Les Liaisons Dangereuses, C

There is so much to talk about!!
I am really intrigued by the use of words as weapons. At first I thought La Marquise and Valemont were the only characters to employ them in this way, but now I've begun to think that all the characters do. The written word is how they express all their emotions and desires, but rarely, except in Cecile's case, are the words truly genuine. They usually serve the purpose the further the interests of the writer or mask true feelings. Valemont seeks to destroy his adversaries with his words and seduce an innocent woman, but this innocent woman may not be as faultless as we think, as she also uses words to reprimand Valemont and convince Madame Volanges of his kindness. Is she really just trying to convince herself? La Marquise seems to be in full control of her words at all times, and is trully remarkable in her ability to manipulate even her closest friends with her terribly subtle and terribly cruel language. In a culture were the "vraisemblable" dictates every aspect of public social interaction, the only resource for real action and movememt people have is through the written word. It creates a strange kind of passive force that I would like to explore but don't really have a clear idea about yet.
Also, on a side note, Valemont is so clever to displace the blame for his love of her onto la presidente. By citing her as the source and cause of his love, he marks her as the active force behind his shameful love. This is how he defeats her. This technique creates an interesting power play that give him complete control of her emotions under the pretense of giving himself and his fate up to her.

letters 3-27, Les Liaisons Dangereuses

The blog post right under this one was not written by me, I think one of my friends just went to the link on my computer and wrote it. I also don't know how to delete it. Sorry.

In class on Tuesday we were talking about the difference between the letters of Cecile and madame de Merteuil. Wes spoke about the intimate "tu" of cecile's letters and the agressive focus on action of la Marquises. All of Cecile's letters are about the past, or how the past should inform the future. In the case of the letter from Danceny, she writes to her friend Sophie for advice about something she had found, not to tell her about her course of action. La Marquise's letters always have to do with something that should happen in the future, or a plan for the future. She rarely writes about the trivialities of her day, and instead remains goal oriented. I think the differences between these two women's letters illuminates the serious differences between them; namely that Cecile does not yet understand that all social relations in her milieu are based in power struggle, while La Marquise is already Queen Bee.
This power struggle seems to exist everywhere, even pervading intimate relationships like that between La Marquise and Valemont. While they use affectionate language when addressing one another, their letters usually consist of subtle attacks and accusations of cowardliness etc. They both seem to take pleasure in torturing the other or competing for who has broken the most hearts, and wronged the most innocent people. It's a pretty sick game.
But just because La marquise and Valemont are the "Evil" characters and Cecile is the ideal young naive "good" character, I feel little sympathy for her as the prey of these two older villains. Maybe this is too much of my opinion, but I am much more interested in the two more intelligent characters since they have well developed and powerful personalities, while Cecile is young, stupid, and annoying. I find that la Marquise is by far the most compelling character because despite plotting to ruin so many lives, she has fooled everyone into thinking that she is a highly respectable and cultivated woman. While Valemont's reputation is widespread and notorious, he does not have the same subtlety and intelligence that the marquise uses to maintain her image while determining the outcome of so many events.

Six Flags: Really Fun

My trip to Six Flags this weekend was great. I rode the Dark Knight roller coaster and almost BARFED!!!1 I ate like seven of the delicccc hot dogs they sold at Sausage Spencer's. I saw a really cute boi in line for the Tower of Death. I think he looked at me. Twice. Anyways, this is about the most fun I've had since we stole the Statue of Ronald McGeorge in high school. I still have his left thumb. Thanks for reading my lame bloggggg.

first 2 Letters, Les Liaisons Dangereuses

The first two letters of Les Liaisons Dangereuses have an interesting role because they serve to introduce the reader to the story but at the same time contain no historical, narrative background. Instead of learning about the characters and their setting, we are immediately thrown into the story and expected to understand the personalities of our characters through the ways they address each other in their intimate letters.
The letters also alert the reader to new beginnings in each character's life; Cecile's first foray into society after the convent, and La marquise's new venture into halting a marriage that displeases and humiliates her. Through the letters a relationship is created between these two diametrically opposed female characters and though they are not writing to each other, Laclos sets up a conflict of interest that will surely occupy the rest of the novel.

Diderot, 70-170

This reading made me wonder who or what is the moralizing force in the novel, or if there is one at all. Jacques and his maitre are neither religious men nor necessarily anti-religious and seem to believe instead in a mixture of fate and accident.
Is there supposed to be a moral aspect to the story at all, if not, what was diderot's objective in writing it?
Even Religious figures like monks and priests are depicted as not better and maybe worse than normal people.
At this point the novel still feels very arbitrary with no specific goal or point in mind. It seems to follow with Jacques and his maitre's general outlook on life.

Jaques Le Fataliste et son Maitre . Post 1

This book is hilarious.

Already in the first 30 pages Diderot plays with some import themes the most obvious of which is the author-reader relationship. He addresses the reader in a very conversational tone, and comments on the reader's demands, and his willingness or unwillingness to meet them. These casual exchanges inset both the author and reader into the text. Diderot makes himself a player in his own story, therefore asserting his ownership and power over it, and the reader is treated as an active force which influences the flow of the story in various ways. I wonder how this relationship with play out over the course of the novel.

I also really enjoy what I understand of his word-play. The Coup de feut and coup de foudre comparison is great, and so is the ear analogy, which really reminds me of the humor in Les Fabliaux.

I am hoping we can talk about this book in terms of realism in class, especially in regards to the seemingly aimless travels of our two characters.