Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Comment on Final Work
On the copy you gave me to me you indicated that I should follow Rachel Bargas's blog to record every assignment, but she only had 16 posts so I was unsure if that was all of them. I made sure to do all the questions she had highlighted in her blog so I hope that is what you were looking for. I also went through can changed all the notes to full sentences, except if it was from a guest speaker, and eliminated useless extra stuff. Hope this is what you are looking for!
Monday, April 27, 2009
The End of On Beauty
Howard at the End
By the end, Howard has done pretty much everything to sabotage his career and his life. This final talk is his big chance to redeem himself, and he shows up an hour late and without his speech. He could have at least have tried to wing it, but he chooses not to. His speech was against Rembrandt, and he couldn't do it because he didn't feel that way. He ruined his own life because he hated what he was doing so much. As he stood up there on the podium, it seems as if Howard realizes all his mistakes for the first time. He cannot speak against the genius in the art because he sees in that final painting the beauty that he used to see in Kiki. He attempts to portray this to her through his look, but I fear it is too little too late for him in that regard. The weight and import of what he has done bears down on him. The way in which the story ends truly puts Howard in his place for failing to realize what beauty and genius are, and for idealizing, as he said others should not, some faulty standard of beauty. Howard is immersed in the debate on objectification. He says he is above the bias and the mentality, but he is the first one to fall to it (in the form of his affair). And one was a student, which is beyond unforgivable.
Howard and his relationship to his father? His father does not really give a shit about Howard and his work. He is really lower class and just sits in his house and watches t.v. and does not read. Howard leaves all that behind and "surpasses" him. Is that perhaps troubling to Howard? I would say that it isn't that much of an influence. I do not feel that he is troubled by betraying his own class. There are always many subconscious factors that can contribute to certain decisions, but of all the stresses on Howard I feel this is one of the more minutae.
By the end, Howard has done pretty much everything to sabotage his career and his life. This final talk is his big chance to redeem himself, and he shows up an hour late and without his speech. He could have at least have tried to wing it, but he chooses not to. His speech was against Rembrandt, and he couldn't do it because he didn't feel that way. He ruined his own life because he hated what he was doing so much. As he stood up there on the podium, it seems as if Howard realizes all his mistakes for the first time. He cannot speak against the genius in the art because he sees in that final painting the beauty that he used to see in Kiki. He attempts to portray this to her through his look, but I fear it is too little too late for him in that regard. The weight and import of what he has done bears down on him. The way in which the story ends truly puts Howard in his place for failing to realize what beauty and genius are, and for idealizing, as he said others should not, some faulty standard of beauty. Howard is immersed in the debate on objectification. He says he is above the bias and the mentality, but he is the first one to fall to it (in the form of his affair). And one was a student, which is beyond unforgivable.
Howard and his relationship to his father? His father does not really give a shit about Howard and his work. He is really lower class and just sits in his house and watches t.v. and does not read. Howard leaves all that behind and "surpasses" him. Is that perhaps troubling to Howard? I would say that it isn't that much of an influence. I do not feel that he is troubled by betraying his own class. There are always many subconscious factors that can contribute to certain decisions, but of all the stresses on Howard I feel this is one of the more minutae.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Guest Speaker: On Beauty
Comparisons
Sins - what not to do (Ideal being blamed by the not ideal)
Snow - purity
They - beautiful
We - ugly people
Wound - beautiful
They are the damned, the beautiful know this.
- Is there a contradiction here too?
Is the poem suggesting there is no way to just draw a line between beautiful and ugly.
Possible reason for why the pronouns are never fully explained.
Non-specificity in fact brings out this theme.
On Friday discussed idea of "living my life for my husband" (pg 206-7 Fight with Howard)
A) Living FOR someone
B) Living WITH someone
Kiki thought she was living with Howard, but after talking to Carlene and learning of Howard's infidelity she realizes she was living for him.
Constant role reversal and contradiction -- characters seem to think or say they stand for something, yet really they stand for something ese entirely, even the opposite of what thy originally said.
Dichotomy of what is ideal!
Forster - Howard's End
-Victorian England
-propriety
-anything abnormal is wrong
+two conflicting families. One has a father who controls rules his family strictly (Kipps family). The other family is just two women and they live alone and challenge the status quo (Howard's family). Plot if very similar in the nature of hte conflicts that arise (But it doesn't bring in urban or racial tensions obviously).
-End is very different. Honestly I have no idea whathe is saying. Lots of conflict but in the end it is resolved to the point that they are living together happily, defying Victorian notions.
As we approach the end of the novel, how do the families end up? Are they happy together? Do they uphold societal norms? What should these families be doing?
Voice - what kind of voice? How does one have subjectivity? Power?
+broader themes of identity and representation.
Carl and the others are powerless against the ideas of the university. How do they form notions of themselves.
Sins - what not to do (Ideal being blamed by the not ideal)
Snow - purity
They - beautiful
We - ugly people
Wound - beautiful
They are the damned, the beautiful know this.
- Is there a contradiction here too?
Is the poem suggesting there is no way to just draw a line between beautiful and ugly.
Possible reason for why the pronouns are never fully explained.
Non-specificity in fact brings out this theme.
On Friday discussed idea of "living my life for my husband" (pg 206-7 Fight with Howard)
A) Living FOR someone
B) Living WITH someone
Kiki thought she was living with Howard, but after talking to Carlene and learning of Howard's infidelity she realizes she was living for him.
Constant role reversal and contradiction -- characters seem to think or say they stand for something, yet really they stand for something ese entirely, even the opposite of what thy originally said.
Dichotomy of what is ideal!
Forster - Howard's End
-Victorian England
-propriety
-anything abnormal is wrong
+two conflicting families. One has a father who controls rules his family strictly (Kipps family). The other family is just two women and they live alone and challenge the status quo (Howard's family). Plot if very similar in the nature of hte conflicts that arise (But it doesn't bring in urban or racial tensions obviously).
-End is very different. Honestly I have no idea whathe is saying. Lots of conflict but in the end it is resolved to the point that they are living together happily, defying Victorian notions.
As we approach the end of the novel, how do the families end up? Are they happy together? Do they uphold societal norms? What should these families be doing?
Voice - what kind of voice? How does one have subjectivity? Power?
+broader themes of identity and representation.
Carl and the others are powerless against the ideas of the university. How do they form notions of themselves.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Kiki and the Image of Beauty
The idea of beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Yet even that can be distorted by what is seen as socially preferable. I have met a man who was attracted to a woman, but over time because of social pressure he distanced himself from her and convinced himself she was unattractive. If left to his own devices he could have stayed with her, but the pressure from those around him to find a woman who more closely fits the "supermodel" look was too strong. That is kind of what I thought of with Kiki and Howard. Over time, as her beauty changed, Howard had been socialized and was pressured to be with a woman who was stereotypically beautiful. By some Kiki could be seen as having "let herself go." However this few is unfair and unnecessary. Kiki is required by no one to set herself up by a standard of social beauty. The standard of beauty that should matter to her is whether she is happy within her own skin. It is up to Howard to support her support of herself, something he fails at miserably. His affair only confirms the fact that he does not support her sense of beauty in herself, without any words being spoken.
Yet the stereotypes of female beauty are different depending on the society. During the Middle Ages in parts of Europe is was preferable that a woman be thicker and heavier. It was seen as attractive and a woman who had more curves was the epitome of beauty.
Howard is almost too arrogant in his condescending attitude toward Kiki. He treats her with a slight amount of lovable disdain. Howard acts so far above everyone else's ideas and morals. He sneers at the idea of 'genius', more 'bardolatry'. It is that disdain of what true genius and beauty can be that is Howard's downfall. He cannot see how beautiful his wife is just as he cannot see how beautiful the genius of the art he studies is!
Beauty, culture, and intellect in the case of Claire vs. Kiki?
Claire is the more stereotypically beautiful woman. she is fit, tan, white, highly intellectual compared to Kiki who is larger, black, less educated. They definitely represent opposites of each other. Aside from physical beauty, they also are socially intellectually different. Though they may both be smart women, Claire has a higher educational qualification.
Yet they are both objectified by Howard!
Yet the stereotypes of female beauty are different depending on the society. During the Middle Ages in parts of Europe is was preferable that a woman be thicker and heavier. It was seen as attractive and a woman who had more curves was the epitome of beauty.
Howard is almost too arrogant in his condescending attitude toward Kiki. He treats her with a slight amount of lovable disdain. Howard acts so far above everyone else's ideas and morals. He sneers at the idea of 'genius', more 'bardolatry'. It is that disdain of what true genius and beauty can be that is Howard's downfall. He cannot see how beautiful his wife is just as he cannot see how beautiful the genius of the art he studies is!Beauty, culture, and intellect in the case of Claire vs. Kiki?
Claire is the more stereotypically beautiful woman. she is fit, tan, white, highly intellectual compared to Kiki who is larger, black, less educated. They definitely represent opposites of each other. Aside from physical beauty, they also are socially intellectually different. Though they may both be smart women, Claire has a higher educational qualification.
Yet they are both objectified by Howard!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
On Beauty by Zadie Smith
For a novel to tell you that you need to be a certain way is bad art. But good art is a case or analogy of morals. The author does not have to be a moral person. Not just the straightforward "Here is what I believe, so here is what you should believe." Instead, an author being truthful and honest, despite self-deception, creates good art. It is hard in art the way it is hard in life.
For an author, it is important to take vanity and pride out of the picture and view the world in a more unbiased and honest way. Not deceiving yourself into being too selfish. Art should incorporate multiple points of view of a story and portray them beyond the artist's opinions or morals, for good art at least.
Definition of Culture War: The culture war (or culture wars) in American usage is a metaphor used to claim that political conflict is based on sets of conflicting cultural values. The term frequently implies a conflict between those values considered traditional or conservative and those considered progressive or liberal. The "culture war" is sometimes traced to the 1960s and has taken various forms since then.
Zadie Smith vs. 'Zadie Smith'
-Difference between two people using an author as a figure to represent their morals/ideas. Zadie Smith (conservative one) is the opposite of Zadie Smith (liberal one) but they are both her!
Very often when attacking someone else you are attacking something that closely resembles yourself. The hatred is self-deceiving and you put the things about yourself onto others. So how do you define genius/art/morals? A way to show both sides is to create a character who encompasses the opposite of what you think your morals are and to truly delve into that character and what it represents. You should create a character, not caricature.
This book will take us through the culture wars on both sides and the conflicts that arise from that. Zadie Smith has been a victim of 'bardolatry' by the Left, who supposedly does not do that kind of thing. Focus on genius while we read this novel. (Radical Left is the multi-culturalist, no great authors or great art) (Conservative Right says there is the 'canon' and certain great authors and that is all)
-The Belsey family is an American family living outside Boston. Howard, an Englishman/professor, and Kiki, his African-American wife, and their three children. A very liberal, atheistic family. Yet Jerome(son) is a born-again Christian.
-The Kipps family is an ultra-conservative Christian family from Britain, whos patriarch Monty(Trinidadian) is Howard's nemesis. They compete in academic fields, each touting opposite ideas.
-Howard attacks Monty publicly in an article to a scholarly journal about a painting, and Monty replies by saying Howard has the wrong painting. Howard is humiliated by his mistake.
-Jerome goes and works for Monty over the summer, possibly as a reaction to the liberalism of his family and a need for a conservative shelter. Or simply to get his father's attention. It is comparable to childhood rebellion against father and his ideas, whether for attention or true belief it is unsure. Is he more inclined to rebel at this point because of Howard's affair?
-There is an inextricable link between children and parents, so the effect of the affair on Jerome could be far-reaching, or he could just have a different personality to his father. Preferring celibacy to an active sex life etc. He falls in love with the Kipps family and what they seem to represent. He fell in love with not just a single person, but a family and the ideals that he feels that family represents (even if they in all reality do not).
For an author, it is important to take vanity and pride out of the picture and view the world in a more unbiased and honest way. Not deceiving yourself into being too selfish. Art should incorporate multiple points of view of a story and portray them beyond the artist's opinions or morals, for good art at least.
Definition of Culture War: The culture war (or culture wars) in American usage is a metaphor used to claim that political conflict is based on sets of conflicting cultural values. The term frequently implies a conflict between those values considered traditional or conservative and those considered progressive or liberal. The "culture war" is sometimes traced to the 1960s and has taken various forms since then.
Zadie Smith vs. 'Zadie Smith'
-Difference between two people using an author as a figure to represent their morals/ideas. Zadie Smith (conservative one) is the opposite of Zadie Smith (liberal one) but they are both her!
Very often when attacking someone else you are attacking something that closely resembles yourself. The hatred is self-deceiving and you put the things about yourself onto others. So how do you define genius/art/morals? A way to show both sides is to create a character who encompasses the opposite of what you think your morals are and to truly delve into that character and what it represents. You should create a character, not caricature.
This book will take us through the culture wars on both sides and the conflicts that arise from that. Zadie Smith has been a victim of 'bardolatry' by the Left, who supposedly does not do that kind of thing. Focus on genius while we read this novel. (Radical Left is the multi-culturalist, no great authors or great art) (Conservative Right says there is the 'canon' and certain great authors and that is all)
On Beauty (1-78)
-The Kipps family is an ultra-conservative Christian family from Britain, whos patriarch Monty(Trinidadian) is Howard's nemesis. They compete in academic fields, each touting opposite ideas.
-Howard attacks Monty publicly in an article to a scholarly journal about a painting, and Monty replies by saying Howard has the wrong painting. Howard is humiliated by his mistake.
-Jerome goes and works for Monty over the summer, possibly as a reaction to the liberalism of his family and a need for a conservative shelter. Or simply to get his father's attention. It is comparable to childhood rebellion against father and his ideas, whether for attention or true belief it is unsure. Is he more inclined to rebel at this point because of Howard's affair?
-There is an inextricable link between children and parents, so the effect of the affair on Jerome could be far-reaching, or he could just have a different personality to his father. Preferring celibacy to an active sex life etc. He falls in love with the Kipps family and what they seem to represent. He fell in love with not just a single person, but a family and the ideals that he feels that family represents (even if they in all reality do not).
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Picasso Assignment!
My first reaction is one of confusion. I have never read a work structured quite like this and on a first read it really threw me off. Yet where the plot was twisted, I feel like certain themes and ideas came through bright and clear. Picasso's loneliness and sense of being outcast is clearly demonstrated. She feels distanced from her family, and I think from the language her brother used to abuse her. There is a feeling of pain within her that painting helps to rectify. Art is her form of healing and dealing with the world around her.
Whereas everyone else in her life may use the public staircase and live as everyone says they should, she lives by her private staircase. It is her perception of the world around her that struck me the most. The way the story goes is confusing, but I think it more closely reflects her thoughts and mind. It is a rare case when the mind thinks in linear, storylike fashion. Instead it shows how she perceives things, how she takes the drab black-and-white world around her and paints it in color. She takes an unbearable, painful life and uses are to make it livable and to allow herself to flourish. I feel like the scene where she is incredible pained from the family gathering and she "paints" all of them while they sleep is really powerful. It gives a sense of her taking control of things she previously could not.
Whereas everyone else in her life may use the public staircase and live as everyone says they should, she lives by her private staircase. It is her perception of the world around her that struck me the most. The way the story goes is confusing, but I think it more closely reflects her thoughts and mind. It is a rare case when the mind thinks in linear, storylike fashion. Instead it shows how she perceives things, how she takes the drab black-and-white world around her and paints it in color. She takes an unbearable, painful life and uses are to make it livable and to allow herself to flourish. I feel like the scene where she is incredible pained from the family gathering and she "paints" all of them while they sleep is really powerful. It gives a sense of her taking control of things she previously could not.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Art and Lies!
Art and Lies by Jeanette Winterson
Post-modernism = very collage-like, juxtaposes passages without explanation.
Genre-fiction indicates a formulaic approach to writing.
What literature, what art, is great and why? The place of greatness and artist in conjunction with literature. It is hard to see greatness as widely defined, as seen in those around them. Emerson - in a great person an individual sees their own alienated majesty. People have artistic thoughts and great desires, but convince themselves that they are not great and then go out and worship other people's "great" art (such as Shakespeare). This is because they have projected themselves outward onto someone else. They love themselves by loving someone else. They can't bear to see how great they are. Lots of people's projections, hopes, and dreams are put into a select few.
Why can't we recognize the artistry and greatness in ordinary people?
Playing for Change - A good example of beautiful artistry in common people
We should all consider the possibility of seeing everything we read as great art and treating it as such!
Piece from Art by Jeanette Winterson - She was enthralled by all art. It is a foreign city and we are foolish to think we know it fully. We should not force our ideas onto the culture of art, but live our whole life open to learning and understanding.
Post-modernism = very collage-like, juxtaposes passages without explanation.
Genre-fiction indicates a formulaic approach to writing.
What literature, what art, is great and why? The place of greatness and artist in conjunction with literature. It is hard to see greatness as widely defined, as seen in those around them. Emerson - in a great person an individual sees their own alienated majesty. People have artistic thoughts and great desires, but convince themselves that they are not great and then go out and worship other people's "great" art (such as Shakespeare). This is because they have projected themselves outward onto someone else. They love themselves by loving someone else. They can't bear to see how great they are. Lots of people's projections, hopes, and dreams are put into a select few.
Why can't we recognize the artistry and greatness in ordinary people?
Playing for Change - A good example of beautiful artistry in common people
We should all consider the possibility of seeing everything we read as great art and treating it as such!
Piece from Art by Jeanette Winterson - She was enthralled by all art. It is a foreign city and we are foolish to think we know it fully. We should not force our ideas onto the culture of art, but live our whole life open to learning and understanding.
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Child and Flowers!
Q1: Is the poem the same in these 3 versions?
A: I don't think it is. A large part of poetry is the way that it is presented and read. Line breaks, word flow, punctuation, even where the words appear on a page can change how a poem impacts a reader. These versions each have distinct differences. The way the HTML is presented does not have the same line breaks as the page image, leaving it with a sense of being disjointed. The TEI is so unappealing to the eye and difficult to decipher that it completely destroys the atmosphere of the poem itself. While the actual words of the poem are the same between all 3 versions, they are not the same.
Q2: What difference will digitizing make to our understanding of poems?
A: It will definitely make an impact. Whereas prose can translate fairly easily to the digital medium, poetry is a much more difficult endeavour. It is in many ways dependent upon its presentation. Reading poetry is not simply word choice. So unless the poetry can be digitized in a way that keeps the true presentation intact (I liked the page image best) than I fear that we will lose a basic part of what the poem was intended to convey. There is also the physical aspect of reading something on a screen and being able to hold it in your hand. I can read for hours out of a book where I can only read for short spans on a computer (This may be because I have contacts and they dry out but nonetheless).
A: I don't think it is. A large part of poetry is the way that it is presented and read. Line breaks, word flow, punctuation, even where the words appear on a page can change how a poem impacts a reader. These versions each have distinct differences. The way the HTML is presented does not have the same line breaks as the page image, leaving it with a sense of being disjointed. The TEI is so unappealing to the eye and difficult to decipher that it completely destroys the atmosphere of the poem itself. While the actual words of the poem are the same between all 3 versions, they are not the same.
Q2: What difference will digitizing make to our understanding of poems?
A: It will definitely make an impact. Whereas prose can translate fairly easily to the digital medium, poetry is a much more difficult endeavour. It is in many ways dependent upon its presentation. Reading poetry is not simply word choice. So unless the poetry can be digitized in a way that keeps the true presentation intact (I liked the page image best) than I fear that we will lose a basic part of what the poem was intended to convey. There is also the physical aspect of reading something on a screen and being able to hold it in your hand. I can read for hours out of a book where I can only read for short spans on a computer (This may be because I have contacts and they dry out but nonetheless).
Monday, March 23, 2009
Comparison of Frankenstein versions
Tag Cloud Comparison
The 1831 version utilizes much darker language than the earlier versions. Both 1818 versions use more positive, uplifting language. The two most prominent words for 1818 Thomas are deep and friend, but the other frequently used words are friendship, desire, confidence, and believed. IT seems to show a trend away from lots of negative. The 1831 seems to show a lot more sorrow and misery.
Did Mary Shelley write three different novels?
A: I do not think that she did. I do agree that subtle differences in word choice can have an effect on the larger narrative, but I think that it only changes parts of the interpretation, and then only to the trained eye. A casual reader of Frankenstein would not necessarily grasp the nuances of each version. It is the English scholars, whose job it is to dissect each word of a text, who would see the large differences.
What is the difference in what the stranger agrees to?
A: Thomas 1818 - Focuses more on the possibility of friendship and what it means.
Original 1818 - Focuses more on what type of "unfashioned" creatures men are.
1831 -
How does digitizing the texts help to visualize them?
A: Digitizing the texts allows visualization in a whole new medium, as well as a new degree of accessibility.
The 1831 version utilizes much darker language than the earlier versions. Both 1818 versions use more positive, uplifting language. The two most prominent words for 1818 Thomas are deep and friend, but the other frequently used words are friendship, desire, confidence, and believed. IT seems to show a trend away from lots of negative. The 1831 seems to show a lot more sorrow and misery.
Did Mary Shelley write three different novels?
A: I do not think that she did. I do agree that subtle differences in word choice can have an effect on the larger narrative, but I think that it only changes parts of the interpretation, and then only to the trained eye. A casual reader of Frankenstein would not necessarily grasp the nuances of each version. It is the English scholars, whose job it is to dissect each word of a text, who would see the large differences.
What is the difference in what the stranger agrees to?
A: Thomas 1818 - Focuses more on the possibility of friendship and what it means.
Original 1818 - Focuses more on what type of "unfashioned" creatures men are.
1831 -
How does digitizing the texts help to visualize them?
A: Digitizing the texts allows visualization in a whole new medium, as well as a new degree of accessibility.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Discussion of Aurora Leigh 3/20
Question 3: Can there be heroes in modern life? According to the poem? To you?
I think that there can be heroes in modern life, they are just sometimes difficult to see. According to the poem, heroes that stand out to us from the past seemed ordinary to those who lived during their time. King Arthur was just an ordinary man to Guinevere. And so the way to discover heroes is to just honestly assess and describe the reality of your own life and time. To describe those around you with all of their strengths and flaws through the medium of poetry. The language of poetry can turn an ordinary man into a spectacular hero. The poem would say that while people that would be defined as "heroes" do exist in modern life, they are not the ones who are first thought of. It is men of the past like Charlemagne, King Arthur, or Alexander the Great. But by describing modern life we will almost unwittingly define a new age of heroes. I definitely agree with this assessment. As a historian I can honestly say that it is hard to judge someone during or immediately after they make an impact, and so the passing of time gives a distinct spin on one's view. It also matters what someone defines as a hero. My personal heroes are people that will never be in a history book, never even known by very many other people, but if I were to enshrine them in poetry woven in with my emotions than maybe centuries from now they would be seen as heroes. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Question 3: Can there be heroes in modern life? According to the poem? To you?
I think that there can be heroes in modern life, they are just sometimes difficult to see. According to the poem, heroes that stand out to us from the past seemed ordinary to those who lived during their time. King Arthur was just an ordinary man to Guinevere. And so the way to discover heroes is to just honestly assess and describe the reality of your own life and time. To describe those around you with all of their strengths and flaws through the medium of poetry. The language of poetry can turn an ordinary man into a spectacular hero. The poem would say that while people that would be defined as "heroes" do exist in modern life, they are not the ones who are first thought of. It is men of the past like Charlemagne, King Arthur, or Alexander the Great. But by describing modern life we will almost unwittingly define a new age of heroes. I definitely agree with this assessment. As a historian I can honestly say that it is hard to judge someone during or immediately after they make an impact, and so the passing of time gives a distinct spin on one's view. It also matters what someone defines as a hero. My personal heroes are people that will never be in a history book, never even known by very many other people, but if I were to enshrine them in poetry woven in with my emotions than maybe centuries from now they would be seen as heroes. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Aurora Leigh (cont.)
- Book III, 302-12
1. This passage suggests that Aurora cannot make a living on poetry alone. Though it is the superior medium to prose, it is not the mainstream and as such for her to support herself she must give in and take part in mundane prose occupations such as magazines and cyclopedias.
2. Aurora presents prose and poetry as juxtaposed. One is the hands and the other is the feet. One is a true art form while the other is purely for function. She clearly puts poetry on a plane that prose can never reach.
3. By use of a woman-artist writing a poem about a woman-artist who writes poetry it forms multiple layers of the idea of the importance of the medium. It just re-focuses over and over on the fact that poetry is an essential artistic form.
- Book II, 400-6
1. Aurora calls out Romney for loving a "cause" not a "woman." She is saying that his ends are excellent, and he has a noble cause, but that she is not worthy of it. She states that he loves what she COULD BE for him, not what she is.
- Book II, 671-85
1. Aurora wrote a letter to her aunt saying that God did not want her to marry Romney, and that "At least my soul is not a pauper." She would rather die a poor poetess but with her soul true, than live as a rich wife in a marriage solely for money and her poetry destroyed.
1. This passage suggests that Aurora cannot make a living on poetry alone. Though it is the superior medium to prose, it is not the mainstream and as such for her to support herself she must give in and take part in mundane prose occupations such as magazines and cyclopedias.
2. Aurora presents prose and poetry as juxtaposed. One is the hands and the other is the feet. One is a true art form while the other is purely for function. She clearly puts poetry on a plane that prose can never reach.
3. By use of a woman-artist writing a poem about a woman-artist who writes poetry it forms multiple layers of the idea of the importance of the medium. It just re-focuses over and over on the fact that poetry is an essential artistic form.
- Book II, 400-6
1. Aurora calls out Romney for loving a "cause" not a "woman." She is saying that his ends are excellent, and he has a noble cause, but that she is not worthy of it. She states that he loves what she COULD BE for him, not what she is.
- Book II, 671-85
1. Aurora wrote a letter to her aunt saying that God did not want her to marry Romney, and that "At least my soul is not a pauper." She would rather die a poor poetess but with her soul true, than live as a rich wife in a marriage solely for money and her poetry destroyed.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Aurora Leigh!
Aurora Leigh
Biography of Elizabeth Barrett Browning
b. 1806 -- d. 1861. Her mother died when she was 20, and she published first book of poetry at age 22. She was so famous that in 1850 when Wordsworth died she was considered as a potential poet laureate. She was also very politically radical. She developed a dependence on morphine due to her sickly condition, hugely controlling father. In 1846 she eloped with Robert Barrett Browning. They loved each other deeply, and she wrote some of the most famous English love poetry about him. Ex: "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways..." After she eloped she lived in Italy with Robert and had a child before her death.
Aurora's life is radically different than Elizabeth's. Aurora's mother takes away her aunt's right as lady of the house. Her father meets her mother in Italy and falls madly in love and marries her but she dies only four years later. He is bereft and shiftless following that.
The story develops a sense of God as the "outer infinite." As if babies come from the divine with the touch still on them. Her mother would tell her to be quiet, while her eyes told her the opposite. "Mothers love foolishly, they love best" She hungers for that unconditional love after her mother died. Mothers have an ability to communicate with children that fathers lack. They notice the nuances of emotion and empathy that men miss.
Biography of Elizabeth Barrett Browning
b. 1806 -- d. 1861. Her mother died when she was 20, and she published first book of poetry at age 22. She was so famous that in 1850 when Wordsworth died she was considered as a potential poet laureate. She was also very politically radical. She developed a dependence on morphine due to her sickly condition, hugely controlling father. In 1846 she eloped with Robert Barrett Browning. They loved each other deeply, and she wrote some of the most famous English love poetry about him. Ex: "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways..." After she eloped she lived in Italy with Robert and had a child before her death.
Aurora's life is radically different than Elizabeth's. Aurora's mother takes away her aunt's right as lady of the house. Her father meets her mother in Italy and falls madly in love and marries her but she dies only four years later. He is bereft and shiftless following that.
The story develops a sense of God as the "outer infinite." As if babies come from the divine with the touch still on them. Her mother would tell her to be quiet, while her eyes told her the opposite. "Mothers love foolishly, they love best" She hungers for that unconditional love after her mother died. Mothers have an ability to communicate with children that fathers lack. They notice the nuances of emotion and empathy that men miss.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Lifted Veil!
Exercise on guessing what women think
Since I cant figure out what women think in real life I doubt this will even be close.
Red-haired Woman - "I wish that camera man would stop drooling. He looks like he has never seen a beautiful woman before. It's disgusting. God what a pain to have to spend all this time looking this good just to have a bunch of losers fawn over me."
Blonde-haired Woman- "I was NOT ready for this picture. Nobody told me we were taking pictures today! I didn't have a chance to do my hair the way I wanted or put on a good top or anything! I hope nobody important sees this."
Well apparently the blonde woman is J.K. Rowling and she probably isn't as shallow as my fake thought process made her seem, so just like I thought I still have no idea what women are thinking.
The Lifted Veil
Latimer convinces himself he has preternatural power from his first vision of Prague right after the first time he is sick. He goes and proves he is correct. Or is he? I feel like there is a possibility that he is merely convincing himself of it, when in fact it is not true. Perception is reality, and thus if he perceives he is correct he can convince himself of it. An example of that is when you want someone to be something, you project what you want onto them. He can't read Bertha's mind, but is that a choice because he doesn't want to take the fun out of it or because he can't?
"A person who is totally self-centered will hold complete cruel sway over a person who is of kinder disposition and craves kindness and attention. Seeking the approval of those who sneer the most."
He thinks something can change her and that it is him. This could be linked to how intimidating his father was when he was young, and the reassurance he never got as a child. His mother worshiped him, and then she died. That caused distance for Latimer, and he wants that connection back. He feels cursed/destined/fated to be special. Similar to Satan in Paradise Lost and Victor in Frankenstein.
Since I cant figure out what women think in real life I doubt this will even be close.
Red-haired Woman - "I wish that camera man would stop drooling. He looks like he has never seen a beautiful woman before. It's disgusting. God what a pain to have to spend all this time looking this good just to have a bunch of losers fawn over me."
Blonde-haired Woman- "I was NOT ready for this picture. Nobody told me we were taking pictures today! I didn't have a chance to do my hair the way I wanted or put on a good top or anything! I hope nobody important sees this."
Well apparently the blonde woman is J.K. Rowling and she probably isn't as shallow as my fake thought process made her seem, so just like I thought I still have no idea what women are thinking.
The Lifted Veil
Latimer convinces himself he has preternatural power from his first vision of Prague right after the first time he is sick. He goes and proves he is correct. Or is he? I feel like there is a possibility that he is merely convincing himself of it, when in fact it is not true. Perception is reality, and thus if he perceives he is correct he can convince himself of it. An example of that is when you want someone to be something, you project what you want onto them. He can't read Bertha's mind, but is that a choice because he doesn't want to take the fun out of it or because he can't?
"A person who is totally self-centered will hold complete cruel sway over a person who is of kinder disposition and craves kindness and attention. Seeking the approval of those who sneer the most."
He thinks something can change her and that it is him. This could be linked to how intimidating his father was when he was young, and the reassurance he never got as a child. His mother worshiped him, and then she died. That caused distance for Latimer, and he wants that connection back. He feels cursed/destined/fated to be special. Similar to Satan in Paradise Lost and Victor in Frankenstein.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Q: Are Latimer and Victor similar?
I feel like they are in their eccentricities. Each has a sense of being different from those around of them, of being special, Victor for his genius and Latimer because of his power. They each seek something that will eventually do damage to them. Victor seeks his wildly ambitious and dangerous scientific goals, while Latimer seeks the great unknown that is Bertha. Each has warnings, Victor from his friends and Latimer from his visions, that they should not pursue their goal, but neither heeds them. It seems as if they force themselves onward relentlessly, even when the danger is readily apparent. Their few differences lie only in their pursuits. Whereas Victor is a scientist and is deeply rooted in physical things, Latimer is a poet and cares less about affairs of the world than he does about beauty and mystery.
I feel like they are in their eccentricities. Each has a sense of being different from those around of them, of being special, Victor for his genius and Latimer because of his power. They each seek something that will eventually do damage to them. Victor seeks his wildly ambitious and dangerous scientific goals, while Latimer seeks the great unknown that is Bertha. Each has warnings, Victor from his friends and Latimer from his visions, that they should not pursue their goal, but neither heeds them. It seems as if they force themselves onward relentlessly, even when the danger is readily apparent. Their few differences lie only in their pursuits. Whereas Victor is a scientist and is deeply rooted in physical things, Latimer is a poet and cares less about affairs of the world than he does about beauty and mystery.
Monster Creation
One of the kids who couldn't figure out how to screenshot it (can't use Mac....) So here are the instructions to view it.
Website: http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heromachine2/heroMachine2.asp
Click Load and Copy/Paste this paragraph:
2.5b5*m3*The Monster*Hair:Standard,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,23,Eyebrows:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,
FFFFFF,100,100,21,Eyes:Standard,glow,940018,27B873,100,100,20,Nose:Standard,thinslant,
27B873,7CC774v,100,100,27,Mouth:Standard,line,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,18,Beard:,fraBla
nk,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,26,Ears:Standard,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,19,Skin:,
wounded,848484,27B873,100,100,6,Mask:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,22,Headgear:,
fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,29,Undershirt:Standard,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,
100,7,Overshirt:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,8,Coat:Shoulders,rtstrap,313131,01B3F1,
100,100,25,RightGlove:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,17,LeftGlove:Expansion1,taped,
313131,FFFFFF,100,100,16,Insignia:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,9,Neckwear:,fraBlank,
FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,24,Belt:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,15,Leggings:,fraBlank,
FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,10,Overleggings:Standard,wave,000000,000000,100,100,11,Pants:
Standard,torn,4B4B4B,9C9C9C,100,100,14,RightFoot:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,13,
LeftFoot:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,12,Back:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,3,
Wings:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,4,Tail:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,5,Aura:,
fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,2,Companion:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,31,
Background:New,chipledge,CFCFCF,9C9C9C,100,100,1,RightHand:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,
FFFFFF,100,100,30,LeftHand:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,28,#
There it is!
I chose the Monster as my character to make. I realize this may seem the easiest course, but I wanted to use this opportunity to see what my vision of the monster would come out as. As it turns out he is mostly various shades of gray. Most of the colors seemed to not fit to me, so I ended up using the various shades of gray to articulate him as a character. His skin tone is a dark green, but that is only to set up a contrast to his environment, which is also made up of gray tones. I purposefully left off all hair too, as I never envisioned the Monster having hair. The HeroMachine really gave a lot of options, but the almost lack of anything to him, and the starkness of his features and the surrounding environment, pretty much summed up how I felt about his character.
Website: http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heromachine2/heroMachine2.asp
Click Load and Copy/Paste this paragraph:
2.5b5*m3*The Monster*Hair:Standard,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,23,Eyebrows:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,
FFFFFF,100,100,21,Eyes:Standard,glow,940018,27B873,100,100,20,Nose:Standard,thinslant,
27B873,7CC774v,100,100,27,Mouth:Standard,line,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,18,Beard:,fraBla
nk,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,26,Ears:Standard,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,19,Skin:,
wounded,848484,27B873,100,100,6,Mask:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,22,Headgear:,
fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,29,Undershirt:Standard,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,
100,7,Overshirt:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,8,Coat:Shoulders,rtstrap,313131,01B3F1,
100,100,25,RightGlove:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,17,LeftGlove:Expansion1,taped,
313131,FFFFFF,100,100,16,Insignia:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,9,Neckwear:,fraBlank,
FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,24,Belt:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,15,Leggings:,fraBlank,
FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,10,Overleggings:Standard,wave,000000,000000,100,100,11,Pants:
Standard,torn,4B4B4B,9C9C9C,100,100,14,RightFoot:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,13,
LeftFoot:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,12,Back:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,3,
Wings:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,4,Tail:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,5,Aura:,
fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,2,Companion:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,31,
Background:New,chipledge,CFCFCF,9C9C9C,100,100,1,RightHand:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,
FFFFFF,100,100,30,LeftHand:,fraBlank,FFFFFF,FFFFFF,100,100,28,#
There it is!
I chose the Monster as my character to make. I realize this may seem the easiest course, but I wanted to use this opportunity to see what my vision of the monster would come out as. As it turns out he is mostly various shades of gray. Most of the colors seemed to not fit to me, so I ended up using the various shades of gray to articulate him as a character. His skin tone is a dark green, but that is only to set up a contrast to his environment, which is also made up of gray tones. I purposefully left off all hair too, as I never envisioned the Monster having hair. The HeroMachine really gave a lot of options, but the almost lack of anything to him, and the starkness of his features and the surrounding environment, pretty much summed up how I felt about his character.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Frankenstein (cont.)
Q: Are Victor and the Monster the same? Is he a reaction of Victor's desires?
I would say that Victor and the Monster are not the same. I can see where similarities can be drawn, such as each has a thirst for knowledge and a hunger that drives them beyond common sense, but I feel they are too different. I see Victor as much more associated with Walton, as I said earlier. The monster his a righteous anger about it, something that guides its actions, that Victor cannot quite match. It seems Victor is instead driven by regret about what he has done, not truly angry at himself, just realizing his mistake. However, the monster is a reaction of Victor's desires at the time. Victor had become twisted and demented with his relentless, ambitious pursuit of scientific brilliance, and the ugly physical demeanor of the monster is reflected in that. I think that is the aspect of the monster that so truly terrifies Victor, that he sees his true naked ambition laid before him in physical form and is awed and disgusted by it.
Discussion
If a mother tells her child that poor people are criminals, than the child will think that poor people are criminals. This is an example of how a child is nurtured can have an effect on development and actions. How is the monster linked into the philosophy of raising a child? Of nature vs. nurture? If Victor had not run away from the monster and had trained it and raised it, would it have a concept of how to act and fit into a semblance of a normal existence?
Possibly the monster killed Victor's family in order to get his attention and a need for affection he desperately wants. The monster has no way of comparing it's existence to other people until he witnesses the family and gains the knowledge to measure moral good from bad in human society. After reading Paradise Lost he tells Victor that he (the monster) should have been Victor's Adam, and Victor should have taught and sheltered him. Children serve the purpose for parents of sating the need to prove to themselves that they are superior to those around them.
Do the killings and negative reactions of the monster serve as a means of retaliation and rebellion against what he perceives as a lack of attention?
I feel like the monster needs to garner attention, no matter if it is good attention or bad, all the time. In many ways he is like a real child, who demands frequent attention or else will burst into fits. However the monster's fits are much more dangerous than a two year olds. The monster's initial desire is not to kill William but to gain a friend and a positive relationship. In fact he almost had a friend in the blind man.
On a different note, do parents OWE their child happiness? I don't think so. They created your existence, and the further framework of your existence is not predicated on a responsibility of parent's to support you. They do owe you the initial tools to grasp happiness for yourself. They must teach you how to survive and flourish in the world around you, but it is up to an individual person to accept that responsibility and use what they have to achieve happiness. What may be happiness for a person's parents is misery for a child, so that child must learn how to make themselves happy.
I would say that Victor and the Monster are not the same. I can see where similarities can be drawn, such as each has a thirst for knowledge and a hunger that drives them beyond common sense, but I feel they are too different. I see Victor as much more associated with Walton, as I said earlier. The monster his a righteous anger about it, something that guides its actions, that Victor cannot quite match. It seems Victor is instead driven by regret about what he has done, not truly angry at himself, just realizing his mistake. However, the monster is a reaction of Victor's desires at the time. Victor had become twisted and demented with his relentless, ambitious pursuit of scientific brilliance, and the ugly physical demeanor of the monster is reflected in that. I think that is the aspect of the monster that so truly terrifies Victor, that he sees his true naked ambition laid before him in physical form and is awed and disgusted by it.
Discussion
If a mother tells her child that poor people are criminals, than the child will think that poor people are criminals. This is an example of how a child is nurtured can have an effect on development and actions. How is the monster linked into the philosophy of raising a child? Of nature vs. nurture? If Victor had not run away from the monster and had trained it and raised it, would it have a concept of how to act and fit into a semblance of a normal existence?
Possibly the monster killed Victor's family in order to get his attention and a need for affection he desperately wants. The monster has no way of comparing it's existence to other people until he witnesses the family and gains the knowledge to measure moral good from bad in human society. After reading Paradise Lost he tells Victor that he (the monster) should have been Victor's Adam, and Victor should have taught and sheltered him. Children serve the purpose for parents of sating the need to prove to themselves that they are superior to those around them.
Do the killings and negative reactions of the monster serve as a means of retaliation and rebellion against what he perceives as a lack of attention?
I feel like the monster needs to garner attention, no matter if it is good attention or bad, all the time. In many ways he is like a real child, who demands frequent attention or else will burst into fits. However the monster's fits are much more dangerous than a two year olds. The monster's initial desire is not to kill William but to gain a friend and a positive relationship. In fact he almost had a friend in the blind man.
On a different note, do parents OWE their child happiness? I don't think so. They created your existence, and the further framework of your existence is not predicated on a responsibility of parent's to support you. They do owe you the initial tools to grasp happiness for yourself. They must teach you how to survive and flourish in the world around you, but it is up to an individual person to accept that responsibility and use what they have to achieve happiness. What may be happiness for a person's parents is misery for a child, so that child must learn how to make themselves happy.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Frankenstein!
Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
Walton -- Walton is an explorer seeking to find a passage to the North Pole. He dreams of being a famous writer and explorer. He wants the fame and glory associated with being a great writer, and he serves as the narrator of the frame story and relates Frankenstein's tale. Fame can be associated with control, even sometimes absolutely. Maybe this is what Walton is looking for, but don't read too much into it.
Initial Frame Story -- To start off, after Walton's ship gets stuck in ice, they all see the monster, and a little later Victor. They take Victor aboard, as he is really sick. Victor says he expected his story to die with him, but shares the story to teach Walton a lesson (see Letter 4, 2nd paragraph). This is important as Victor sees Walton as someone who stands to learn from his mistakes.
There is a strong connection between Walton and Victor. They both appear to be very ambitious men. It is almost less important what they accomplish as long as they are well known for it. On page 36, the term artist is used to describe Victor instead of a scientist. This is a very telling moment, as if saying that what we conceive of as science is not a one-sided thing but can be as beautiful as art. Perhaps this foreshadows that the monster, though hideous, has some aspect of beauty about it as well?
Another connection with the term artist is that Shelley is discussing how poets, discoverers, scientists, etc. have great visions of grandeur, and what can be wrong with that and critiquing that drive. The novel is an analysis of Victor and his character. The 1831 edition shows a greater obsession with secrets and saying he was fated to end up like he did. This was because Shelly was letting Romantics off the hook because of the deceased poets memories.
"I was fated" - way of self-exonerating. Victor believes this about himself. He uses it to let himself off the hook too easily. Victor describes his childhood as "full" of people, love, education and friends, a very fulfilling and happy childhood.
Yet he was willing to sacrifice his own health, even the possibility of death, in order to see his ambition realized. He doesn't look at the consequences down the road, mostly because they may not even matter. It matters more to him that he does something special than what the actual result is. There is nothing, not death, not failure, not anything, that will stand in his way. He was so caught up in his passion that he felt that life and death were his playthings and that they would have loyalty to him above even a child to their father. It is similar to a God complex. He is going to claim the worship of his creations so completely that they will absolutely adore him.
Walton -- Walton is an explorer seeking to find a passage to the North Pole. He dreams of being a famous writer and explorer. He wants the fame and glory associated with being a great writer, and he serves as the narrator of the frame story and relates Frankenstein's tale. Fame can be associated with control, even sometimes absolutely. Maybe this is what Walton is looking for, but don't read too much into it.
Initial Frame Story -- To start off, after Walton's ship gets stuck in ice, they all see the monster, and a little later Victor. They take Victor aboard, as he is really sick. Victor says he expected his story to die with him, but shares the story to teach Walton a lesson (see Letter 4, 2nd paragraph). This is important as Victor sees Walton as someone who stands to learn from his mistakes.
There is a strong connection between Walton and Victor. They both appear to be very ambitious men. It is almost less important what they accomplish as long as they are well known for it. On page 36, the term artist is used to describe Victor instead of a scientist. This is a very telling moment, as if saying that what we conceive of as science is not a one-sided thing but can be as beautiful as art. Perhaps this foreshadows that the monster, though hideous, has some aspect of beauty about it as well?
Another connection with the term artist is that Shelley is discussing how poets, discoverers, scientists, etc. have great visions of grandeur, and what can be wrong with that and critiquing that drive. The novel is an analysis of Victor and his character. The 1831 edition shows a greater obsession with secrets and saying he was fated to end up like he did. This was because Shelly was letting Romantics off the hook because of the deceased poets memories.
"I was fated" - way of self-exonerating. Victor believes this about himself. He uses it to let himself off the hook too easily. Victor describes his childhood as "full" of people, love, education and friends, a very fulfilling and happy childhood.
Yet he was willing to sacrifice his own health, even the possibility of death, in order to see his ambition realized. He doesn't look at the consequences down the road, mostly because they may not even matter. It matters more to him that he does something special than what the actual result is. There is nothing, not death, not failure, not anything, that will stand in his way. He was so caught up in his passion that he felt that life and death were his playthings and that they would have loyalty to him above even a child to their father. It is similar to a God complex. He is going to claim the worship of his creations so completely that they will absolutely adore him.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Wuthering Heights: Scholarly Articles and Darkened Romance
Scholarly Articles
There are lots of scholarly articles relating characters to ideological and philosophical ideas, such as Heathcliff and Edgar representing transcendental love and empirical love. However is the scholarly article an effective medium? I do not think they are very people friendly, but are just for, as the name says, scholars. They have their niche purpose, as do any area of academic specialty, but they are not for a large portion of the population.
Would ordinary people sometimes want to get more in-depth into scholarship and academia, through tools such as Wikpedia and Google scholar? I think it is a possibility. I use Wikipedia and Google scholar in my free time, but I am an academic so I am not exactly unbiased at this point. I think it is hard for a classroom full of college students, who obviously value education and information, to make a firm decision on the usefulness of academic resources for the general public.
Movie
In regards to the movie that I wrote about, I am being swayed by the arguments of my classmates. I didn't really see the movie in light of using the same character for both Catherines, and how Heathcliff treats each one. It is almost as if he treats the younger Catherine as an extension of the older. That does add a level of complexity I hadn't seen. I still feel that it only muddled the story though. If I hadn't read the book I would have had no idea what was going on. The scene with Heathcliff and Catherine on Catherine's deathbed is a good example of how closely tied hate and love are. Just like how he treats the younger Catherine in terms of how he felt about the older. It is also important to note the way that Catherine was portrayed by the same actress is medium specific to film. It allows a whole new expression and portrayal that the book could not provide.
Darkened Romance
Why would Emily Bronte want to darken romance? Why does a woman writer want to darken or disrupt the "Hollywood" or "Cinderella" version of things? Maybe to show the true reality of love, that it is not just perfect and easily cut out. Instead maybe the man you love transcendentally is too poor and the guy you love empirically is rich. A complex set of circumstances is more likely in real life than a simple answer.
Would you marry your soulmate or the person you are socially and personality agreeable with? I agree completely with Laura in marrying the latter, though I am literally the only one who thinks so in the class. I think that love is something that is hard to quantify. It's hard to say that I could give up the ease and understanding associated with being socially and personality compatible for some completely unknown notion of "soulmate". Instead why wouldn't I go for teh guaranteed compatibility and works towards loving someone. Can't someone grow to be your soulmate?
Foils
There are several foils in this story. The obvious one is the sons, Hareton and Linton. Linton is sickly and weak, while Hareton is strong and passionate. Catherine is very similar to her mother, and so is obviously more attracted to Hareton, who is similar to a young Heathcliff.
Emily Bronte addresses how violent and brutal the story truly is. It takes no prisoners and is honest in how a relationship can develop. There is also an element she talks about in how the creative process almost takes a life of its own and can change the author's original intention, forming great art.
There are lots of scholarly articles relating characters to ideological and philosophical ideas, such as Heathcliff and Edgar representing transcendental love and empirical love. However is the scholarly article an effective medium? I do not think they are very people friendly, but are just for, as the name says, scholars. They have their niche purpose, as do any area of academic specialty, but they are not for a large portion of the population.
Would ordinary people sometimes want to get more in-depth into scholarship and academia, through tools such as Wikpedia and Google scholar? I think it is a possibility. I use Wikipedia and Google scholar in my free time, but I am an academic so I am not exactly unbiased at this point. I think it is hard for a classroom full of college students, who obviously value education and information, to make a firm decision on the usefulness of academic resources for the general public.
Movie
In regards to the movie that I wrote about, I am being swayed by the arguments of my classmates. I didn't really see the movie in light of using the same character for both Catherines, and how Heathcliff treats each one. It is almost as if he treats the younger Catherine as an extension of the older. That does add a level of complexity I hadn't seen. I still feel that it only muddled the story though. If I hadn't read the book I would have had no idea what was going on. The scene with Heathcliff and Catherine on Catherine's deathbed is a good example of how closely tied hate and love are. Just like how he treats the younger Catherine in terms of how he felt about the older. It is also important to note the way that Catherine was portrayed by the same actress is medium specific to film. It allows a whole new expression and portrayal that the book could not provide.
Darkened Romance
Why would Emily Bronte want to darken romance? Why does a woman writer want to darken or disrupt the "Hollywood" or "Cinderella" version of things? Maybe to show the true reality of love, that it is not just perfect and easily cut out. Instead maybe the man you love transcendentally is too poor and the guy you love empirically is rich. A complex set of circumstances is more likely in real life than a simple answer.
Would you marry your soulmate or the person you are socially and personality agreeable with? I agree completely with Laura in marrying the latter, though I am literally the only one who thinks so in the class. I think that love is something that is hard to quantify. It's hard to say that I could give up the ease and understanding associated with being socially and personality compatible for some completely unknown notion of "soulmate". Instead why wouldn't I go for teh guaranteed compatibility and works towards loving someone. Can't someone grow to be your soulmate?
Foils
There are several foils in this story. The obvious one is the sons, Hareton and Linton. Linton is sickly and weak, while Hareton is strong and passionate. Catherine is very similar to her mother, and so is obviously more attracted to Hareton, who is similar to a young Heathcliff.
Emily Bronte addresses how violent and brutal the story truly is. It takes no prisoners and is honest in how a relationship can develop. There is also an element she talks about in how the creative process almost takes a life of its own and can change the author's original intention, forming great art.
Wuthering Heights Movie
In all honesty I didn't feel like any part of the movie helped me better understand the book. I know that movies always fall short of books, but I felt that this one fell horrendously short. It spent the first half failing to convey the depth of Heathcliff and Catherine's love for each other. That part felt almost glossed over.
There was also problems with transitions with time passing. The characters looked the same over a 30 year span, and the movie did a poor job of explaining the passage of time. After reading the book I felt I had a good grasp of the story and the intricacies involved between the characters. I was still having trouble with the family tree portion, but the movie only muddled that further. I had to get out my book and look at the family tree halfway through the movie.
I know this assignment is not supposed to be a movie review, but I truly felt that no part of the movie increased my grasp of the material. The transference of medium from book to film flopped.
In particular the scene out on the moors where Heathcliff predicts either a happy life or a tragic one seems to be almost trivial in the movie, yet it is supposed to be a deep, foreboding scene of what is to come. They also make Heathcliff's initial anger toward Edgar seem like childish anger, which it is in part, but it fails to convey the evil, almost sadistic nature of Heathcliff's revenge.
There was also problems with transitions with time passing. The characters looked the same over a 30 year span, and the movie did a poor job of explaining the passage of time. After reading the book I felt I had a good grasp of the story and the intricacies involved between the characters. I was still having trouble with the family tree portion, but the movie only muddled that further. I had to get out my book and look at the family tree halfway through the movie.
I know this assignment is not supposed to be a movie review, but I truly felt that no part of the movie increased my grasp of the material. The transference of medium from book to film flopped.
In particular the scene out on the moors where Heathcliff predicts either a happy life or a tragic one seems to be almost trivial in the movie, yet it is supposed to be a deep, foreboding scene of what is to come. They also make Heathcliff's initial anger toward Edgar seem like childish anger, which it is in part, but it fails to convey the evil, almost sadistic nature of Heathcliff's revenge.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Wuthering Heights (cont.)
Class Thoughts: What is the nature of the relationship between a servant and a master?
A: The narcissistic nature of being someone who has everything done for you. Then when something is not done for you, there is a negative angry reaction. This makes a person less mature.
At this point in the story it is clear that Heathcliff's revenge is based on his anger at not being able to marry Catherine. But instead of directing his revenge at Catherine, he directs it at all the wealthy elite around him. He divests the Lintons and Earnshaws of their property and joy. His hatred of Hindley is intense because he blames him for "bringing him low" and preventing him from marrying Catherine in the first place.
Isabella is a poorly used innocent vehicle for Heathcliff's Machiavellian machinations. she is the most pure of characters, and Heathcliff ldestroys her, simply to show his power over the class that put him down for so long. It is a stunning display of turnabout with the lower class wreaking havoc on the previously "untouchable" elite.
A: The narcissistic nature of being someone who has everything done for you. Then when something is not done for you, there is a negative angry reaction. This makes a person less mature.
At this point in the story it is clear that Heathcliff's revenge is based on his anger at not being able to marry Catherine. But instead of directing his revenge at Catherine, he directs it at all the wealthy elite around him. He divests the Lintons and Earnshaws of their property and joy. His hatred of Hindley is intense because he blames him for "bringing him low" and preventing him from marrying Catherine in the first place.
Isabella is a poorly used innocent vehicle for Heathcliff's Machiavellian machinations. she is the most pure of characters, and Heathcliff ldestroys her, simply to show his power over the class that put him down for so long. It is a stunning display of turnabout with the lower class wreaking havoc on the previously "untouchable" elite.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Heathcliff Characterization
It seems in the first few chapters that Heathcliff comes off as very abrupt. He has no care for the comfort of others, but seems completely focused on himself, specifically his past. The character that we see when his younger self is introduced in the diary seems to have a completely different personality. This would lead one to believe that something obviously happened in the intervening time that changed Heathcliff in a drastic way. From his reaction to the story by Longwood of Catherine's ghost, it seems to be linked to her. Her marriage to a man other than Heathcliff may have been what ruined him. His love for her could be something that tears at his heart and prevents him from connecting with others, perhpas showing his awkward social actions.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
First chapters of Wuthering Heighs
The first couple of chapters shows the area of Wuthering Heights as being very dark, showing the unsociable nature of Heathcliff. He is a moody master of Wuthering Heights, and makes his tenant Mr. Longwood feel horribly uncomfortable. The initial characters involved are Heathcliff, his daughter-in-law Catherine, the old house man Joseph, and Hareton Earnshaw. Hareton and Catherine detest Heathcliff, and seem uncomfortable in his presence. Heathcliff puts off airs of being abusive and seems to enjoy the discomfort of others.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Rape in Cyberspace
Q: Did Bungle commit Rape?
Cyber-rape and real rape have some similarities. Since real rape's physical effects can be much more short-lived than the mental and emotional effects, it seems to be quite similar. In the past year the American Institute of Mental Health acknowledged online gaming as an actual addiction and mental health risk. I think this provides a good example of how people can become mentally invested in an online persona. So it would follow that if someone is so emotionally involved and a traumatic event happens, the consequences to that person can be severe.
While not as visceral as actual rape, it can still be brutal. The line is much grayer, as it depends on the person whether or not it has an effect. Women who are not that invested in it may not be nearly as affected as one who participates actively on a frequent basis and feels a strong connection to that online community.
There are many similarities between the emotional effects of rape. Violating someone has real effects no matter in which way it occurs. It also struck me how he attempts to call into question the black and white difference between physical action and mental intention. That has always been assumed to be the final barrier that decides whether or not something is a crime or not. That is an interesting new gray area. Online avatars establish identity in a whole new way.
Cyber-rape and real rape have some similarities. Since real rape's physical effects can be much more short-lived than the mental and emotional effects, it seems to be quite similar. In the past year the American Institute of Mental Health acknowledged online gaming as an actual addiction and mental health risk. I think this provides a good example of how people can become mentally invested in an online persona. So it would follow that if someone is so emotionally involved and a traumatic event happens, the consequences to that person can be severe.
While not as visceral as actual rape, it can still be brutal. The line is much grayer, as it depends on the person whether or not it has an effect. Women who are not that invested in it may not be nearly as affected as one who participates actively on a frequent basis and feels a strong connection to that online community.
There are many similarities between the emotional effects of rape. Violating someone has real effects no matter in which way it occurs. It also struck me how he attempts to call into question the black and white difference between physical action and mental intention. That has always been assumed to be the final barrier that decides whether or not something is a crime or not. That is an interesting new gray area. Online avatars establish identity in a whole new way.
Friday, January 30, 2009
A Room of One's Own
Accordingly there are two things a woman must have: Money (an income), and a room of her own (in order to have the freedom to create)
She asks the question: Why is there no female Shakespeare?
A: Because even if there had been a woman with the same talents, she would not have been given the same education, opportunity, or social mobility to apply it.
The medium for women has not been through higher education, but in creative ideas in the home. Anybody who writes with a chip on their shoulder deters their end goal. She states that writers should attempt to keep an objective point of view. She says that all the men are writing like men, not objectively like they should be. This stems from the fact they are intimidated by the feminist movement. They are founded in the principle that they are better because women are worse. Deflecting negative self-image onto others in a large way. Shakespeare was a great writer because he came off as almost androgenous.
She asks the question: Why is there no female Shakespeare?
A: Because even if there had been a woman with the same talents, she would not have been given the same education, opportunity, or social mobility to apply it.
The medium for women has not been through higher education, but in creative ideas in the home. Anybody who writes with a chip on their shoulder deters their end goal. She states that writers should attempt to keep an objective point of view. She says that all the men are writing like men, not objectively like they should be. This stems from the fact they are intimidated by the feminist movement. They are founded in the principle that they are better because women are worse. Deflecting negative self-image onto others in a large way. Shakespeare was a great writer because he came off as almost androgenous.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Vindication of the Rights of Woman!
Vindication of the Rights of Woman
Wollstonecraft's father was an alcoholic and used to beat family occasionally, and so she took over the family's welfare. She became a governess, and at some point she decided to begin to write. She met a radical publisher in London, who believed in women's rights. The publisher supported her in her writings. She wrote one of the first responses to a conservative writer who had attacked the French Revolution, "The Reflections to the Revolution in France."
She wrote a response named "The Vindication of the Rights of Men," in 1789. She wrote it anonymously and attacked the author. She set up being male with being virtuous and rational. She defended the necessity of republic and equal rights for all classes. After pressure from the radical publisher, in 1792, she wrote the "Vindication of the Rights of Woman."
By "Men" she means all classes and human beings. Nowadays we try to avoid using the term men to refer to all people. The term "Woman" here means a class of persons who have been treated the same. The Woman as an individual or a category?
Wollstonecraft sets up education as the root of their being kept down. They are conditioned to think that they are less than men. The term woman means the opposite of man, the opposite of virtue and rationality. Women try to exercise their power within the current system, a self-defeating action, and so can only channel their power through certain ways, such as tyranny in the household.
Liberal ideas such as no one should be above any other one person, and that individuals should be judged as a result of their merit. Morality is lost when one person is given power over another. Ex: teachers grading students in a classroom.
A standing army is incompatible with freedom because you are forced to be perfectly subordinate and forced to submit to the will of others.
"1. Like the fair sex, the business of their lives is gallantry -- They were taught to please, and they only live to please. Yet they do not lose their rank in the distinction of sexes, for they are still reckoned superior to women, though in what their superiority consists, beyond what I have just mentioned, it is difficult to discover." (from Ch. 2)
Men, if educated same as women, will get the same results!!! She uses soldiers as the example. They prove that women are not naturally inferior, but that a social system is what makes them different.
"What nonsense! When will a great man arise with sufficient strength of mind to puff away the fumes which pride and sensuality have thus spread over the subject! If women are by nature inferior to men, their virtues must be the same in quality, if not in degree, or virtue is a relative idea; consequently, their conduct should be founded in the same principles, and have the same aim." (from Ch. 2)
She postulates in Ch.3 that by giving women more power they will actually have less, as it will counteract their despotic tendencies. Women play on the weaknesses of men in order to gain power. Certain weaknesses of women can become attractive to men.
Wollstonecraft thought she was married to a man who did not agree (thought she was just another mistress), and she even tried to live with the man and her husband. She had a child out of wedlock, and tried to kill herself once rejected by that man.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Cinderella Complex in the Media
While searching for examples of the Cinderella Complex in various mediums a found a variety of things. I found a magazine article by a financial reporter about how to deal with the complex in a parenting atmosphere, e.g. how to deal with a daughter who is thinking along those lines. Lots of bloggers and online articles related it to a deficiency in modern women's self-esteem. that was probably the most prevalent thing I found. Several old newspaper articles discussed it in terms of relating to physical looks, not really a mental state of mind. I really only found it discussed in magazines, newspaper articles, and online mediums like blogs.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Bloody Chamber Readings
While I realize that these stories are based off of fairy tales, I didn't know which one the Bloody Chamber was related to. I didn't recognize the outline of the story at all, but it seemed to have a decidedly pro-female focus. The mother is the one that saves the girl, and the main male character is not only a bad person, but one that delights in torturing and killing his wives. It was focused on the way that the man had slowly woven a web of deceit and trickery over the girl and made her betray herself.
The courtship of Mr. Lyon was obviously similar to Beauty and the Beast, and it did not immediately seem to be particularly different than the story I had heard before. Since that story already had a heroine who transforms and saves the man with her love, it didn't seem to need much tweaking to portray that message.
The Erl-King was another story that I did not really recognize. The heavy emphasis on the forest imagery really struck me initially, but that was quickly contrasted to the sexual language later used in association with the King.
The courtship of Mr. Lyon was obviously similar to Beauty and the Beast, and it did not immediately seem to be particularly different than the story I had heard before. Since that story already had a heroine who transforms and saves the man with her love, it didn't seem to need much tweaking to portray that message.
The Erl-King was another story that I did not really recognize. The heavy emphasis on the forest imagery really struck me initially, but that was quickly contrasted to the sexual language later used in association with the King.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Quiz on 1/16
In the artistic retelling of fairy tales, does art counteract ideology?
I feel like it holds that potential. Jeannette Winterson feels like it is not only possible, but her duty to attempt to do so. Through retelling fairy tales that previously reinforced negative ideologies, she wants to attempt to use these new versions to bring back the authenticity that is being drowned out by societal and cultural ideologies. Art is an example of the human mind and heart that is one of the must pure forms of expression that one can try for. It is the easiest way to strike a chord with someone and convey new ideas and thoughts. I can think of no other mediums besides the arts to truly convey social change or to counteract common idelology. However I would say it is a tenous line, because art can be used to further ideology as much as it detracts from it.
I feel like it holds that potential. Jeannette Winterson feels like it is not only possible, but her duty to attempt to do so. Through retelling fairy tales that previously reinforced negative ideologies, she wants to attempt to use these new versions to bring back the authenticity that is being drowned out by societal and cultural ideologies. Art is an example of the human mind and heart that is one of the must pure forms of expression that one can try for. It is the easiest way to strike a chord with someone and convey new ideas and thoughts. I can think of no other mediums besides the arts to truly convey social change or to counteract common idelology. However I would say it is a tenous line, because art can be used to further ideology as much as it detracts from it.
Cinderella Complex
I think there is a natural, instinctual need in all people, male or female, from when they are a child on to be cared for and taken care of. Throughout your entire childhood, parents provide this for you. You are given the emotional, material, and physical comfort and support necessary to grow and prosper. Once childhood has ended and a person moves on this support structure is gone. For men, they are told the longing or want to again be taken care of is a weakness and that no one will ever take care of them, they instead they must be the ones to provide it to others. For women, the hope of being take care of is not lost, but the kernel of possibility that someday a man, who has been trained to take care of her, will come in and do so.
The Cinderella Complex
It certainly gives a unique perspective. As a guy, I obviously have problems truly identifying with what she is saying, but I certainly have encountered women in my life who fit this mold. Some of my girlfriends have had the same kind of dichotomous actions that would represent these ideas. One day, when things are going well, going out of her way to assert her independence and how strong she is. But on the next day, when things go horribly wrong, it is not the job of the guy to support her in her decisions and actions in how to overcome the problem for herself, but having to solve it FOR her instead. I guess from my perspective, for the guy, being taught that you have to save all the women is kind of a burden all on its own. Because the fiction that any one being can truly "save" and provide happiness to another is naturally flawed, as one can only provide that for themselves, and any partner can only support and attempt to nurture those feelings of positive self-confidence in their opposite. So the guy that is taught that he must provide everything for a girl is as much set up for the failure as the girl who thinks he can actually provide it.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Cinderella Assignment
Irish Sweepstakes - a public service lottery system originating in Ireland in the 1930's to raise money for hospitals. Became a corrupt privately owned company that was shut down in the 1980's
Bonwit Teller - High quality retail store in New York City at the turn of the 20th century. Associated with high end apparel.
Al Jolson - American singer, comedian, and actor. First openly Jewish man to be an entertainment star in the U.S.
Bobbsey Twins - main characters of a childrens book series that ran from 1904-1979. Almost always has happy endings.
Hazel - a tree specifically grown for its rich and delicious nuts.
Lentils - small seeds that are cheaply grown, but provide a high amount of nourishment. Lots in a small, unassuming package.
Bonwit Teller - High quality retail store in New York City at the turn of the 20th century. Associated with high end apparel.
Al Jolson - American singer, comedian, and actor. First openly Jewish man to be an entertainment star in the U.S.
Bobbsey Twins - main characters of a childrens book series that ran from 1904-1979. Almost always has happy endings.
Hazel - a tree specifically grown for its rich and delicious nuts.
Lentils - small seeds that are cheaply grown, but provide a high amount of nourishment. Lots in a small, unassuming package.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)