Small World, Part 2

1. In this section of the text, Arthur Kingfisher (Lodge's rendition of the Fisher King) is introduced. How is he different or similar to Chretien's rendition? How does the character's presentation differ?

Chretien's description of the Fisher King is "a handsome nobleman with greying hair seated upon a bed" (Chretien, 419); he is sure to imply an older but wise and poised gentleman. Conversely, Lodge presents Arthur in his signature form- facing the flaws upfront and unabashedly. He is first found lying spread-eagle and naked on his bed (a notably much less dignified position to be in). His body is imperfect and aged, but handsome nonetheless. He is being attended to by an Asian woman, and it is noted that he is impotent (Lodge, 93). While the Fisher King's introduction is enigmatic but stately, Arthur's introduction is confusing and slightly graphic. The Fisher King's handicap is accepted and almost respected by Perceval (and the wound was acquired in battle (Chretien, 424)), while the reader may feel slightly taken aback or bothered by Arthur's impotence. (Though it can be inferred by the reader that the Fisher King's wound represents impotence, Chretien is still far more reserved in his presentation of the handicap.) Overall, the Fisher King is presented in a far more dignified manner than Arthur is, in line with all of Lodge's blunt and candid treatment of each character's "real" downfalls and less desirable characteristics. The Fisher King's treatment by Perceval is refined; Arthur's treatment by Lodge is candid and unforgiving. While Perceval must focus on the mystery of the Grail, the reader must wonder about Arthur's impotence. I believe that, in the same way the Fisher King's injuries are a result of the out-of-control violence of knighthood, Arthur's impotence is a result of attacks and stress within the out-of-control competitive world of literary academics. (I think it is noteworthy that impotence is considered by many to be a primarily psychological rather than a physical condition, and I believe that will factor into our understanding of the character).

2. In this section of the text we encounter a sudden sweeping-in of a whole new group of characters. Why does Lodge do this? How is it similar to Chretien's story?

Lodge's swift introduction of more than ten new characters could be seen as a summary of the collection of characters from Perceval's story. Each literary professional from each different region or country may represent all of the knights from different countries that Perceval/Persse encounters, and must befriend or defeat, on his quest. This sudden divergence from Persse's story is similar to Chretien's sudden interruption of Perceval's story in order to focus on Gawain's travels. Just as Chretien only returns to Perceval's story momentarily, Lodge only jumps back to Persse for a second, but does end the section with his situation. Unlike Chretien, who presents new characters to the reader the same way they are abruptly met with by Perceval, Lodge introduces each character in full detail before Persse even knows of them. This correlates with Lodge's writing style, which involves presenting a situation in full depth, without adjusting or polishing his characters in order to glorify them for the reader (in fact, he appears to do the opposite, making sure to bring out their flaws immediately). Most, if not all, of these characters are introduced as being lonely or depressed (or both): Rudyard Parkinson and Akira Sakazaki both live alone, Morris Zapp's and Philip Swallow's marriages are both dead, Howard Ringbaum and Michel Tardieu are both shown unsure in their relationships; and the list goes on. Lodge is clearly comfortable with depicting the more realistic, and often darker, side of life.

Small World, part one

2. Persse is first introduced to the reader with his simple quote: "April is the cruellest month" (3). Here, readers get a quick glimpse at his recognition of literary eloquence. Despite his constantly lyrical inner monologue (that often quotes the works of his favorite authors, such as the beginning quote), he is clearly quite reserved and cautious in conservative speech. The author's and Persse's observations seem to mesh, since the narrator mirrors the main character's careful articulation. The most important point in Persse's first appearance is perhaps the fact that he barely speaks at all (and this strangely beckons Dempsey to a rambled confession). He only talks when he finds a topic of interest to him, such as when he challenges Dempsey to complete a rhyme: "But, you know, they very seldom get further than the first line. There aren't many rhymes to 'Limerick'" (7). Though Dempsey thinks himself triumphant, Persse corrects him, proving his intelligence without an outward show (unlike nearly all of the other male characters): "The metre's all wrong...'Limerick' is a dactyl" (7). Persse's blushing in response to Dempsey's crude rhyme is also telling: he obviously is uncomfortable with any communications about sex, and quite a prude. Persse is the opposite of practically every other man attending the conference (including his ability to be respectful towards others). Despite his regular logical posture, though, it takes only the entrance of a beautiful woman for him to lose his cool altogether. Persse is definitely not the typical masculine figure: he is immature and naive, and is most notably a hopeless romantic (three qualities that tend to correspond with each other).

3. Rummidge is described, overall, as a pretty disgusting and disappointing place. The first paragraphs of the story describe in-depth the utter failure of the setup of the conference. The attendees are clearly in "dismay" (3); their accommodations include "stained and broken furniture...dusty interiors of cupboards [without] coat-hangers...and narrow beds, whose springs sagged dejectedly in the middle, deprived of all resilience by the battering of a decade's horseplay and copulation" (3). The rooms, food, service, and lectures are all dissatisfactory, leaving the attendees glum. Nature itself seems in opposition to the conference: "Persse gazed...at the unseasonable snow crusting the lawns and flowerbeds of the Rummidge campus" (3). This is perhaps a parallel of the Waste Forest; both settings are the decayed origins of the quest and rite of passage of the naive main character. Lodge attempts to show that the main character will be moving above and beyond the restrictions of their first setting; and thus growing as a person.

4. Angelica is presented as breathtaking (literally for Persse) in her first appearance: a crowd appears to part at her entrance to the room, making a direct path between the two. Before any qualities are described (in true Chretien style) Persse internally proclaims that she is "the most beautiful girl he had ever seen in his life" (8). The narrator then goes on to describe her as "tall and graceful, with a full, womanly figure, and a dark, creamy complexion". Probably purposefully, Lodge goes out of his way to avoid medieval beauty standards- in fact with completely opposite qualities. While Blancheflor's pale skin, rosy cheeks, and "golden" hair are completely fulfilling of the medieval beauty aesthetics, (as well as presumably a small and diminutive figure in comparison to a man), Angelica is tall and voluptuous with dark features. Angelica is powerful and a challenge to any man, most notably in her extensive literary knowledge. She is also extremely mysterious: by the end of the first chapter, it is revealed that Angelica did not even belong at the conference and had been tricking several men all at once. I still find her untrustworthy: manipulating a sweetheart such as Persse just seems too wrong.

Perceval part three

3. Perceval has failed to act charitably several times throughout the story. One of the most notable of the acts- due to the fact that it is clearly his familial duty to do so- is his inability to return to his village and assure the safety of his unconscious mother. Perceval also fails to aid others in need many other times: he runs away from the lady of King Arthur's court who was slapped instead of avenging her immediately; he is unable to ask a question in order to save the Fisher King and thus his kingdom, as well as the Waste Forest; and he apparently cannot even restrain himself from harming innocent others, such as the maiden in the tent. Perceval's interests in charity lie only in the tasks that further his quests as a knight. Perceval is essentially the opposite of the man that he is told he must worship and embody: Jesus Christ. Christ made the ultimate act of charity by sacrificing his own life for the sins of all mankind; meanwhile, Perceval is committing those sins. Perceval so constantly misses the mark on what it means to be a good knight because he is more enraptured with the image of knighthood rather than the true meaning of it. He is the equivalent of a policeman who becomes part of the force not because he wants to help others, but because he is absorbed with becoming a powerful source of authority. Perceval needs to discard his glorified perspective of the selfish, violent masculine world and join the charitable maternal world that Jesus so embodied. In doing so, he parallels Jesus in being "resurrected" and starting a new life, closer to God. It can even be said that Perceval was "crucified" and outcast by others for doing what in their eyes was wrong- for not helping the Fisher King. As Jesus was elevated from the violent earthly realm to the transcendent divine realm, so is Perceval. He even experiences a cycle parallel to that of Jesus': He faces the end of his old life on Good Friday, as he "acknowledged that God was crucified and died" (461); that night he faces the scarcity of resources in torture and death with his dinner; he comes to face God; and then on Sunday receives communion, realizing the meaning of true sacrifice. As Chretien notes:

5. I finished the text with mixed feelings: I was both irritated and intrigued by the abrupt ending. I was most bothered by the fact that Perceval's story- and thus the Grail quest- was unresolved. Conversely, I think the ending is a valuable opportunity to consider and reflect on Chretien's creation. The fact that it ends with Gawain- who clearly is not the main character- is upsetting to Chretien's earlier promise to return to Perceval's story. I believe that, if given the chance, Chretien would have continued the story for much, much longer with many more enigmatic passages and symbols. I believe Perceval would have discovered the true meaning of the Grail, thus saving the Fisher King, his kingdom, and the Waste Forest, and would have become absorbed in the maternal world of charity, holiness, and valiance (and therefore becoming a true knight). On the other hand, Chretien is not one to end a story simply and straightforwardly- and not without a hint of irony- so I would not be surprised if Perceval fought an epic battle for the Grail, saved the Fisher King, and went back to Blancheflor without ever realizing his own errors. This story is probably the best to be left unfinished, because just as Perceval is left without an explanation of the Grail, so is the audience. Chretien's skill shows itself once again in his stunning ability to end a story only partway through but for the text itself to still (to this day) be renowned, studied, and investigated. Because of this, I believe this to be Chretien's greatest work.
On another note, I would not be surprised if Chretien killed of Perceval at the end. I think it would further and complete his metaphorical transition as Christ, and would prove to be a largely unforeseen ending with his most ostentatious ending. If I were to write the ending in what I would believe to be Chretien's intentions, I would lead Perceval to be killed in an important battle after becoming part of the matriarchal world, thus sacrificing himself for all others (including the Fisher King, King Arthur's Court, and the Waste Forest). Perceval's death would lead to a renewed world, better for its inhabitants (since he died for their sake). He would then be making the greatest sacrifice possible within the text, as a suddenly appearing and benevolent man losing his life too early; all would mourn the loss.

Perceval part two

1. Blancheflor's name -meaning "White Flower"- is clearly Chretien's allusion to her role as an innocent, virginal woman. She is delicate and pure: her hair is "so lustrous and blonde that anyone who saw it might mistake it, if that were possible, for strands of purest gold. Her forehead was high, white, and as smooth as if it had been moulded by hand or as if it had been carved from stone, ivory, or wood" (404). It is also worth noting that pale white skin was the most admirable complexion for a woman in medieval times; thus she is even more pure and deserving of her name's meaning. She is polite, elegant, and devoid of immoral action. Even when she makes moves on Perceval, she maintains her dignity and chastity by simply kissing or embracing him; it is noted that they simply lay next to eachother without acting further (and thus maintaining Perceval's promise to his mother). She is one of the few characters who do not give in to the temptation of sin; thus, she can be read as an example of a true role model in the text, as well as Perceval's opposite. He is simple-minded, quick to act, and juvenile; she is intellectual, poised, and mature. They would not seem to be an appropriate match, but Chretien still puts them together- perhaps to note the ironic outcomes of many of his actions (such as his rudeness garnering his knighthood and armor). Furthermore, her virginal "white" representation is invaded or perhaps "stained" by Perceval's "red" representation. His brash and violent actions earn him the color red; and as he intrudes into her life, his bright, graphic personality mixes with her pure, chaste characteristics.
Another quality in Blancheflor that I find intriguing is her sense of manipulation. Despite the fact that she appears to perfect and untouched on the surface, she still knows how to get what she wants through others. This is first seen when she approaches and embraces Perceval on his first night's stay, crying about the situation of her town. She explains her problems while weeping profusely (on him) but ends by saying, "Clamadeu, who hopes to have me, will not possess my body until it's devoid of life and soul for I keep in one of my jewellery boxes a knife of flawless steel that I intend to plunge into my body. This is all I had to tell you. Now I'll go back and let you rest" (406). Blancheflor -becoming the damsel in distress Perceval was taught to defend- is clearly baiting Perceval to help her in this explanation; and so her ability to control him through her relationship with him develops. The text notes that she purposefully says no instead of yes to him in attempts to make him more passionate in defending her (407). This process is repeated again througout the text; and it becomes clear to the reader that Blancheflor is not as pure as one would suppose.

3. The blood on the snow is yet another representation of Perceval's "red" personality intermingling with Blancheflor's "white" personality. Perceval sees the three drops of blood and it causes him to recall his lady: "When Perceval saw the disturbed snow where the goose had lain, with the blood still visible, he leaned upon his lance to gaze at this site for the blood mingled with the snow resembled the blush of his lady's face" (432). Though it is, at the surface, another example of their "colors" mixing, there seems to be an even more violent undertone. The manner in which the blood dropped to the ground- a falcon attacking at a goose's neck, thus drawing the blood- can be seen as symbolic of Perceval's violent actions leading to his meeting (and relationship) with Blancheflor. Even when they have already established their mutual affection, his violent actions (such as the defense her town) bring them closer together, thus further intermingling the red and white. There seems to be a hint from Chretien here that the violence that brought them together could tear them apart- and will possibly injure Blancheflor herself (please don't take her away, she's one of my favorites!) Also, the red blood on the white object can be connected back to the "bleeding lance"- another symbol of violence invading purity. Chretien is showing the reader once again that the beautiful and the pristine can- and will- by interfered with and possible desecrated by the corrupt and indecent (and furthermore the dangerous). The eternal bleeding of the lance could indicate that there is an infinite suffering ahead- specifically for the characters of the red and the white.

Perceval, part one

2. In the first scene in which Perceval encounters the knights in the Waste Forest, it becomes clear to the reader how naive and juvenile Perceval is. Firstly, Perceval is completely undereducated as to any life outside of his home forest in Wales (a place Chretien does not represent very positively). Despite having a seemingly very religious mother and understanding the concept of God himself, his grasp on religious details such as what angels are as opposed to knights is embarrassingly weak. (Since we see Perceval ignore and deny his mother's statements at other points in the text, I find it very likely that his mother has explained the concepts of Christianity to him before, and he has simply not listened- until it all became vital to his knighthood.) Perceval is easily distracted and childish, unable to pay attention or heed commands from even the knights he admires: "...And the boy, who lacked instruction, said to him: "'Were you born like this?'" (384). (He also seems to lack the understanding that people are not born with metal hauberks or shields melded to their person.) Meanwhile, the knights are stoic, patient, and quite friendly towards the unhelpful young man with the short attention span. The leader of the knights is especially tolerant of Perceval questions, even noting after scolding him that "'So I'll tell you, come what may, because I've grown to like you'" (384). The text portrays the knights in a very positive light- they appear noble, valiant, and even very polite. On the other hand, the text is sure to point out the dangerous nature of their lives; but Perceval gives knighthood the typical male teenager "awesome" and "thumbs-up" and is enticed by the idea of danger and power (while disregarding all of the rules of basic knighthood- and thus basic humanity- given to him by his mother). Chretien uses this to emphasize how one person's glorified view of knighthood (such as his own readers) can be quite different from the harsh (or even nonexistent) reality.

(I think it is noteworthy that we encounter some medieval "Welsh Racism"- a phenomenon that exists to this day addressing the widespread European-based -- and occasionally United States-based-- mocking of the Welsh culture. Welsh comedian Rob Brydon notes this in his material, which I recommend. Chretien clearly criticizes the underdeveloped Welsh community of the forest several times, including jabs at their manners, intelligence, and clothing).
(Search "QI Welsh Racism on Youtube).

3. In his meeting with his mother, Perceval does essentially everything he can to disregard and disrespect his mother and her words. While his mother is in anguish over his prolonged disappearance, Perceval tells his agreeable mother to "Hush!" (386). She is clearly distraught by his learning of the existence of knighthood and will do everything she can to prevent him from seeking this life- including a harrowing tale of how his whole family save for him and his mother were killed by the profession- but Perceval barely listens, if at all. "The boy paid scarcely any attention to what his mother said. 'Give me something to eat,' he said. 'I don't understand your words, but I would gladly go to the king who makes knights; and I will go, no matter what'" (387). I think that it's fair to say that at this point in the text, Perceval is a complete idiot. He ignores her because he obviously finds no weight in her words, and only selectively listens to the parts convenient to him- such as his twisting of her recommendation to accept a ring as a gift from a woman into a justification for him to attack and steal from one. If Perceval had listened to his mother fully before leaving and had dared to take her suggestions into account, he would have started his journey much more cautiously (and would not have harmed the people he did, including the maiden who was forced to follow her lord naked (391)).

4. In order to become a knight- after assaulting and stealing from a young woman- Perceval bursts into King Arthur's court, bothers King Arthur by repeatedly demanding knighthood, ignores the King's command to dismount, demands the pretty armor of another knight, and causes a woman to be slapped and a jester to be pushed into a fireplace. Shortly after, he kills the knight whose armor he wants in order to obtain that armor. All the while, he rudely commands people and essentially blames his innocent mother for his outrageous actions. Perceval has not become a knight by being noble, valiant, or proving himself helpful or agile; he instead told others what to do until they gave in to his force. This discrepancy between the real behaviors of a knight from the expected behaviors is further commentary from Chretien as to how people tend to inaccurately perceive their heroes; Perceval gets away with ridiculous behavior but still becomes a knight- an obvious error in the typically-praised system. He is even obnoxious to the King whom he would usually have to impress in order to be granted knighthood from: "'Make me a knight, sir king,' he said, 'for I wish to be on my way'" (393). He even sees himself as equivalent to the far nobler knights that inspired him earlier in the text: "'The knights I met in the heath never dismounted, yet you want me to dismount! By my head, I'll not dismount, so get on with it and I'll be on my way'" (393). Sadly, no one ever denies Perceval what he wants- and if they do, they are injured or killed. (Perceval is off to a wonderful start.)

"That Obscure Object of Desire"

1. I think the film uses such a title to represent Conchita as an obscure object. To be obscure is to be ambiguous and not clear or plain; to be concealed or reduced. Matthieu believes that sexuality and love should be expressed together, as he wishes to; but Conchita constantly holds back, never allowing a sexual union, instead reveling in their shared love. Matthieu is shown to clearly love Conchita, but because she will not give herself to him fully, the relationship becomes unbalanced. While Conchita is satisfied with just spending time together, Matthieu can only focus on their lack of sexual connection. For this reason, Conchita becomes a sexual being in his eyes; she becomes the woman he can never fully possess; thus an object he can never fully possess. The only part of her he cannot have is her sexuality; therefore, it is the part he wants most. Conchita complains that he objectifies her by constantly insisting on intercourse (such as her repeated statements that she's "not that kind of girl"), and Matthieu denies this lustful focus; but in a way it is true, because he has become more obsessed with her sexuality than with her true being.
4. I believe the animal imagery is all used to convey how Matthieu is somehow an inferior, less intelligent (and overwhelmed) being that is caught in Conchita's trap. When the animal imagery appears, he thinks he is in control (when the mouse appears, he is planning to "purchase" Conchita; when the fly appears, he has temporarily lost Conchita but plans to get her back through his influential friend, the judge). Truly, though, Conchita proves herself to always be in control: she leaves when he attempts to pay for her, and she takes him back when he sees her in the resraurant. The imagery really represents Matthieu falling under her spell and into her traps. He is crushed and left by her after the mouse is caught in the trap; and he is "dead in the water" like the fly when in the restaurant, completely obsessed with getting her back and insisting that he cannot live without her. Matthieu is powerless to Conchita, despite the fact that he thinks he is the dominant person (displayed by how she is the one who reguarly ends the relationships).