The Disenchantments of Love I

I felt that I had read the story of Isabel/Zelima before, but I couldn't remember where. While I was captivated by the story I found myself getting frustrated with Isabel for making the same mistakes over and over again. The Code of Honor that she values so highly seems to make things worse for her. It is because of her "honor" that she pursues don Manuel after he has left Zaragoza (or so she claims). Even after he has lied to her and betrayed her so many times, she follows him with the intention of reclaiming him as her lover. How can she truly believe that he will be reformed? But then she also claims that she is pursuing him to seek vengeance. She tells Luis that he should not kill don Manuel because "even though don Manuel is treacherous and false, my life depends on his. I must regain my lost honor...". I don't understand her logic.
However she does seem at times to be aware of her own foolishness, saying that when don Manuel pacifies her she is pleased but does not entirely believe him. Yet she still allows herself to be deceived.

She seems to control most situations but how she uses this power/talent is unfortunate because it only causes her further misery. At the end she finally decides to go to a convent and take God on as a husband. While I cannot say I would do the same thing, I don't understand why she didn't do this in the first place, if this were the only way to preserve her honor.

Her goal by telling the story is to warn women against trusting men and trusting flattery. Which I think she makes more than apparent with the numerous times she falls for don Manuel's lies. "Woe be to all ill-advised and credulous women who let themselves be overcome by lies so well adorned that their glitter lasts only as long as does the appetite!"

As far as this work being considered anti-feminist or 'poor feminism' I don't think that this is the case. I think that the story shows how women can be manipulated by men because of their lower social status due to sexist society. What might make the story seem anti-feminist is how Isabel fits into the stereotype of an overly emotional, unreasonable woman. At the beginning she has the reason and respect of a man but when she starts doing ridiculous things to pursue a man who has already proven himself to be "evil", she discredits herself and her sex.

All this being said, love makes people do stupid things, especially forgiving those who they love for any and all transgressions.

Christine de Pizan: The City of Ladies II

Christine de Pizan speaks through the voices of her characters to negate the argument of male writers who make claims about women that are entirely unfounded.
Reason, Rectitude and Justice (all female characters) give their opinions about the nature of women and explain why the prejudices against them created by men are incorrect.
As far as I am concerned, reason is the highest virtue and most valuable trait for a human (man or woman) to have. Reason disproves all else. Lady Reason tells Christine that what she has read written by men is in accurate, "...I can assure you that these attacks on all women-when in fact there are so many excellent women-- have never originated with me, Reason."
As a means of validating herself as a writer, Christine de Pizan uses examples of women who exhibit traits which men insist they do not have, women who act in ways that shows how ridiculous the claims made against women are. The examples she uses from history span over different time periods and countries, showing that women everywhere have proven themselves to be equal to if not superior to men.
Possibly her most useful tool is the Bible, and Chistine de Pizan uses it to her advantage. By giving examples from the Bible, she makes it very difficult for anyone to dispute her words because they would not want to sound like they were saying anything that might be remotely construed as negative or contradictory to the Bible.

Christine de Pizan: The City of Ladies I

I think that the interruption by her mother in the prologue is a means for Christine de Pizan to reveal a little bit about herself to the reader. Because she lives at home with her mother we can assume certain things. I originally wanted to say that it could indicate her youth but given the time period it wouldn't be uncommon for a grown woman to be living with her mother, however it would indicate that she is unmarried. This would be an important factor that would effect her writing because as a single woman she would naturally have very different views of marriage and marital relations than a married woman.

Christine de Pizan's apparent gullibility in the prologue does not reflect her true beliefs about the nature of women. She is writing satirically in response to the countless male writers who condemn women as being inferior and believe "that the behavior of women is inclined to and full of every vice". She mocks them by pretending that she shares these beliefs. She claims to have been persuaded that they are correct because it seems that all the writings she comes across are in agreement about the evil nature of women. This tactic is effective because even as she is agreeing with the anti-feminist writings she is disproving them. It is not expected that a woman would be as clever and subtle in her writing as de Pizan is.
Just in case the reader is missing the irony, de Pizan points out her own use of satire through the voice of the women who come to visit her. One asks her why she puts such faith in the words of men who "spoke on many subjects in a fictional way and that often they mean the contrary of what their words openly say", which is exactly what de Pizan herself is doing.

Pan's Labyrinth

I had seen this movie before but had forgotten many of the details. Ofelia's fantasy doesn't exist in the world of adults. At the end we see the two worlds clashing when the commander comes after her in the labyrinth. He cannot see the faun she is talking to because he does not have the faith that comes with youth an innocence to believe in anything so fantastic.
Whenever things get too unpleasant in the "real" world, Ofelia retreats into her fantasy, but as far as she is concerned the two are connected and equally real. After several tests of cunning, bravery and character, Ofelia is brought back to her rightful world in death. Her loyalty to her mother and brother in reality results in her eventual return to her fantasy family.

Run Lola Run

The repetition of the story in Run Lola Run was interesting because the viewer thinks they know what is going to happen next but each time, the story changes slightly, resulting in an entirely different ending. The final ending (I don't know whether it was the true ending or not) was the typical "happy" ending because not only does nobody die, but they manage to pay the man off and are 100,000 marx richer.
The "mythic/fictional" aspect of the story comes in when Lola manipulates time by screaming and shattering glass. Mannie turns to her for answers at the beginning and this gives the viewer the impression that Lola is the problem solver of the relationship. She finds ways out of tight situations, by tweaking the circumstances. It seems she tries all available possibilities for how the story could go and then settles on the one that has the most desirable outcome.

The Ogre Day II

I think Tournier accurately depicts how soldiers or anyone involved in war must find a way to detach themselves from it in order not to go crazy. They find little hobbies that often turn into obsessions because they serve as an escape from the horrors of war. For the Colonel Puyjalon, it was gardening and his "worst fear was having to change sector before he could pick his young carrots and peas." It is somewhat humors that a colonel's worst fear should be concerning his garden and not the lives of his squadron. For Bertold, and by extension Tiffauges, the pigeons are their escape and comrades during the war. Tiffauge detaches himself to the extent where it seems he's hardly aware or conscious of the war raging around him. "This war, the "phony war" as it was called at the time into which they'd all been hurled pell-mell and in which they stared at each other in jovial or peevish bewilderment as the case might be, was his thing, his personal affair, even though it frightened him and was infinitely beyond him." (140) After re-reading that quote I would say I'm probably wrong about his being "unconscious" of the war, but he certainly does his best to separate himself from it as all soldiers do.

I was nothing short of horrified when I read that they had cooked three of Tiffauges's pigeons. It was incredibly sad and I was surprised that Tiffauges didn't react in any way other than to sit in a corner and brood. I was even more surprised to find him feeling that he should be the one to eat them. Were they my pets, not only would I not be able to even imagine eating them myself, I would prevent others from eating them too, even if they were already cooked.
I was going to say that his indifference is surprising but I don't think it is necessarily indifference because he does care and is upset at the death of his birds. But he has a certain detachment from the situation. Or else he has become so introverted because of being treated with disdain by others for his whole life (with the exception of Nestor) that even in times of sever emotional distress he does not act out or draw attention to himself. This part was really upsetting but also I suppose to be expected because it is a war and when food is scarce animals, even pets have to be sacrificed but it still was unnerving.

The Ogre Day I

2. Why is part one written as a diary? Why does he call these his "sinister writings"? What might this imply?
Abel says that he writes in his diary because he is "at a crossroads". "To a certain extent I'm counting on this diary to help me escape from the garage and the paltry preoccupations that keep me here. And, in a sense, from myself." A diary is a way to get one's thoughts out, espcially those thoughts which we fear may not be accepted by others/society. He calls them his "sinister writings" because, as he believes himself to be monsterous, perhaps he believes his writings to be equally monsterous. Though he defines a monster as "...something that is shown, pointed at, exhibited at fairs, and so on..."and in theory a diary should be the opposite of that, something that no one sees. But then we the readers are seeing his diary and pointing at it and disecting it so maybe it is a monster.

3. On page 5 Abel writes "All is sign." What do you think he means by this based on what you have thus read?

Abel seems to be very supersticious. He feels that all things have meaning, even if we don't necessarily notice them. The quote at the beginning of the novel by Flaubert describes this well: "To find something interesting, you merely have to look at it long enough." Abel makes a very interesting comment about how people worry about death or rather what happens after death but not what happens before birth. Most people would say that there is nothing that effects you before you are born but as Abel puts it, "The heretofore is just as important as the hereafter, especially as it probably holds the key to it."
I think the fact that he writes well and differently with his left hand indicates two things; on a more literal level that he may have been left handed and when he went to St. Christopher's they forced him to learn with his left and on a more figurative level that maybe the person he is on the outside does not reflect who he truly is on the inside. He works in a garage and is called a monster, but is he really? Just my speculations...