More Definition
Posted by eng73 on September 16, 2008
How does the principle of definition work in the following passage from Collections of Nothing?
On a personal level, the collection speaks of love and its loss, self-worth and self-hatred, and the awkwardness of my own connection to other people. On an impersonal level, it speaks of the riches and excesses of an era of late twentieth-century life. It testifies to the remarkable liberty of a middle-class academic to satisfy his hungers in diverse, luxurious, laughably mundane, and occasionally exotic ways, and at the same time it begs the question of why that liberty was exercised to these ends (p. 96)
September 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
In the above passage from Collections of Nothing, we see King defines himself on three different levels as he applies the “collection of nothing” to the extremely personal level, the absolute impersonal level and a level somewhere in between. He first describes the “love and loss, self-worth and self-hatred” that his collections represent; his personal experiences, his troubled youth, and his self-perceptions of minimal worth and awkwardness have led him to see this act of “collecting nothing” as a personal reflection of his life. His collections of worthless, loveless objects reflect his personal qualities and experiences (as was touched upon many times in the previous blog) and therefore, his collections define him. However, King then moves on to the greatest scale, explaining how his collections speak to the problems experienced by the rest of the world and mankind. His collections then quickly take on an entirely new depth. Instead of representing an individual person, an individual life and purpose, they are an example of what all the world is not: humble. He sees the world today as materialistic, that people are defined by their property, money and physical possessions. Yet, he defines himself by defining the rest of the world. He collects nothing, objects lacking worth, going against the usual practice of the materialistic collectors of the world. By defining the rest of the humanity, he defines himself as one who dissents from it. Finally, King moves down to a midpoint between the absolute personal (himself) and the absolute impersonal (rest of the world). He goes on to describe how these worthless objects are collected by only one “type” of person: “the middle-class academic” with a hunger to satisfy. He defines the group of people to which he belongs: those who seek to fill the voids of their lives in diverse and exotic ways with “laughably mundane” objects. Though this “type” of person may be the minority, there are more people out there who, just like King, are attempting to make up for lost love in their lives by collecting “nothing.” King, again, defines himself on this level as he associates himself with this group of people.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
The aforementioned passage on page 96 has a rather unique relationship with the word “definition.” Collections are relatable to what they define and what they define is directly relatable to collections. On a personal level, according to Davies, collections represent certain personal moments in the collectors mind and heart. On an impersonal level, however, they represent the materialistic value of their true “market worth.” Are collections defined on their personal or impersonal levels? How can one cope with these two conflicting ideas? I believe that collections work on a personal level. Many of my own collections would seem worthless to anyone else, yet to me they are special and meaningful. The author goes on to explain that the everyday middle class American has the luxury and leisure of collecting certain items. Yet, this liberty leaves the question of “excess” within the readers mind. How much collecting is too much? Is there a certain limit for collections, or should the collector go all out in his or her quest for the newest label off a Campbell’s soup can? The constrictions offered by the word definition should not apply here. Definition is a rather limiting word, that sets certain boundaries for creativity. Collections are the extension of the soul, and should therefore not be limited. The author poses the question of why are collections exercised with such liberty. The answer is fairly simple; because they can be. Collections are defined on a personal level, and what we collect is a direct reflection of who we are. We are not defined by collections, but collections are defined by us. Collections are exercised to such a degree because they can be, and no definition should constrain the boundaries of the human mind’s capability of creativity.
-Emily
September 16th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
When King describes his collection of labels, he notes that he is attempting to fill a void in his life. Throughout the book, the author frequently mentions how this hollowness in his life is due to an inability to love or be loved, as well as a problematic childhood. Therefore, it is highly ironic that King is attempting to collect objects of apparent insignificance to represent love, while he is constantly mentioning how these objects are “nothing.” This belief is exemplary proof of how King is essentially defining himself through his collection. By referring to his objects as “nothing” and “worthless,” the author is in essence defining himself as such. In fact, in the aforementioned passage, he even explains how his collection speaks of “self-hatred” and his own social ineptitude. As a result, King is defining himself by his collection and classifying himself as a “middle-class academic.” However, I do not believe that people should define or limit themselves to a predestined category. The freedom that this country permits forces me to question why a person would want to be defined by something or classified into a particular category. As Emily so eloquently states in her post, “no definition should constrain the boundaries of the human mind’s capability of creativity.” I am often perplexed about why human beings, who have so much to offer in life, restrict and voluntarily sort themselves into classes based on their lifestyles. King places himself in the category of the rare few who are not a slight bit materialistic. In the posted passage, King juxtaposes what he calls the “riches and excesses of an era of late twentieth-century life” with his modest collection of evident “junk.” Why can’t these two categories converge? Does a person have to be completely free of materialism to fulfill that category, or vice versa? I am of the opinion that people’s lives should not be clearly outlined like a well-organized file cabinet. Since people are capable of having vast ranges of interests, it is physically impossible for all of these pastimes to merge into one category. Therefore, it is even less probable that a person can be defined by his or her collections or interests.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
King presents unfamiliar angles to defining his collection in the passage above. Like Mary, I believe that he gives his collections of nothing three distinct definitions. However, I interpret the meanings of his definitions differently. At this point in the book, I believe that King’s troubled childhood no longer plays a role in his collecting. That was only the catalyst that commenced the habit that both tortures and satisfies his soul. In the first sentence of the selected passage he mentions “the awkwardness of my own connection to other people.” He has transitioned from childhood to adulthood. He is making a living for himself rather than being cared for by his family. His troubled childhood is over and his troubled adulthood is beginning. It is not the mistakes or regrets he had as a child that is driving him to collect - it is now a factor of being incapable to find a mate, the most primal priority of all.
His next definition, covering the subject of materialism in the modern era, is a positive one in my opinion. Although mass consumption of processed goods has brought about many skeptics, it allows King to feed the unknown aspect of his collection that keeps him on his knees begging for more. On page 97, King remarks, “I talk about how the collection helps us see the world anew and recognize rarity and richness in the things of common life. Though once they were common and cheap, some of my labels would be as difficult to replace as a Cimabue altarpiece.” (Like many, I had no idea what a Cimabue altarpiece was until I “googled” it, but I soon found that Cimabue was a great Italian artist whose works dominated the 1200s.) King finds an unusual worth in his collections that nobody else seems to see. His socially absurd collections give him a sense of individuality is a world that seems to be getting smaller by the day.
His third definition, an extremely specific one, attempts to juggle the two preceding definitions. It calls upon the ease of satisfying his own needs in a world of excessive production. Furthermore, it reinforces King’s life-long inquiry into his hunger to collect and the pain and pleasure that it gives him.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Throughout “Collections of Nothing” William Davies King has made himself vulnerable to the reader by offering insight into his life and his trials and tribulations. Essentially the entire memoir is a definition of who this man really is, and why and how he came to collect the “junk” that he does. As Mary mentioned the previous passage specifically defines the definition of collections to King on different levels. The first level mentioned is the personal connection and definition of King’s collections to himself. He speaks of “love and loss, self worth and self hate, and his awkward connections to people”. Ultimately he is defining his own experiences through this statement. He is speaking of his discovery of love and then the pain of losing it; maybe he is speaking of his marriage and divorce or even the objects he once collected that he parted with. He is speaking of his youth and his troubled relationship with his family especially his sister, and finally speaks of his identity issues, which would later lead to his social awkwardness. The “junk” that King collected would be the relationship between that statement and who he was then and is now. The impersonal level speaks to the “typical” collector. To the ones with which he can’t relate to, the collector of antiques and objects that to society appear to have value either sentimental or financial. And lastly as Emily stated he speaks to the idea of “excess”. When have we collected enough? Or collected too much? Do we collect just to collect? Or do we collect because it means something to us? Do we want our collections to define who we really are? Or do we want it to define us to the outside world, as we would like to be perceived? Collections no matter how you define them, personal or impersonal means something to an individual, and whether you categorize the collector in the personal level or impersonal, it offers some insight into the character of the collector.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
As a result of his turbulent childhood, King feels a loss of identity and his habitual hoarding is an attempt to lend himself a unique persona to combat his perpetual feeling of vacancy. On page 31, King describes his uncle’s cousin Marsh, “Marsh himself was rarely seen, but I heard stories of his har-har-har attitude toward buying anything and everything impractical (mechanical toys, guns of all sorts, a fire engine and a hearse, vending machines, and things to do with William McKinley or his great aunt Ida) and already I knew I wanted such stories to be told about me.” This quote illustrates the author’s perception that collections define one’s being and create an individual character in people who have none. Although King believes that one’s collection defines oneself, it is instead the collector who defines the collection. It is a common misinterpretation to assume that the inner quality of the human being in question is structured in accordance to his collection. Instead, it is his collection which is a physical tangible manifestation of the collector’s self. This mistake of accrediting the collection with defining the collector is commonly made because the collection is directly in front of us, while all of the components which are amassed to form each distinct human life form resides in the inner most sanctity of secrecy: our minds. We as humans can monitor the degree to which we expose our true selves to the rest of humankind, but a collection is a corporeal object to be seen and judged by all. Therefore, we commonly define a person by what is in front of us, because that is all we have to see, forgetting oftentimes that the personality locked within was responsible for defining the limits of the collection. This concept is further substantiated by the degree to which we were able to analyze King’s psyche by his misshapen collection. Yet each of us asserted that it was because of his childhood, his already developed distinct human identity which contributed to his idiosyncratic impulse to amass the discarded. Ultimately, it is King’s collection which exposes his true and terribly bizarre colors on both a personal and impersonal level. Furthermore, I think Emily’s assertion about what exactly the liberty King is referring to is correct, that this liberty is the middle class American luxury and leisure of collecting certain items of average cost and value. Yet King notes that this luxury of the middle class to purchase of items of pure novelty is oddly exuberant and a seemingly ridiculous to utilize this liberty. Essentially, King is referring to the middle class symptom of modern consumerism, to amass items of little consequence in an effort to add plumage to the cap of a seemingly inconsequential existence.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
In Collections of Nothing it is clear that King certainly enjoys defining his collections and telling the reader their personal impact on him. When you define an object or thing you give it a distinct meaning or significance. This passage is an excellent example of him further defining his collection. King has constantly stated what his collection is comprised of, which is its basic definition. However through this passage King is giving his collection further definition by explaining its personal and impersonal significance. By simply stating what his collection speaks of, King is associating specific emotions and feelings with his collection thus giving it further definition. Also, this passage is merely a microcosm of what King has been saying throughout the entire novel. King is defining himself as a human being and is doing so by defining his collections. Like Mary and others have stated, when King says “the collection speaks of love and its loss, self-worth and self-hatred, and the awkwardness of my own connection to other people” he is implying that he collects junk and objects that may seem utterly unimportant to others because of his difficult childhood. By doing this he is both further defining his collection and himself, because he is stating the significance of his collection on a personal level, which in turn defines his character. I have several collections that at first glance may seem to be just “things” with little or no importance. However, when I explain their significance my collections suddenly become more unique and distinct, which in turn defines my collections to a greater extent, and also gives insight about my character. Also in this passage King explains the impersonal significance of his collection. He states how his collection “testifies to the remarkable liberty of a middle-class academic to satisfy his hungers in diverse, luxurious, laughably mundane, and occasionally exotic ways” which again further defines his collection. King is explaining his view on society, which he feels is filled with materialism. This helps form a stronger definition of King’s character and his beliefs.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I find the way Mary and Teddy looked at King’s definition very interesting. I agree that King split his definition of his collection into three distinct yet closely intertwined categories – the personal, the impersonal, and one in between the extremes – in a very concise and honest way. However, I disagree with their thoughts about how collections, King’s in particular, define the collector.
Reading “Collections of Nothing” and following King’s interesting and unique story led me to decide that collections, taken merely for the objects they contain, do not define their owner. As Alex pointed out, every person is capable of monitoring how much truth and private information is exposed about them through most media – either collections or other personal possessions. In that way, anybody can consciously start a collection in order to make a contradictory, ironic, or simply false statement. This collection will not necessarily define them in the way observers will expect, because the collector had specifically modeled their collection to produce a certain reaction from potential viewers. Of course, one may argue that what the collector wants to say about themselves is just as true as the conclusions an unbiased observer may draw from another source. This is true, but the fact remains that a collector potentially has the power to shape an observer’s reaction without the observer’s knowledge or control.
Collections taken at more than simply “face value” can say a lot about their owner. The definition to come from such an analysis will be much deeper under the surface than the simpler explanation that a collection begins with an interest in the subject matter. In King’s example, his collections of “nothing” do not reflect a deep interest in the history of soup can labels. Instead, they, at first subconsciously, stem from the “nothingness” in his life and his dissatisfaction with himself and his environment. An uninformed stranger will likely draw the wrong conclusion without knowing full disturbing story.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Throughout King’s life so far, we have been exposed to many different phases that allow us to venture further into the depths of his mind, thoughts, and subconscious. Every phase of his life has its own individual definition that relates his collecting to his experiences. Until about page 57, King’s collections were surrounded by one, standard emotion, that ran as a theme for that select year or two. For instance; love, loss, acceptance, desire, and family. Yet, it wasn’t until this passage that King actually explained that his definition for his collection at the time was more than a solitary feeling or concern. Thus, with more than a single driving force behind his creativity, he turned from a collector to an artist. The proof of his newly found artistry is right in the above passage. Most artists are motivated by love, loss, lack of acceptance, self -worth, self- hatred, and world issues, like those that Mary described. (All of which he has experienced.) So what does this mean? It means that all of the repetitive babble about the worthlessness of his collecting was, in turn, worthless. He isn’t “Collection nothing,” he is collecting symbols for peace, love, hate and self- realization. He has taken his “undefined” hobby and turned it into a defined talent. He is no longer a “lost soul” that has no true place. He has transformed into a definition himself, an artist. He uses the emotions from the phases of his life and finally connects them all into a complex and, again, paradoxical theme. He doesn’t have to hid his craft or eye for the unusual. Now people embrace his gift and find that he has a deep connection to the art that he produces. King is no longer a collector of nothing, he is no longer without a definition.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:10 am
As King’s collections have progressed and matured, so too has his motives for devoting his time to this idiographic hobby. In his earlier years, King rationalized that his collecting was a means of permeating the void left by his family. As Hannah said, King was benumbed by his family’s lack of affection as, as a result, stunted his ability to act affectionate towards others. However, as King crosses over into adulthood, he becomes more concerned with what his collections can offer to his character. Now that King has come to terms with his childhood adversities, he becomes more focused on finding his identity. Though I agree with Alex’s vindication that there is a connection between the collector’s identity and the collection, I’m not sure it is that simple. It is my conjecture that, while a collection might be a materialization of a collector’s character, the exact opposite might be concurrently true. This is to say that though King is in control as to what he collects, he looks to his collections for guidance in shaping his identity. On page 93, King explains this relationship between the collector and the collected: “The bigger the collection gets, the harder it is to keep. The bigger the collection gets, the more completely it represents me and my history, and the more I feel oppressed by it…..It is a burgeoning collection full of emptiness. It is a collection of nothing. That is my title, I am its lord, its consumer and author and subject and victim”. In this passage King admits that this collection is a part of him and, in a sense, defines parts of him, but he by no means wants his identity to be defined by his collections. This is not to say that King does not wish to be defined as a means of some sort of rebellion, he merely wishes to be the one to define himself.
As Mary, Teddy, and others pointed King classifies his collecting as three different layers; the personal, impersonal, and intermediate level. In diagnosticating his collections on these different levels, he is stripping his collections of their original purpose: to resonate within himself. By offering his collections to the outside world, he is making his collections all the less intimate and relevant to his life.