After I swallowed my initial gut reaction to what looked like an odd collection of vacation photos, I tried to dig deeper. I noticed how hard she tried to fit into the groups she was a part of. The one that shocked me the most in this regards was the Hispanic Project. The fact that she tried to fit in to the point that she changed her hairstyle so dramatically really took me by surprise. The group shot of her with all of the girls made me realize what transformations she had to undergo to blend in. You can also see the persona and attitude she took on in the long shot of what seems to be a bock party. Her expression and passion really blends into the stereotypes of these people.

The Lesbian Project is the one that shocked me the most. The stereotypes of being a lesbian are loud and clear in these pictures, the short hair, the masculine clothing, the tattoo. The intimacy of one of the pictures really caught my attention. How is she able to produce such chemistry in that picture if she herself is not a lesbian? What thought processes does she use when taking these kind of pictures? Does she develop an entirely new character or is she saying that this is something that is natural, but hidden? Is Nikki Lee saying that we all have to potential to do this and just hide these tendencies deep within ourselves?

All of these pictures just scream stereotypes to me. I’m not sure of her intentions yet. Is she mocking these stereotypes or trying to make known how ridiculous they are in the first place? Is she tying to make way for changes or she is perpetuating them?

The fragmented self really comes into play here. The fact that she can take on so many different cultures and subcultures surprises me. Maybe what she is trying to do is find a common thread between all of them. The fact that one person can change so much and blend in makes me wonder if she is trying to show that we all have these schizophrenic tendencies and abilities, but just choose to hide them. She kind of reminds me of the main character from Written on the Body; she is able to take on so many different faces and be involved with all kinds of people, that you almost wonder exactly who she really is.

Several of the pictures shocked me at first, especially the sexually suggestive photos of the dolls and prosthetic body parts. I had to step away from them for a little bit to look at them a little more objectively, but didn’t want to forget my initial reaction to them as well. It kind of reminded me of  the girlfriend of the narrator in Written on the Body. Her reaction to something so shocking and almost disturbing. She found beauty not in just the art, but her reaction to the art. I experienced the exact same thing. I guess that is the true test of art. If emotion is not invoked, then your point just has not been expressed.

There were three photos that really caught my attention. the first one was in the first link, Untitled Film Still #35. This is a rather domestic picture of a woman in an apron standing in front of a door looking rather enraged about something. I found it interesting that her body is facing coats on hooks while she is looking in a different direction. I also noticed that the door had several black marks along the bottom and a few at top. It seemed almost like someone was kicking at it. It is almost like the scene where the housewife is fed up with life and is threatening to leave, but never does.

The next photo that really created a reaction for me was Untitled #255. This is the photo of the anatomically correct female doll posed in a sexual position. The positioning of the doll is what caused the initial reaction, but then I noticed something that gave the picture a whole new meaning to me. I noticed that it looked like the doll was not looking at the camera, but at a hairbrush on the left side of the bed. I’m still not sure what exactly Sherman meant to say here, but it made the picture seem a little less grotesque to me.

The last photo that made me step back and question the meaning behind it was Untitled Film Still #33. This is a picture of a woman sitting at the head of a bed and there is an envelope and what appears to be a letter at the foot of the bed. I felt a sort of separation in the photo. It felt like the subject was distancing herself from the words in front of her. Maybe this is a commentary on the separation between an author and their words.

The more I look at these pictures, the more I realize how important the little details are. It is almost like Sherman is daring you to look past the sometimes shocking subject and dig deeper into the picture. Everything may seem random, but everything has a purpose. I truly enjoyed the roller coaster ride these photos took me on and look forward to seeing how this applies more to the class and postmodernism.

We discussed in class the idea of this schizophrenic creation as a way to avoid the female pull in life. I had allows realized that gender played a role in this novel, but didn’t realize to what extent it influenced everything. The testicular cancer meetings, Marla, Fight Club and the discussion of fathers and still being male all were part of this large statement about the world being rather feminine. I can now see how this all was a threat to the narrator and how Tyler was created as a defense mechanism.

In a postmodern perspective I can see how this fragmentation of self and history was really a narrative on how metanarrative control our lives. There are preconceived notions as to how we should lead our lives and Tyler challenged these ideas. I can see several paper topics coming from this book.

It seemed that death was seen as the ultimate life experience. The process of almost dying in the car was seen as a “near life experience.” This idea of death as an adrenaline packed moments confused me a little until the group discussed it some more.

Death becomes an image of rebirth in this novel. It goes along with Tyler’s idea of losing everything to really live. It is embracing a new point-of-view in the simplest of terms. I’m still trying to grasp why destruction has to be involved in Tyler’s eyes, but I think that will come more when we finish the novel.

Tyler  idea of becoming a legend confuses me. I understand that he wants to become a legend by destroying this certain history, but isn’t he in fact replacing it with his own??? Isn’t he just substituting the general idea of history with his own egotistical view? It’s almost like Tyler is a modern day Hitler.

Tyler almost seems to contradict himself in the way he acts. Is this just the two sides of the character battling each other? I feel like reading the first part of this book has left me with more questions than answers, but maybe that’s the point.

I can see how the idea of history is challenged in Jameson and Fight Club. The idea of history changing depending on if it has already happened, if it is happening now, and how it is represented makes sense to me. The views on an event shifts and changes depending on when it happens. The idea of history being our own helps clarify things a little for me.

The idea of a fragmented self also makes a lot of sense to me. I liked how this was portrayed in the movie. I think having seen the movie before reading this particular piece helped me understand it more. I still am pretty confused by Jameson’s ideas, but I think it will become clearer once we start discussing them more.

The character Marla was the first thing that caught my attention. I found her the most honest character of them all, which is rather ironic considering the fact that she was attending a testicular cancer support meeting. I found her approach to things rather refreshing. As far as viewing her as a post modern character, I can see how the chaos in her life has a purpose. She is not a flat character by any means. Her actions are clearly a statement about society and what needs to change.

I also find it interesting that this change in the narrator happens through Marla. It all starts when she shows up at a meeting and he hates her because she’s doing the exact same thing he is. He hates her because he can’t sleep.

The insomnia aspect intrigued me the most. An sleep deprived state of mind compared to a new perspective on the happenings of the world is what made me focus more on the movie. I can’t wait to see how the book handles this aspect of the character.

I had suspected from early on in the movie that the narrator and Tyler were the same person, but didn’t expect the ending at all. I loved the ending. I found it slightly cliche, but it really did drive home the main point of the movie. Now I can’t wait to start the book.

The buzz word today seemed to be metanarratives. Honestly I am still rather confused by what they really are and the piece by Lyotard itself is still perplexing. I get that they are these overarching ideas that govern the way some people do things and the expectations that come along with things. I can see how this would relate to Written on the Body and the theme of love. It seems as if Written on the Body is challenging our metanarratives and that’s why it was so confusing at times (especially with determining the sex of the narrator). We expect a female to act one way and a male the other, but when a person has qualities and acts like both, then we are competing against our own ideas what makes a male or female. Other than that, Lyotard is beyond me. Maybe once we begin reading some more I will be able to see how it connects and make it clearer in my mind.

“This hole in my heart is in the shape of you and no-one else can fit it” (Written on the Body, p. 155).

Yet again our narrator has fallen back on the cushy little armchair and relied on cliches. The narrator is so torn apart by the fate of Louise and the downfall of the relationship that they have gone back to the comfort zone to find support. What happened to the narrator that said that “it’s the cliches that cause the trouble” (p.155). On that very same page the narrator contradicts itself. I feel like the author is sending us in loops, making us feel as crazed and confused as the narrator.

The ending was not what I expected. Is Louise there? Is she dead and her spirit is returning? Is she a figment of the narrator’s imagination? This book is full of ambiguities and uncertain endings, but maybe that is what the author is trying to get across to us. Maybe she is saying the answer is up to us or no answer exists at all.

I found it interesting in this part of the book that the narrator makes references to a lot of technological things, going as far as giving love a impersonal and mechanic side. It was refreshing in a way to see love pulled away from the emotions and given a synthetic appearance. I appreciated the new point-of-view, but was scared by it as well. It made me think about how we as human can detach ourselves so much from emotion that we could rely on man-made objects to fill the void left by relationships. Maybe this is what the narrator is getting at the entire time. Maybe it is saying that we do need to step away from the emotional baggage and view things for what they are. Maybe this narrator is trying to replace the “armchair” of love and replace it with an emotionless, nonspecific and highly androgynous piece of technology, much like the narrator itself.

” Is happiness always a compromise?” (Written on the Body, p.74).

This is another quote that just made me stop and think. Does happiness have to be that way? Has it always been that way and no one has ever said anything about it? I think this has to deal primarily with the narrator (who is still a great mystery to me). In the past the narrator has kind of changed their ways or done things for their lovers in order to find happiness at that moment. I also think this has to do with the narrator feeling guilty about Louise; they never did give her a chance to say what she wanted.