Some more thoughts on Dictee...

I too had a difficult time understanding the formatting in this book, and was perplexed by the seeminng lack of a noun or subject in several of the chapters. I think I took a look at the first couple of pages and thought "seriously?" The french written "assignments" so to speak seem a random addition, but I agree with Nicole's point: "A possible explanation for the use of foreign language and non-western writing system—and forgive me if this analysis proves trite—in the author’s desire for her reader to experience sections of this work from the perspective of “the other,” or the outsider. " I think the reader who doesn't know french is purposely made an outsider to give us an idea of how the Koreans who left and returned to the country felt.

I took 3 years of French in high school, and am sadly out of practice, but I did attempt to read and make sense of the french versions of some of the text. Especially in the more recent pages (this was mentioned in class as well I believe), the english translation presented is most definately not exact. While we discussed this being Cha's loose translation rather than a translation given to us by another source, I think that- and this may be obvious- the loose and relative translation is given on purpose. To me, it represents her point that there shouldn't be a suppression of one's own voice, and there shouldn't really be a perfect "all encompassing/universal" translation. I think that because she has choosen to take the translation loosely, we see that Cha is striving to maintain some semblance of an individual quality to the words if that makes any sense.

This work screams CORE 1 to me (for all you Scripps people you know what I'm talking about...). aside from the post-modernist aspects of the work, it reminds me of representation, and how that was such a major theme to CORE. While I can't seem to discover my own interpretation of the formatting, etc. in this book, I think the inclusion of diagrams, illustrations, etc. serve to provide the reader with a way to interpret the meaning however they choose. Our definition of what this book really means, or what it is trying to say to us, is all based on how we use the concept of representation. For example, the inclusion of the biological diagram for monday's reading represented to me the common biological system in all of us that gives us the ability and right to speak. Maybe that's just because I'm a science major... but to tohers it might represent something else (say, depicting one's literal ability to make sound as someone mentioned in class). While I think there is definately a narrow range of interpretations that were intended by the author, I can't help but wonder if someone with a Korean background has additional insight into the text.

I hope this made sense... at least a little bit?

--Ashley