Author: Talia Vaughan

So, for Spring Break I was hanging out around on campus, getting caught up on sleep, relaxing, and video game playing. I you check out my google map you can see how I spent my break and what mapping means within the specific video game I was playing throughout the two weeks. To not risk repeating myself too much, I’d like to write about my (minimal) driving experience I had during break.

I’ve always been aware of, but never consciously thought about how I understand directions when driving, or even walking somewhere. This break, though, I started to think about I directionally map myself when I’m travelling anywhere. I’m an incredibly visual person, and when I end up walking or driving anywhere, or even when I’m doing a math problem or something, I try to visualize the map or floor plan or graph that I’m working with in my head. So when I’m driving I try to copy in my head either a map I’ve seen or a gps I’ve used of the directions I need to get where I need to go.

This makes using a gps kind of difficult with me in any long-term event. Don’t get me wrong, I love using gps because then I don’t have to think as much, but when I do use the gps then I don’t end up paying as much attention to my surroundings as I probably should. In terms of thinking of a map within my head, then, I only think of the gps route I use and not other roadways or streets so then I end up getting easily confused if I have to take a different road than the memorized gps route. For most people this probably isn’t a bother, but I just like to know where I am and where I’m going spatially, and having a map or a layout of where I am helps me to feel more comfortable or less anxious when travelling or whatever. It’s definitely interesting, and makes me think that I should get some road maps to study or something of the area.

I found it to be more of a challenge than anything to create a physical map of the Unknown Island when we didn’t actually have much information to go on. When Kelt and I decided to go the 3D route, I thought it would make representing the island easier because then we could show how the main character and the woman moved through physical space on a model like a cube, or globe, or the eventual boat model.

I was very wrong about it being easy, I think. At least for me. Kelt and I had so many ideas that we wanted to try to do from 3D printing, to painting, to creating texture on the model itself, like a diorama, to try to use a bunch of senses and try to create the Unknown Island. But then when it actually came time to make the model, we found that we didn’t quite have the time or resources to create something that completely matched our vision. To me it was frustrating in many ways, but also eye opening because it showed me that 2D representations of 3D concepts can be easier because there’s only one sense really, sight, that is used. I think I would, or at least be aware of, in the future how time, resources, and also a lack of complete knowledge/information that we had from just the story itself influences how we can manipulate the information into a model of some sort. I take this group project as a learning experience, and I think I can better appreciate how Renaissance map-makers had to try to create something out of incomplete knowledge of the world. “Easier said than done” is definitely the operative phrase here.

Note: I didn’t have a book copy, but used an online pdf, so my page numbers are most likely off.

When I was reading Book 2, I was struck by the idea that, even though this is a society of equals, ruled democratically, and has no money economy, almost exactly the same kind of hierarchy exists in Utopia as in any other European kingdom (England, France, Spain, etc.) of the time. We talked in class about how this text is meant mainly, or even purely, for governments and not for individuals or even for communities of people. This society exists as having equal standing for men, given that said men are not enslaved/indentured laborers.

For example, while this is a democratic government where all people supposedly get a say in each and every decision, there are appointed magistrates (Syphogrants/Philarchs) and head magistrates (Tranibores/Archpilarchs) (pg. 71). If this didn’t already show that there is some difference in decision-making between “normal people” and magistrates, we even have different levels of magistrates, and even a Prince, who all get special treatment, such as being first in line for the “best things” a physician prescribes at the hospital (pg. 86) or get special seating arrangements at the dinner table (pg. 88). These kinds of examples are strewn in throughout the book, and all point toward a strict hierarchy based upon some sort of status.

But what was this status marked by? Clearly not material goods, right? In the chapter entitled “Of the Traveling of the Utopians,” we see that Utopians use gold and silver as “worthless” metals to either eat or drink out of, or make into “chains and fetters for their slaves…as a badge of infamy” (pg 96). This shows that these people pride themselves in not lusting after gold, instead using the precious metals as simple household objects. This is interesting, to me, because Thomas More is attempting to show or satirize the West’s obsession with material wealth, and advocates for more practical materials, like iron. I see this as an okay way to show how Utopia could be better in how economy is not based around wealth, but around production, but I feel like he cleanly falls flat in other areas such as how this economy works (by having everyone robotically work for six hours a day and then have planned leisure time) where everyone gets equal goods, but clearly the “higher-ups” are “more equal” and get better things.

So, we kind of sort of see More trying to build a community that is equal based on wealth, but also has some understandable setbacks because he is, in fact, writing for the King. I can get that if I’m thinking as a contemporary at the time. The way that Thomas More really just ruins this Utopia for me is where he insinuates where the real source of hierarchy is: in knowledge/education. People gain status, not from wealth, but my how much they learn. For example, “sometimes a mechanic so employs his leisure hours hours as to make a considerable advancement in learning is eased from being a tradesman and ranked among the learned men” who are “ambassadors, their priests, their Tranibors, and the Prince himself” (pg 79). Wait, did I read that correctly? Everyone is equal in this society, but if you have “more” then you are “better” and thus have a better station.

Ultimately, this Utopia seems, to me, like the exact same thing as life in Europe/England at the time, with only a couple minor changes, or rather, minor illusions, that cover up how society is organized. People are equal, but some people are just more equal. And that just makes me think that More used this text, not as a call for action, but just as a satire on the dystopian frameworks of England at the time.

As we talked about for a little bit today in class, Columbus’ second voyage was mainly used as a means to map trade, and since he couldn’t find any spices or metals (though he told Ferdinand and Isabella so) he switched his focus to the trade of people. I find this very interesting and telling of how Columbus and his company viewed themselves over people, not just because they were in any way terrible people for enslaving others, but in the way that they viewed themselves enslaving others as a morally just or “good” thing to do.

Partway into the second voyage we find Columbus and his men searching for the village they left behind, and were later told that rival tribes killed them and injured the king, Guacamari. While they were told this information, however, they also “complained at the same time that the Christians had taken three or four women apiece” (pg 148). This, to me (but I definitely can’t say for certain), that Guacamari’s people got tired of the attitude of the Christians and killed them themselves. But what was the attitude of the Christians toward the native peoples?

When I was reading, one passage that really struck me was the one on page 139 of a lieutenant who took a native woman and kept her as a whore. The image was gruesome yet fitting, in my mind, of what conquerors could and did do. That the Christians defended each other and sought restitution for the loss of the settlement yet completely disregarded any fault they could have had in the situation is most definitely telling to Columbus and his men’s character.

For me, this brings up an interesting point in terms of mapping. We talked about this a little bit in class today as well, but I would like to comment further on the idea that Columbus wasn’t “mapping” for exploration or really for settlement, but merely for monetary gain. First this was for discovering gold, but then for using the native population when Columbus had to cover his ass in delivering to the Catholic monarchs. We classified this type of mapping as for trade, but I see it really only as a map for conquest. Trade, to me, would at least involve some sort of mutual gain, but enslavement of a people and  stealing resources is pretty much just conquest in my opinion.

So what does this say to me in terms of mapping in general? I think that, again to go back to a topic we’ve touched upon before, mapping is very subjective for something that should only give the facts. By “mapping,” I’m talking about both the act of map-making and the subject of a map. I’m sure if you had the native peoples Columbus saw also make a map (of travel, trade, the “known world,” etc.) it would be incredibly different. And that is not to say that either group of people were more intelligent or able to make maps (though by the end of the second voyage I’m really doubting Columbus’ skill), but that different people see or experience the world in different ways. This may be super meta/theological/religious studies-based of me, but different peoples grow and experience the world through different lenses, and those lenses determine how they 1) live together, and 2) interact with other groups/peoples.

There are most definitely flaws in Columbus’ party, and surely flaws on the native side of things so as to not over romanticize the other side of the story (but I don’t have evidence on the lives of these people in this time in any case). So I guess my main point in this is to try to point out how conceptually Columbus may have been wrong in thinking about these peoples, and how history is only told through one lens, and not every one (I would definitely love to be able to understand native Cuban life in this time period, but I can’t).

What I found particularly interesting about Saramago’s Tale of the Unknown Island was the love story between the man and the cleaning woman, and what that meant for the discovery of the Unknown Island in the man’s dream. What I mean about this is that I found this story ultimately a story about a “map” to one’s self in terms of desires (the man wanting the cleaning woman), fears (that the cleaning woman will leave), and goals (setting out on the journey on the boat).

In the story, we are told through the man and the king’s conversation that there can’t be an unknown island because all the known islands are found, and any unknown islands that are talked about must then be known because they are talked about (pg 12-13). When thinking about this statement when it’s first given in the story, it’s confusing but it does make sense because how can someone know and talk about something that’s unknown? As the story goes on, though, and especially by the end of the book, this statement is complicated because, sure this statement is true for landmasses, but it is not so true for a person’s mind and discovery of a true identity.

Now, if that isn’t confusing enough, I think what I mean about this is that in the story we are geared up and up for an actual journey on an actual boat. However, the man isn’t able to get a crew, and must go home to the boat empty handed to the cleaning woman by the end of the day. So, we are instead given a journey on a boat that turns into an island within the man’s mind, or more precisely, his dreams.  This shows us what the man really wants in the woman and in his journey, or rather, his life. I think, then, that this story (though I may be getting into overly sappy stuff right now) is about  a man who is discovering what he wants and how he wants to live his life through a map of his dreams.

However, since this map and this discovery is only in his dreams, and dreams are largely forgotten by the morning, the man only has an inkling of what he wants by the time he wakes up in the morning. So, in order to remember and fully realize his dream-map in life, the man and the cleaning woman, along with their boat must “finally set to sea, in search of itself” (p. 51), at the end of the book. I think that, ultimately, this book is about checking in, or journeying with  oneself, to create a map of the self, or a map of one’s life.

End super sappiness (guess that’s my mood today).