinforced by the fact that it is the prisoners who are gagged and unable to speak who achieve the understanding that eludes the officer. Unlike Plato, Kafka doesn't believe in the power of the written word to arrive at truth, but neither does he offer an alternative. The story leaves us uncertain, knowing only the dangers of abandoning truth for speech.

Limitations of Writing and Speeches

One of the things Professor Bobonich mentioned in his lecture on Tuesday was how Phaedrus is a critique of writing and speeches. Plato brings up through Socrates’ discussions all the limitations of written words and set speeches. One of his main complaints is that the written word says the same thing every time. (275D) It may appear to be alive when you first read it, and it has the appearance of speaking to you, but if you ask it any question, it can’t respond. Just like a broken record, it will only say the exact same thing over and over again. No elaboration, no specification. Similarly, the written word also cannot distinguish to whom it is speaking. (275E) It could be speaking to someone who knows nothing about the subject, or to someone who is a professional in that field. Either way, it has no way of adjusting or tailoring the presentation to fit the audience. These same criticisms also apply to speeches, which involve no interaction, but are simply monologues. All in all, the written word “is incapable of either defending or helping itself.” (275E5)

If this is Plato’s view on writing and speeches, then why did he write so much? Plato was quite prolific in his publications, and we are still reading his ideas thousands of years later. Clearly, he is not around to help clarify, defend, or rationalize his points. Did he mean for his works and theories to be so well-known? Or did he not expect this to happen, and would he think we can’t truly understand his arguments without proper interaction and discussion? Similarly, in the Phaedrus, there are three rather long-winded speeches. Socrates obviously expects his ideas to be considered, but does he expect them to go unquestioned? Especially since he has two contradicting speeches that clearly cannot both be believed. Are these speeches subject to the same criticisms? If so, why did Plato have speeches in his stories, instead of the more interactive dialogues?

Socrates Critique of Lysias’ Speech in the Phaedrus

In his response to Phaedrus’ reading of Lysias’ speech, Socrates immediately asserts that the speech should be praised for its rhetorical, rather than logical features, or “not so much the invention as the arrangement” (236a3-4). This appraisal is meant to accord little actual praise to Lysias, who clearly favors form to content, consistent with his career as rhetorician. Socrates critiques the repetitive nature of the speech, which obscures the actual paucity of ideas on the topic of love put forward by Lysias. Socrates, by comparison, prizes argumentative or logical expression above rhetorical structures. His criticism, meanwhile, suggests a more general disapproval of creative, formal activity: he refers to Lysias as a “creator” (234e6), which shares the Greek etymology for the word “poet.” As we know from lecture, Plato holds art (poetry, painting) in suspicion, as an activity removed from truth, a position elaborated in the Republic. Moreover, art seems to be associated with the irrational, sensory activity critiqued by Socrates in his first speech, his response to Lysias.

Why, then, does Socrates preface this response with the disclaimer that the ideas are not his own? The strategy is typical of Socrates, who often claims that he knows nothing; and it is apt, in this case, as it allows him to absolve himself of the very act of creation – he is not “creating,” in other words, his theories on love (and rhetoric), but merely reiterating the ideas of others. Meanwhile, how are we to interpret his suggestion that his ideas may have derived from “poets” or “prose-writers”? Does this not contradict his typically low regard of poets? This preliminary act of deferral may suggest that the ensuing speech is not to be taken seriously by the reader: Socrates does, after all, deliver the speech with his head covered, and later provides an alternative standpoint in his “palinode,” or speech in praise of love. Still, this reference to poets and prose-writers suggests an underlying ambiguity and ambivalence on the issues of art and creativity in the text. As Rowe points out, in his commentary to the translation (note 45), the unidentified “prose-writer” in question may well be Plato himself. The reference may be an ironic one, but it may also demand the reader to reevaluate the assessment of art in the text. While he does, in this first speech, seem to associate art with irrational desires, is it not possible that art serve a higher, more laudatory purpose, even guiding its audience to the good, via reason? Socrates’ “palinode” may provide an answer to this last question, in its suggestion of “divine” forms of “madness.” These are important topics to bear in mind as we continue in our reading and analysis of the Phaedrus, particularly as we approach Socrates’ later, culminating statements on speech and writing.

Welcome to the blog for "Word and Image," Section 8!