One of the biggest things I’ve noticed during this field school is that the romanticized and idealized version of a place that you’ve read about is often far from the reality of it.

As one of the most iconic cities in the world, Paris suffers from this more than any other place I’ve ever visited before.  In film and literature alike, it is seen as a place for romance, art, and culture, and it is, I guess, if you were already inclined towards those things before you arrived.

My experience of it was a little different.

It’s crowded, touristy to the extreme, and, at least for a good portion of our time there, was unbearably hot, stuffy, and smelly.  All of the cafes frequented by the authors that we read about have (of course!) become tourist traps.  I bet they all would hate it now. 

Still, it’s clear that there are many ways to experience the city and that it is many different things to many different people.

To some (as I remembered EVERY SINGLE NIGHT while falling asleep) it is the dark and damp subterranean world of the catacombs with over 200 miles of tunnels (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/paris-catacombs-180950160/), hidden criminals, bones, ghosts, and small humanoid figures that stare at you from the ends of long tunnels, their eyes gleaming in the light from your flashlight…Okay, maybe I’ve watched too many youtube videos about it, but have you gone down to see that there ISN’T little humanoids?  I certainly haven’t, apart from the official tourist attraction section of it.  Even as the rational part of my mind tells me that there is no danger as long as I don’t go down there I couldn’t help but think about the stories that I’d read about: the secret cinema that the police found down there (https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/dark-underworld-paris-catacombs-002834), the flooded caverns that people swim in (https://www.messynessychic.com/2015/07/10/the-secret-swimming-pools-of-the-paris-catacombs/), and, most of all, somehow getting trapped down there in the dark.  With every passing RER train below I remembered the layers and layers of levels below me of train tunnels, sewers, and catacombs.  TWO HUNDRED miles of catacombs!  The above ground attractions of Paris must barely scratch the surface!

But anyways, that’s enough of a digression about my fear of and fascination with the catacombs.

For other people Paris really is all about the tourist attractions.  And they ARE dazzling, if you can see them around the hundreds of other people who are there for the same reason you are.  There’s the Eiffel tour (a nice view if you want to wait in line for at least an hour), the Moulin Rouge (which was excellent apart from the cost, all the cultural appropriation, and the question of animal cruelty), the Luxembourg Garden (DUSTY!!  If you like dust you’re in for a treat!), the Arc de Triomphe (Which actually exceeded my expectations!  Be sure to watch the chaos in the roundabout below as natural selection attempts to claim the more idiotic tourists who attempt to jaywalk across it!), and the Shakespeare and Company bookstore (which is not the original store, and is not in the original location, but makes a great profit anyway selling book bags to tourists *cough* all of us in the field school *cough* and serves up a mean lemonade).  These and countless other locations are ingrained in a collective cultural memory, even for those who have never visited Paris.

Personally, I think that my own experience of Paris has been somewhat unique because I was there for much longer than the average tourist but much shorter than someone who has actually moved there.  In some ways I felt that I missed out on the excitement of being a tourist who is only in a place for a short time and therefore only sees the better parts of a city.  On the other hand, this allowed me to see the more ‘real’ Paris, including its dirt, grime, and (sometimes) unpleasant people. 

This ‘realness’ still did not allow me to see what it was like to live in Paris as a local, with my French being so bad and my knowledge of the city remaining very limited, but it did make me relate a little bit more to the American authors that lived in Paris in the first half of the twentieth century.  Like me, it seems they came to Paris for some purpose of self-improvement (them for a sort of artistic freedom, me to become less stupid and more cultured) and, like me, they settled in but also remained isolated.  For me it was the way I remained surrounded by fellow English-speaking students, and for them it was being surrounded by their fellow expatriates.  I don’t see this as necessarily a bad thing; I have made some great friends within our little field school group.  However, it does go to show that Paris is not a place where you can just fit in and live your idealistic French dream.  And, perhaps, that romanticized Parisian ideal does not exist at all. (The little humanoids might though.)

Now that I’ve finished the field school (well…except for the essay) and am six nights away from going home I have some tips and words of wisdom for other students, travellers, and field school participants. I’m grateful to have survived to share it with others. So, in no particular order, and without further ado, here are some things that i’ve learned during the past couple of months:

• Laugh it off

In the beginning of the field school I was quite nervous about making a good impression on everyone, not seeming stupid, and being sophisticated.  Now that it is over I realize that I shouldn’t have been so worried.  I’ve made many good friends on this trip and we have all shared countless embarrassing and personal stories or experiences.  We’re all just trying to survive.  From having to visit a doctor to running out of clean laundry it’s better to be real and solve the problem or relate to others than to try to keep up an image or to be closed off.

• Learn (or pretend) to enjoy reading books you wouldn’t normally like

Even if you wouldn’t necessarily read Gertrude Stein or Ernest Hemingway for fun you should still have something to say about it.  Learn to see the value in things you don’t like.  Appreciate them for what they are.

• If you see a free washroom use it

I’m serious!  This is probably the most important point!  Nothing ruins sightseeing like wondering where a washroom is.

• Walking is a dangerous activity

There are a lot of bikes in the areas I went to.  There are also a lot of drivers who have no intention to stop at crosswalks.  I’ve seen Molly almost get run over like twenty times.  There are tourists everywhere that you have to weave around.  Not to mention the possibility of pick-pockets.  Stay alert and pay attention.  I don’t think any of the readings we read for the course mentioned anything about how difficult it is to walk down a street in Europe. 

• A culinary experience doesn’t necessarily mean fine dining

If you’ve read my post about FEBO in Amsterdam then you know what I mean.  Sure, everyone always thinks about traditional and fancy foods to try when they travel.  I tried those too.  But don’t turn your nose up at trying foreign fast food chains or street food.  Even eating at a McDonalds is exciting when it’s in another country. Croque McDo anyone?

• Don’t take privacy for granted

Do you want to sleep or shower without people watching you?  Tough luck!!!  At our Paris residence the showers had glass doors and I haven’t slept in a room by myself in a month and a half!  Let’s just say that silence is golden and that people WILL see you naked.

• Vancouver transit sucks

In the (admittedly not that many) cities that I have visited on this trip we have been able to make extensive use of the public transit systems.  I’m in London right now and it’s completely shocking to see how many underground lines they have.  Paris also has a great metro system.  The transit was fine in Amsterdam too.  Even Tours had reasonably decent transit.  It has made me realize that Vancouver transit is only decent if you live very close to the skytrain and have very specific places that you want to go. 

• Make use of technology

I know that it’s a whole lot of fun to laugh about people who are so absorbed by their phone that they might as well not even leave their bedroom.  I’ve definitely criticized some people for that.  However, there is a way to use technology without using it excessively, and there is no denying that it has made travel 1000x easier.  So why not make use of it?  Having a French SIM card with data has taken away all my worries about getting lost and has also allowed me to find activities and restaurants that I would probably not have stumbled upon without it.  Using the internet to book tickets and accommodations also takes a great deal of hassle out of travel.  So why resist technology?

• Be prepared for everything

Between wild weather fluctuations, medical issues, and changes of plans I’ve learned that you can never be too paranoid when packing for or planning a trip.  The allergy pills?  Used them.  The After Bite?  Used that.  The expired bit of prescription dry skin cream?  Used that.  Three and a half bottles of lactase? Used them all and wished I’d brought more. Not to mention the multiple bathing suits, warm pants, boots, etc.  Some people pride themselves on minimalist packing, but I pride myself on never being without the things I need and avoiding borrowing things from others at all costs.  A blanket?  I’ve got that.  A cup?  I’ve got that too (as a functional souvenir).  And extra money in the bank is essential too!  Expect to spend more than you think!

• Field school won’t change you completely

I’m still a total control freak and absolute wimp when it comes to socializing.  Just because you read about people travelling and learning to just go with the flow or living some carefree artist life doesn’t mean you’ll do it too.  Have I got a bit braver?  Maybe, but not by much.  Still, I’ve learned a lot and made a great group of new friends.  In the end the experience was worth it.

Last week our group was given the opportunity to visit the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris for a tour and to study physical copies of the modernist periodical Transition.  Following this we were asked to choose an article from a selection of modernist magazines to analyse.  I have chosen “Futurist Standards of Measurement” by F.T. Marinetti, which was in Transition, #7, 1927, and was published in Paris (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k64580194/f188.item.r=measurement). 

As the title of the article suggests, it is essentially a way to review pieces of literature, theatrical productions, or other pieces of art in a way that suits “the purposes of the modern reader, who demands exactness, speed and simultaneousness” (175).  To do this Marinetti outlines a list of points that a reviewer should stick to when analysing a work, and uses a play, Psyche by Giurio Beliaieff, as an example.  The points vary based on what form of media one intends to review; for the play Marinetti uses the categories of “author,” “conception,” “subject,” “original features or findings,” “interpreters,” “staging and lighting,” “costumes,” and “public,” while for a book he suggests similar but slightly fewer categories (as some of the above are irrelevant in that case) (176-177).

When I first read this piece I was confused but intrigued.  It seemed to be in direct contrast to the Stein and Hemingway that we have been reading the last couple of weeks.  Stein’s Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas feels long and full of run-ons, while Hemingway’s A Moveable Feast feels short and to-the-point but focuses on weird details.  In fact, the only thing that these books seem to have in common with what this article suggests is a feeling of “simultaneousness” (175).  Personally, I do not quite understand what Marinetti means by this in his own piece.  In the Stein and Hemingway I think that the “simultaneousness” comes from the way they often switch between who they are talking about or what they are talking about, but Marinetti’s article does not do that; it is split into a clear and distinct list format.  Perhaps what he means by this is what he says in his point number three, that such a measurement should create a “synthetic impression” that will allow a reader to “grasp the different values, sometimes opposed to one another, of the work in question” (175).  Therefore, the article is both separate from and connected to other works at the time.

Additionally, the way that the article is written proves its own importance.  It talks about things needing to be fast and straightforward and therefore it is itself.  This fits with Marinetti’s stance as a futurist as the movement saw speed, youth, violence, etc. as the most crucial ways to create change in a society.  To a futurist such as Marinetti change was critical to society and so his piece emphasizes the importance of moving towards what he saw as the future and away from the less straightforward forms of writing.

To a modern reader it may not appear innovative or even interesting.  However, when one compares the piece to reviews of art or literature today there are many similarities, and it is therefore interesting that the piece was written over ninety years ago.  The way that Marinetti breaks his sample review in to different points reminds me of the way that movie reviews are shown in magazines today.  I also think that his point about how the “modern reader” is busy and distracted can be compared to the chaotic and fast-paced way that the world runs today, as can his point about a modern critic being able to value an author “even when it is necessary to condemn his work” or vice-versa.  In fact, most of his points have some connection to contemporary appreciation of art, literature, and film.

With these facts in mind, one can see that Marinetti’s article is an important piece as far as modernist experimentation goes.  It is different from other writers of the time and seems to have been on the right track to arrive at what some writers do today.  However, in regard to the digital exhibit we are making (“Manifestos, Experiments, & Awakenings in Paris’ Modernist Literary Reviews”) the connection is a little weak due to the fact that it does not obviously connect to Paris.  If anything, I think this proves that the little magazines of Paris were far-reaching, both in their effects and contents in terms of influencing readers and being influenced by writers with different ideas themselves.

Hi everyone, I’m Bethany and I’m a third-year university student from British Columbia, Canada.  I’ll be using this blog to document my experiences while on a France field school to study English literature. 

Only one week until we leave!

Yesterday we had our first real trip out as a group and visited the Vancouver Art Gallery to see the French Moderns: Monet to Matisse show that they have visiting from the Brooklyn Museum.  I enjoyed the art, and the tour guide provided some interesting insights into the paintings, but I also learned my first real lesson of the field school: that I should take notes and pictures of the things that I wish to discuss in these blog posts.  I tried to live in the moment during the tour and look at the paintings without having my phone out, but now that I’m writing this I wish I had paid more attention to artist names and such.  I only began to take pictures after our group tour was over, when my friend and classmate, Molly, began talking about taking candids and such in front of the paintings.  Of course, me being the kind of person I am, the “candids” of me all turned out to be completely inappropriate at worst and completely non-educational at best.  I did enjoy myself though.

Nevertheless, I did pick up at least a little bit of information about the show!  We learned about French painting academies and how the ideal painter during that time, in the 1800s, was one who was able to create works that looked like pictures, which were very realistic and were without visible brushstrokes.  We also learned about how this eventually gave way to more individualism through the appearance of Impressionism (which used rougher, bolder brushstrokes), Fauvism (which included non-realistic colours), and even more abstract forms of art (which made objects nearly unrecognizable).  Of these types of art, I think that Impressionism is my favourite because I enjoyed the landscape paintings done in that style, and thought it was very interesting that they appeared differently depending on whether you looked at them from far away or from closer up.  One example that our tour guide used to describe this was Rising Tide at Pourville by Claude Monet, in which the water appeared purple from far away, and more multicoloured when you are closer to it.

Anyways, I am getting excited (and nervous!) about the trip, but I am also looking forward to leaving the other parts of my life behind for a couple of months.  Today I had my last day volunteering at a high school, tomorrow I have my last day before I go at the hardware store where I do customer service, and on Wednesday I have my last day tutoring the Korean international students that I teach English to.  Time really is going by too quickly, and it feels like I have way too much to do, but I’m sure I’ll get through it!  France here I come!