That I think I may continue to use it...It's a great way to ramble on about thoughts without killign trees, lol. But, that is not what is important...
I have really found my niche in the professional world. I really enjoy being in the realm of academia. I really thought I only wanted to pursue post secondary teaching, but I would really be happy anywhere a college campus will have me (in a GOOD position that is). This may sound dumb, but I never really realized how much goes into making a successful and inviting college campus. And I really want to be part of that process, whether it is in the classroom or somewhere else. I never expected myself to ever find this line of work appealing, and also never thought I would ever be so happy about going to work and enjoying my job. more on this later....
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
So it's over....a refelction on the class...
Overall, I really enjoyed Professor Maruca's class on media in the eighteenth century. Even though I was very resistant and pessimistic about the class in the beginning, I feel I learned a lot and not only filled in a huge gap in my literary knowledge base, but I also enjoyed the books and topics we discussed. One could even say that I enjoy and have a greater appreciation for British literature than I did when I started the class this winter, pissed off that I had to take it in the first place. I wish we would have had more time to indulge in topics and really explore the function of these different forms at this time, but I guess now I have a good base and starting point to indulge in these topics in the future.
And even though I HATED the idea of having to blog in the begining of the semester, this ended up being a really enjoyable way to express ideas while incorporating the ideals of modern media to parallel 18th Century media and the newness of it.
Thanks Professor Maruca!
And even though I HATED the idea of having to blog in the begining of the semester, this ended up being a really enjoyable way to express ideas while incorporating the ideals of modern media to parallel 18th Century media and the newness of it.
Thanks Professor Maruca!
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Early Modern Conference #2
The second one was by Jamie Goodrich, an associate professor here at Wayne State University, titled "Thomas More's 'englishe Tongue': Mary Bassett and the Politics of Sainthood." Goodrich basically talked about how Mary Bassett, Thomas More's granddaughter used her writing to authenticate More's reputation as a martyr, but her writing ended up functioning in two ways. She translated his works that he wrote before he was executed, but added her own authorial voice to them in the footnotes. This work was evidence of women's subordinate role in patriarchal society, but her "free translation" of some parts where she not only adds her own interpretation but leads her reader to it in the footnotes shows an attempt by Bassett to claim her own authorial voice in the process.
This reminded me a little bit of Burney's way of adopting Richardson's model to form her own text. Pamela and Evelina are vey similar in content and moral message. This is only one of many examples in the eighteenth century of a woman author's need to have a male author authenticate her text. in Bassett's case it is the reverse becuase she uses the male text to authenticate her own voice by slipping it in in ways that draw attention to the text. This was smart on her part becuase she accomplished two things at once: she reinforced her grandfather's reputation and created one for herself. It worked becuase as Goodrich points out, it is Bassett's version that they use in the TV show Tudors during Thomas More's near execution scene. The show also elaborates More's scene more than the other important Catholic martyr that was executed too (starts with an F....) becuase of Bassett's influence.
It is very interesting to look at the creative ways in which women authenticated themselves as authorial voices to break free from the silence that was expected of them...
This reminded me a little bit of Burney's way of adopting Richardson's model to form her own text. Pamela and Evelina are vey similar in content and moral message. This is only one of many examples in the eighteenth century of a woman author's need to have a male author authenticate her text. in Bassett's case it is the reverse becuase she uses the male text to authenticate her own voice by slipping it in in ways that draw attention to the text. This was smart on her part becuase she accomplished two things at once: she reinforced her grandfather's reputation and created one for herself. It worked becuase as Goodrich points out, it is Bassett's version that they use in the TV show Tudors during Thomas More's near execution scene. The show also elaborates More's scene more than the other important Catholic martyr that was executed too (starts with an F....) becuase of Bassett's influence.
It is very interesting to look at the creative ways in which women authenticated themselves as authorial voices to break free from the silence that was expected of them...
Early Modern Conference #1
In Susannah Brietz Monta's talk "Catholic Women and Pious Patronage in Reformation England," Monta mainly focuses on the life of Anne Howard, a devout Catholic woman stuck in the confines of Protestant England. She talked a lot about Howard's influence on confessional culture and works related to it. She also talked a lot about the actual printing process of these Catholic texts and how they were often hidden within other texts to disguise them during a time of great religious division.
One thing I found very interesting or compelling in Monta's talk was the "conduct manual" that was created by Southwell for Anne Howard title The Short Rule for a Good Life.
(This only gives the table of contents and the look at a few pages, but it gives you an idea of what the book was about and looked like)
This book was an attempt to reach the Catholic community during a time when it was hard to stay pious and with one's faith because people were being persecuted for their beliefs. The Short Rule linked the domestic sphere and Catholic duty, placing women in charge of the moral upbringing of the household. It was written to instill a sense of Catholic duty into women in their sphere, the home, and help establish a collective Catholic community. It was well known, even published in Protestant form where it was "masculinized," loosing its appeal to the woman in the domestic space and changing the audience the book addressed.
This was interesting to me because we saw in our readings that women were expected to uphold the morals in the household and not only teach and know them, but live by them. Many of the conduct manuals were also geared toward women and focused largely on the domestic sphere (as depicted in the conduct excerpt that is in the back of Evelina). This was the only space women had any power, and even there the power was limited. What I got out of the lecture is that Anne Howard was and strove to be a very active Catholic, yearning to change the oppressive views of England, but in a way was politely told by Southwell through the publication of The Short Rules to stay in her space where she belonged and could still be a devout Catholic. The books that were supposed to help women actually hurt them by reinforcing rules that kept women subordinate, especially when it came to writing (think back to the reception of women authors that we talked about in class in equating being to forward with their work as eqaul with a prostitute). Howard had to stay "silent, but for the word," being urged to live a dutiful Catholic life at home while Southwell and others took care of everything else. The "conduct book" seems almost like a diversion tactic to put the woman back in her place....
And here's a little glimpse into Anne Howard's writing, which Monta did not really talk about (and would have been cool if she did...but she put her email address (smonta@nd.edu) so anyone can contact her with questions and the like):
"In sad and ashy weeds"
Anne Dacres Howard, Countess of Arundel (1557-1630)
In sad and ashy weeds
I sigh, I groan, I pine, I mourn;
My oaten yellow reed
I all to jet and ebon turn.
My wat'ry eyes
Like winter's skies,
My furrowed cheeks o'erflow.
All heav'ns know why
Men mourn as I,
And who can blame my woe?
In sable robes of night
My days of joy consumed be;
My sorrow sees no light;
My lights through sorrow nothing see:
For now my sun
His course hath run,
And from his sphere doth go,
To endless bed
Of souldered lead,
And who can blame my woe?
My flocks I now forsake,
That so my sheep my grief may know;
The lilies loath to take
That since his death presumed to grow.
I envy air
Becuase it dare
Still breathe, and he not so;
Hate earth, that doth
Entomb his youth,
And who can blame my woe?
One thing I found very interesting or compelling in Monta's talk was the "conduct manual" that was created by Southwell for Anne Howard title The Short Rule for a Good Life.
(This only gives the table of contents and the look at a few pages, but it gives you an idea of what the book was about and looked like)
This book was an attempt to reach the Catholic community during a time when it was hard to stay pious and with one's faith because people were being persecuted for their beliefs. The Short Rule linked the domestic sphere and Catholic duty, placing women in charge of the moral upbringing of the household. It was written to instill a sense of Catholic duty into women in their sphere, the home, and help establish a collective Catholic community. It was well known, even published in Protestant form where it was "masculinized," loosing its appeal to the woman in the domestic space and changing the audience the book addressed.
This was interesting to me because we saw in our readings that women were expected to uphold the morals in the household and not only teach and know them, but live by them. Many of the conduct manuals were also geared toward women and focused largely on the domestic sphere (as depicted in the conduct excerpt that is in the back of Evelina). This was the only space women had any power, and even there the power was limited. What I got out of the lecture is that Anne Howard was and strove to be a very active Catholic, yearning to change the oppressive views of England, but in a way was politely told by Southwell through the publication of The Short Rules to stay in her space where she belonged and could still be a devout Catholic. The books that were supposed to help women actually hurt them by reinforcing rules that kept women subordinate, especially when it came to writing (think back to the reception of women authors that we talked about in class in equating being to forward with their work as eqaul with a prostitute). Howard had to stay "silent, but for the word," being urged to live a dutiful Catholic life at home while Southwell and others took care of everything else. The "conduct book" seems almost like a diversion tactic to put the woman back in her place....
And here's a little glimpse into Anne Howard's writing, which Monta did not really talk about (and would have been cool if she did...but she put her email address (smonta@nd.edu) so anyone can contact her with questions and the like):
"In sad and ashy weeds"
Anne Dacres Howard, Countess of Arundel (1557-1630)
In sad and ashy weeds
I sigh, I groan, I pine, I mourn;
My oaten yellow reed
I all to jet and ebon turn.
My wat'ry eyes
Like winter's skies,
My furrowed cheeks o'erflow.
All heav'ns know why
Men mourn as I,
And who can blame my woe?
In sable robes of night
My days of joy consumed be;
My sorrow sees no light;
My lights through sorrow nothing see:
For now my sun
His course hath run,
And from his sphere doth go,
To endless bed
Of souldered lead,
And who can blame my woe?
My flocks I now forsake,
That so my sheep my grief may know;
The lilies loath to take
That since his death presumed to grow.
I envy air
Becuase it dare
Still breathe, and he not so;
Hate earth, that doth
Entomb his youth,
And who can blame my woe?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Northanger Abbey...Finally...
I've been thinking about the section on novels that Jane Austen writes about on page 22. I started thinking about what she is saying here before we talked about it in class and it has been running through ever since. We mentioned that she is really advocating for the novel writer at this point, but we really didn't get into to what degree. One thing we did not get into was Austin's mention of the actual labor/production of novel writing. "There seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labor of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them" (22). This continues on the next page with the public reception of the labor and content. Austin is pointing out the fact that many people looked past and/or didn't realize the deeper level of novels, or if they did, it was often a misinterpretation (much like Pamela or what Burney feared in Evelina), pointing out its flaw rather than seeing the social commentary or deep analysis of culture and people. Austin is very explicit here and compares novel reading to reading more acceptable texts like the Spectator. What makes Austin mad here is that people recognize the Spectator as a good text because of its analysis of culture and contributions to bettering it, but do not realize that novels functioned in the same way, taking a more creative approach than the essay form. There was a reluctance to let some novels transcend, and it seems like these novels were usually written by women. So this leads me to a few questions....
1) Is the value of the labor of the novel linked only to gender? (thus being undervalued and unrecognized)
2) Is the content of the novel undervalued because women don't have the capacity or formal educational background to write on worthy subjects? (I was actually reading about this in a book recently, but can't remember the title off the top of my head. Almost used it in one of my 5 theses I had...)
3) Why are novels and newspapers always misread, but usually not anything else?
It seems to me that one and two are almost inseparable...and thus lead to #3...and Austin anticipates this through her open comments to the reader that highlight her thought process and calculation behind the things she chooses in this book. She wants the reader to value her labor and recognize that everything is not just haphazardly thrown together, but that there is the same calculated analysis behind a novel as there is a Spectator essay. This is evident in all of the examples of Austin addressing the reader we talked about Thurs (168, 172-173...others I can't find right now...). SO this leads me back to my questions...Why should she have to do this? Why is the labor of novelists undervalued...?
1) Is the value of the labor of the novel linked only to gender? (thus being undervalued and unrecognized)
2) Is the content of the novel undervalued because women don't have the capacity or formal educational background to write on worthy subjects? (I was actually reading about this in a book recently, but can't remember the title off the top of my head. Almost used it in one of my 5 theses I had...)
3) Why are novels and newspapers always misread, but usually not anything else?
It seems to me that one and two are almost inseparable...and thus lead to #3...and Austin anticipates this through her open comments to the reader that highlight her thought process and calculation behind the things she chooses in this book. She wants the reader to value her labor and recognize that everything is not just haphazardly thrown together, but that there is the same calculated analysis behind a novel as there is a Spectator essay. This is evident in all of the examples of Austin addressing the reader we talked about Thurs (168, 172-173...others I can't find right now...). SO this leads me back to my questions...Why should she have to do this? Why is the labor of novelists undervalued...?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Busy busy busy....
Due to an overwhelming work schedule, I have not had time to reflect on anything....blogs/responses on Northanger Abbey and the very interesting talks I heard last Friday will be on here tomorrow! I hope it sparks some thoughts/discussions. Check back tomorrow!
Saturday, April 18, 2009
A Refelction on Academic Conferences....
I've been to a few academic conferences now, presented in a mock one, and am presenting in one for writing centers this fall, so I'm trying to figure out the "proper way" to present at these things.
One thing i noticed at the early modern one on Friday is that some of the speakers spoke really fast. It was hard for me to follow sometimes because of that. I know this is something I often do and need to prepare myself for so that my listeners can understand what I am saying and actually take something away from it.
Another thing is that the material is often really dense, all because it is based on continuing research and literally entering into and academic conversation that is already going on. This can be very intimidating for students and colleagues who are not familiar with the material but want to learn more. But how do you balance the two without dumbing down your argument too much that it loses its relevance??? I found this to be problematic for myself and my fellow classmates when we did our mock academic conference.
It is also really hard for people who have a hard time with auditory learning and focus. I like the use of handouts for long quotes and stuff like that, but why not include the argument and the main points as well as a sort of outline to help the audience follow what you are saying? I often got lost in the argument and couldn't retrace back becuase I had no text in front of me to go back to. Iunderstand this is what the question and answer session afterwads is for, but I would feel kind of silly asking "hey, what was your argument again?" So how do you address this area of concern? I'm sure I'm not the only one that has experienced this. Many times the person/people presenting will have their book present or information on where to get the article that is published/in the process of getting published, but why not make the talk itself more productive? Maybe its just me. I'm curious to know how others feel about this and, to professor maruca specifically, how do you or would you address these concerns?
I am really thinking about this kind of stuff becuase I am becoming more and more involved in the realm of academia and want to know the proper conduct for presenting and interacting with the audience in a way that increases their understanding. I feel that the purpose of these conferences is to spread knowledge not only to those specifically interested in the area of study, but to others as well. There might be moore support and turn out for these things (especially by students) if it was less intimidating for them to participate.
These are just some of my thoughts on the academic conference. please share your ideas and experiences!
One thing i noticed at the early modern one on Friday is that some of the speakers spoke really fast. It was hard for me to follow sometimes because of that. I know this is something I often do and need to prepare myself for so that my listeners can understand what I am saying and actually take something away from it.
Another thing is that the material is often really dense, all because it is based on continuing research and literally entering into and academic conversation that is already going on. This can be very intimidating for students and colleagues who are not familiar with the material but want to learn more. But how do you balance the two without dumbing down your argument too much that it loses its relevance??? I found this to be problematic for myself and my fellow classmates when we did our mock academic conference.
It is also really hard for people who have a hard time with auditory learning and focus. I like the use of handouts for long quotes and stuff like that, but why not include the argument and the main points as well as a sort of outline to help the audience follow what you are saying? I often got lost in the argument and couldn't retrace back becuase I had no text in front of me to go back to. Iunderstand this is what the question and answer session afterwads is for, but I would feel kind of silly asking "hey, what was your argument again?" So how do you address this area of concern? I'm sure I'm not the only one that has experienced this. Many times the person/people presenting will have their book present or information on where to get the article that is published/in the process of getting published, but why not make the talk itself more productive? Maybe its just me. I'm curious to know how others feel about this and, to professor maruca specifically, how do you or would you address these concerns?
I am really thinking about this kind of stuff becuase I am becoming more and more involved in the realm of academia and want to know the proper conduct for presenting and interacting with the audience in a way that increases their understanding. I feel that the purpose of these conferences is to spread knowledge not only to those specifically interested in the area of study, but to others as well. There might be moore support and turn out for these things (especially by students) if it was less intimidating for them to participate.
These are just some of my thoughts on the academic conference. please share your ideas and experiences!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
PLEASE SUPPORT THE MICHIGAN EPILEPSY FOUNDATION!!!!
Support the Michigan Epilepsy Foundation by participating in the walk at the Detroit Zoo or by sponsoring me through donations. All proceeds go to helping those with seizures live better lives. For more information, to make a donation, or to join Team Joeymon, please visit my website!
Monday, April 13, 2009
What if I don't want to???
Enough about Arabella! She's pretty tiresome anyways...and there is a reason for her character as a few have often pointed out in their blogs; she always has her head stuck in a book and uses them as a guide to live her life.
"For Heaven's sake, Cousin, how have you spent your time; and to what Studies have you devoted all your Hours, that you could find none to spare for the Perusal of Books from which all useful Knowledge may be drawn; which give us the most shining examples of Generosity, Courage, Virtue, and Love; which regulate our actions, form our Manners, and inspire us with a noble Desire of emulating those great, heroic, and virtuous Actions, which made those Persons so glorious in their Age, and so worthy imitation in ours? However, as it is never too late to improve, suffer me to recommend to you the reading of these Books, which will soon make you discover the Improprieties you have been guilty of; and will, probably, induce you to avoid them for the future" (48-49).
But the problem with this is that the books are not always such a good thing for Arabella because she takes them way too literally (which is why she is called the female quixote...). But this is only part of what is going on. Lennox is sharing more with the reader than just the story of some girl who takes books literally. At the beginning of each chapter, Lennox provides the reader with little epigraphs that tell the reader how they ought to read that chapter or respond to it. There are times that it seems more neutral to rebel against these prescribed readings and interpret it in your own way. Lennox seems to use these to prevent the very things that happen to Arabella because of her reading by showing a reader how they should read a text and what moralistic implications and real guides to life a reader should take from the novels instead for the grandiose ideas like Arabella's. This is similar to the way in which Richardson responded to Pamela, demanding one, and only one reading of it, suggesting that reading it in any way but its moral form was almost like desecrating the text. This really seems to reduce their function though because, as I mentioned before, sometimes the way Lennox suggests to read the chapter is not the way to read it at all, or at least not the way you're inclined to read it. So what is this saying about the text and about reading novels??? And what about the irony about writing a novel that is against novels???
On another note, this issue with novel readings is important, especially when it comes to "ruining" women. If one reads Pamela in the Shamela or Anti-Pamela way, one could argue that her decline in morals was due to her extensive reading of novels. Another way to look at it (from the scribbling women's perspective), she could have made up all of these stories in her letters based on the heroes and heroines she read about in her books. Book reading is mentioned a lot in Pamela, especially in the beginning. Either way, books can be blamed for her shortcomings and departure from her virtuous ways and her overactive imagination.
Soooooooooooo are novels the root of all evil??? It sure seems to be that way...
"For Heaven's sake, Cousin, how have you spent your time; and to what Studies have you devoted all your Hours, that you could find none to spare for the Perusal of Books from which all useful Knowledge may be drawn; which give us the most shining examples of Generosity, Courage, Virtue, and Love; which regulate our actions, form our Manners, and inspire us with a noble Desire of emulating those great, heroic, and virtuous Actions, which made those Persons so glorious in their Age, and so worthy imitation in ours? However, as it is never too late to improve, suffer me to recommend to you the reading of these Books, which will soon make you discover the Improprieties you have been guilty of; and will, probably, induce you to avoid them for the future" (48-49).
But the problem with this is that the books are not always such a good thing for Arabella because she takes them way too literally (which is why she is called the female quixote...). But this is only part of what is going on. Lennox is sharing more with the reader than just the story of some girl who takes books literally. At the beginning of each chapter, Lennox provides the reader with little epigraphs that tell the reader how they ought to read that chapter or respond to it. There are times that it seems more neutral to rebel against these prescribed readings and interpret it in your own way. Lennox seems to use these to prevent the very things that happen to Arabella because of her reading by showing a reader how they should read a text and what moralistic implications and real guides to life a reader should take from the novels instead for the grandiose ideas like Arabella's. This is similar to the way in which Richardson responded to Pamela, demanding one, and only one reading of it, suggesting that reading it in any way but its moral form was almost like desecrating the text. This really seems to reduce their function though because, as I mentioned before, sometimes the way Lennox suggests to read the chapter is not the way to read it at all, or at least not the way you're inclined to read it. So what is this saying about the text and about reading novels??? And what about the irony about writing a novel that is against novels???
On another note, this issue with novel readings is important, especially when it comes to "ruining" women. If one reads Pamela in the Shamela or Anti-Pamela way, one could argue that her decline in morals was due to her extensive reading of novels. Another way to look at it (from the scribbling women's perspective), she could have made up all of these stories in her letters based on the heroes and heroines she read about in her books. Book reading is mentioned a lot in Pamela, especially in the beginning. Either way, books can be blamed for her shortcomings and departure from her virtuous ways and her overactive imagination.
Soooooooooooo are novels the root of all evil??? It sure seems to be that way...
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
And of course, a happy ending....
Evelina and Lord Orville ride off into the sunset, and they all lived happily every after...
This is how I feel the story really should have ended. I was really confused by the end because I was expecting a completely different ending from the criticism I read for my presentation last week. In Campbell's article, she makes it seem like Lord Orville's declaration of his love is one of friendship, not one of marriage. After I finished Evelina, I was a little shocked and misled because of Campbell's interpretation and presentation of the text. So what do you do when a critical essay misrepresents a text and downplays the contents to fit the argument??? Campbell argues that Orville empowers Evelina, looks at her as a friend, and elevates her to his superior when his trial of mosreading her conduct are over (449-450). But doesn't marriage kind of undo that argument? Does Orville only profess his love becuase of her good conduct and nature, or is it in part to do with her status? Whether her father recognizes her or not, Orville knows the story and knows that she has good relations and good company that suggest her status. And better yet, the marriage is arranged! Evelina is told she is going to be married to Lord Orville. Is this something that really empowers Evelina??? And is it something that only recognizes her virtuous nature? Campbell argues that Orville notices moments, especially in her meeting Macartney and Sir Willoughby, where Evelina's virtue may be questioned, calling him a bad reader becuase he is judging the actions out of context. She says further that these are moments where Evelina cannot explain herself and her silence ends up hurting her (further saying that a woman's silence is the ultimate threat to her reputation, including in publishing). But because Orville realizes this is not true and protects Evelina from the evil forces of Sir Willoughby, he becomes her friend and protector and is redeemed as a good reader (which would parallel the argument I talked about on Thurs that Burney was seeking protection from male critics to see her work as virtuous and not misread moments that are innocent). Campbell never mentions the marriage though...and this is important becuase one can argue that Orville did all of this becuase he really liked Evelina (as is indicated throughout the text from the moment he met her) and wanted to keep her safe for that reason. Her virtue plays a role, but there are other reasons for their match in the end, especially Sir Belmont's intervention. To me it seems that by omitting the fact that they are to get married and only refering to their friendly love for eachother, Campbell is protecting herself from critics that would break down her use or Orville as a reader of Evelina and say taht it may not be as reliable of a reference as it seems if this information is included. If anyone has a chance to read the article (its pretty short) and can help me work this out, that would be awesome!
And one more thing, what is with the monkey at the end??? Can somebody please help me out with this. It seems so out of place and ridiculous, but important becuase of that. Dr. Maruca, I think anyone who can answer that deserves some extra credit!
This is how I feel the story really should have ended. I was really confused by the end because I was expecting a completely different ending from the criticism I read for my presentation last week. In Campbell's article, she makes it seem like Lord Orville's declaration of his love is one of friendship, not one of marriage. After I finished Evelina, I was a little shocked and misled because of Campbell's interpretation and presentation of the text. So what do you do when a critical essay misrepresents a text and downplays the contents to fit the argument??? Campbell argues that Orville empowers Evelina, looks at her as a friend, and elevates her to his superior when his trial of mosreading her conduct are over (449-450). But doesn't marriage kind of undo that argument? Does Orville only profess his love becuase of her good conduct and nature, or is it in part to do with her status? Whether her father recognizes her or not, Orville knows the story and knows that she has good relations and good company that suggest her status. And better yet, the marriage is arranged! Evelina is told she is going to be married to Lord Orville. Is this something that really empowers Evelina??? And is it something that only recognizes her virtuous nature? Campbell argues that Orville notices moments, especially in her meeting Macartney and Sir Willoughby, where Evelina's virtue may be questioned, calling him a bad reader becuase he is judging the actions out of context. She says further that these are moments where Evelina cannot explain herself and her silence ends up hurting her (further saying that a woman's silence is the ultimate threat to her reputation, including in publishing). But because Orville realizes this is not true and protects Evelina from the evil forces of Sir Willoughby, he becomes her friend and protector and is redeemed as a good reader (which would parallel the argument I talked about on Thurs that Burney was seeking protection from male critics to see her work as virtuous and not misread moments that are innocent). Campbell never mentions the marriage though...and this is important becuase one can argue that Orville did all of this becuase he really liked Evelina (as is indicated throughout the text from the moment he met her) and wanted to keep her safe for that reason. Her virtue plays a role, but there are other reasons for their match in the end, especially Sir Belmont's intervention. To me it seems that by omitting the fact that they are to get married and only refering to their friendly love for eachother, Campbell is protecting herself from critics that would break down her use or Orville as a reader of Evelina and say taht it may not be as reliable of a reference as it seems if this information is included. If anyone has a chance to read the article (its pretty short) and can help me work this out, that would be awesome!
And one more thing, what is with the monkey at the end??? Can somebody please help me out with this. It seems so out of place and ridiculous, but important becuase of that. Dr. Maruca, I think anyone who can answer that deserves some extra credit!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Starting out slow...
Honestly I do not have much to say about Evelina thus far (which is not good since I have to do a presentation on Tuesday....). In the first volume we are introduced to a number of characters and are left at a point where Madame Duvel wants to appeal to Sir Belmont about acknowledging his daughter so that she becomes the rightful heir to his fortune and name.
So a few things I've noticed:
1. Evelina is much better model of virtue and innocence than Pamela was. Evelina acts proper but does not boast about her innocence and beauty. Her beauty is mentioned a few times, sometimes by herself in the letters to Rev. Villars and sometimes by others in other letters. Evelina definately has one virtuous quality that Pamela did not have: HUMBLENESS.
2. As of right now, there seem to be too many people meddling in Evlina's affairs. Madame Duvel showed up out of nowhere, Rev. Villars is her "keeper," and Lady Howard also has her best interests invested into Evelina. Each person has a different idea of what is the best for her. Madame Duvel wants to sue her dad, Sir Belmont, to get him to take responsibility for his daughter, Rev. Villars wants to keep her in the country, and Lady Howard is playing both sides. Something tells me that this is not going to work out well for Evelina. Rev. Villars is more interested in her virtue and public reception based on her virtue (106-107) while Madame Duvel is more worried about her status and public reception based on wealth (102).
3. And what do we do with yet another girl without a father, nontheless a father that abandoned her mother after marrying her, tainting her birth. Right now her reputation is at stake becuase if this is revealed and Sir Belmont continues to deny her as his legitamit child, this can pose problems for her as well. No one wants a woman that is from an unworthy birth.
4. As far as writing goes, Evelina is much more developed and has a more complex story line than the other stories we have read. In Pamela after 111 pages, we were already almost to the climax of the story without much more development left to go, even though Richardson drones on for another 400 pages or so after that. In Evelina, Burney has developed a plot line that has a lot of room for development and some suspense. At the end of volume 1, the reader is not quite sure what is going to happen. Even though it is written in the epistolary style like the others, Burney shows her skills in writing and the development of the novel as a form. Her characters are more complex, her plot is more complex, and the reading is easier to take in and follow. This is much more like the novels we are used to and has broken away from the older prose forms that, for me anyways, were not always as fun or easy to read.
So a few things I've noticed:
1. Evelina is much better model of virtue and innocence than Pamela was. Evelina acts proper but does not boast about her innocence and beauty. Her beauty is mentioned a few times, sometimes by herself in the letters to Rev. Villars and sometimes by others in other letters. Evelina definately has one virtuous quality that Pamela did not have: HUMBLENESS.
2. As of right now, there seem to be too many people meddling in Evlina's affairs. Madame Duvel showed up out of nowhere, Rev. Villars is her "keeper," and Lady Howard also has her best interests invested into Evelina. Each person has a different idea of what is the best for her. Madame Duvel wants to sue her dad, Sir Belmont, to get him to take responsibility for his daughter, Rev. Villars wants to keep her in the country, and Lady Howard is playing both sides. Something tells me that this is not going to work out well for Evelina. Rev. Villars is more interested in her virtue and public reception based on her virtue (106-107) while Madame Duvel is more worried about her status and public reception based on wealth (102).
3. And what do we do with yet another girl without a father, nontheless a father that abandoned her mother after marrying her, tainting her birth. Right now her reputation is at stake becuase if this is revealed and Sir Belmont continues to deny her as his legitamit child, this can pose problems for her as well. No one wants a woman that is from an unworthy birth.
4. As far as writing goes, Evelina is much more developed and has a more complex story line than the other stories we have read. In Pamela after 111 pages, we were already almost to the climax of the story without much more development left to go, even though Richardson drones on for another 400 pages or so after that. In Evelina, Burney has developed a plot line that has a lot of room for development and some suspense. At the end of volume 1, the reader is not quite sure what is going to happen. Even though it is written in the epistolary style like the others, Burney shows her skills in writing and the development of the novel as a form. Her characters are more complex, her plot is more complex, and the reading is easier to take in and follow. This is much more like the novels we are used to and has broken away from the older prose forms that, for me anyways, were not always as fun or easy to read.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Reading other people's mail....
Letters, letters, and more letters...All this letter reading is making me feel like I'm invading the personal lives of these characters or something...lol. Although, I believe it was common to share letters and read them to others during this time and that they were not a private as we think of them now. If anyone has anymore information on this I would be interested. I've become sort of obsessed with all these letters...
Even though letters are an essential part of Anti-Pamela just as they are in Pamela, they are no longer the predominate source for the action of the story. In Anti-Pamela there are moments where there is a narrator who fills in the gaps between the letters and gives the reader clues about Syrena's behavior. But what is odd about this now that I just looked at it again is that this story is still comprised of a series of letters, but Syrena refers to herself in the third person within the letters and writes it like a story...so i think. Now I'm confused. A lot of this occurs during the relations with Vardine when she is lying about what happens to her mom, but the truth is revealed to the reader.
There are two different things going on between Pamela and Anti-Pamela. In Pamela it is hard to discern what is really going on because Pamela's letters have a very distinct audience which may cause her to be an unreliable narrator. In Anti-Pamela, it is unclear who the audience is since the letters are addresssed to Ann Tricksy but things she isn't supppossed to know are revealed in the process. There appears at some points to be a narrator who intervenes (p71-86 is one spot, among others...), giving the reader true insight into Syrena's charachter that lacks in Pamela's charachter. The reader only knows Pamela through the way she depicts herself in her letters to her parents and her reproduction of letters from others. The reader never gets a glimpse of Pamela from someone else's point of view. In Anti-Pamela, if it was not for this intervention by a narrator, the reader would be forced to believe Syrena's letters to her mother, which are often as inclusive as Pamela's letters to her family. The writing is the same, the responses to the men are similar when depicted in her letters, and even though it is obvious Syrena is lying to these men for her own personal gain, her letters depict her in a different light. This is similar to the inconsistencies I found in Pamela, but without the evidence that is provided in Anti-Pamela.
It is very interesting how the presence of letters can change the way a character and his/her actions are perceived...
One thing I forgot to mention was the issue of intercepting letters. This occurs in both books (I'm really sick of writing the titles over and over...) and changes the fate of the characters, more permanatly for Syrena than Pamela. This goes back to the issue of audience and letters. Now it is considered a federal offence in America to read someone else's mail. But in 18th Century England, what were the rules for letters? As I suggested earlier, I believe that letters were not as personal as we think of them now. In both books because Syrena and Pamela are servants, their masters by default feel that it is okay to read their letters. Is this an invasion of their privacy? Can servants have a private life or is their life fully indebted to their master? Syrena definately has more freedom than Pamela. Getting a little off topic here, does this freedom correlate with her much looser morals?
But anyways...audience and letters.....what does it all mean?!?!?!?!
Even though letters are an essential part of Anti-Pamela just as they are in Pamela, they are no longer the predominate source for the action of the story. In Anti-Pamela there are moments where there is a narrator who fills in the gaps between the letters and gives the reader clues about Syrena's behavior. But what is odd about this now that I just looked at it again is that this story is still comprised of a series of letters, but Syrena refers to herself in the third person within the letters and writes it like a story...so i think. Now I'm confused. A lot of this occurs during the relations with Vardine when she is lying about what happens to her mom, but the truth is revealed to the reader.
There are two different things going on between Pamela and Anti-Pamela. In Pamela it is hard to discern what is really going on because Pamela's letters have a very distinct audience which may cause her to be an unreliable narrator. In Anti-Pamela, it is unclear who the audience is since the letters are addresssed to Ann Tricksy but things she isn't supppossed to know are revealed in the process. There appears at some points to be a narrator who intervenes (p71-86 is one spot, among others...), giving the reader true insight into Syrena's charachter that lacks in Pamela's charachter. The reader only knows Pamela through the way she depicts herself in her letters to her parents and her reproduction of letters from others. The reader never gets a glimpse of Pamela from someone else's point of view. In Anti-Pamela, if it was not for this intervention by a narrator, the reader would be forced to believe Syrena's letters to her mother, which are often as inclusive as Pamela's letters to her family. The writing is the same, the responses to the men are similar when depicted in her letters, and even though it is obvious Syrena is lying to these men for her own personal gain, her letters depict her in a different light. This is similar to the inconsistencies I found in Pamela, but without the evidence that is provided in Anti-Pamela.
It is very interesting how the presence of letters can change the way a character and his/her actions are perceived...
One thing I forgot to mention was the issue of intercepting letters. This occurs in both books (I'm really sick of writing the titles over and over...) and changes the fate of the characters, more permanatly for Syrena than Pamela. This goes back to the issue of audience and letters. Now it is considered a federal offence in America to read someone else's mail. But in 18th Century England, what were the rules for letters? As I suggested earlier, I believe that letters were not as personal as we think of them now. In both books because Syrena and Pamela are servants, their masters by default feel that it is okay to read their letters. Is this an invasion of their privacy? Can servants have a private life or is their life fully indebted to their master? Syrena definately has more freedom than Pamela. Getting a little off topic here, does this freedom correlate with her much looser morals?
But anyways...audience and letters.....what does it all mean?!?!?!?!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Response to Ken's Blog that I would like to investigate further....
I think another thing to think about along the lines of property is who owns Pamela's letters? She is the author and the "publisher," but they are addressed to her parents (does this transfer the ownership?), but her Master "owns" her (so does this make him ultimately the owner of the letters???). There is a lot of debate about this throughout the book from the moment where we discover the master is intercepting the letters all the way until they get married. Pamela tries to take ownership of them and fights for the ownership, but is unsuccessful. She has to distribute them to an audience that she makes clear her letters were not intended for. I wonder how the Act of Anne would apply to this or what Locke would think. Renee talks about the ideas as property, but what about the physical letters she has to give up??? Who owns them???
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Oh Pamela, I can see right through you....
Finally finally finally the time has come to read Shamela and see someone else's views of this lying, transparent little girl. I understand I may be being a bit harsh, but after reading almost 400 pages (I need to finish the book tomorrow morning...) of her horrible life as told through letters to her parents and her constant reminders of how absolutely perfect, virtuous, and moral she is (I always thought modesty was an aspect of morality...maybe I didn't have the same lessons as Pamela...), I am ready to punch her in the face for pretending to be something she's not, and Richardson for defending her to wits end. Henry Fielding is my new bff for sharing my thoughts on the little conniving brat.
I haven't quite finished reading Shamela, but when i got to this letter, I instantly fell in love.
I haven't quite finished reading Shamela, but when i got to this letter, I instantly fell in love.
LETTER II.
Shamela Andrews to Henrietta Maria Honora Andrews.
Dear Mamma,
[31] O what News, since I writ my last! the young Squire hath been here, and as sure as a Gun he hath taken a Fancy to me; Pamela, says he, (for so I am called here) you was a great Favourite of your late Mistress's; yes, an't please your Honour, says I; and I believe you deserved it, says he; thank your Honour for your good Opinion, says I; and then he took me by the Hand, and I pretended to be shy: Laud, says I, Sir, I hope you don't intend to be rude; no, says he, my Dear, and then he kissed me, 'till he took away my Breath — and I pretended to be Angry, and to get away, and then he kissed me again, and breathed very short, and looked very silly; and by Ill-Luck Mrs. Jervis came in, and had like to have spoiled Sport. — How troublesome is such Interruption! You shall hear now soon, for I shall not come away yet, so I rest,
Your affectionate Daughter,
Shamela.
This letter sums it all up for me. I love how Fielding points out that in all of these spots where she is "being virtuous," she is really pretending. Her exaggeration of each and every situation, her overemphasis of how "perfect" she is, and the fact that she is writing to her parents are all indications that Fielding has it right on here. All of her attempts to get away from her horrible master are sorry attempts, and all it took for her to want to be with him was for him to convince her that he loved her. I'm sorry, but if some guy was being awful to me and then said he loved me, that would not convince me to marry him. Also, with the exception of Mrs. Jervis (who really doesn't help her out that much anyways...), all the people she goes to for help are men. This may just be out of societal position and convenience based on sex, but one could speculate (as I mentioned on Thurs) that she is flaunting her good looks (since she is the most beautiful thing, even in her plain clothes) to get what she wants. And anything bad that ever happens to her or anyone else (she ruined A LOT of lives with her little schemes...I have the page numbers marked...I'll put them in later) is not her fault. Afterall, Shamela, errr, I mean Pamela, is perfect, right???? She would NEVER do anyone any harm........more on this later...
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
So I was thinking...
...about all this mention of virtue and being ruined and everything else that poor little Pamela is encountering in her little story, and i couldn't help but be reminded of Memoirs of a Geisha. Pamela puts so much emphasis on her virginity that it almost seems like a commodity. She mentions time and time again how all the men admire her because of her virtue, which is synonymous for her virginity. Even though she doesn't explicitly say it (she can't; she's writing to her parents) she is a tease, often flaunting her beauty and her clothes and using it to her advantage. Every man she encounters is described as being enthralled with her beauty, which I see as not wanting her beuaty, but wanting her virginity that she also flaunts.
I thought of Memoirs of a Geisha because Sayuri also is a poor girl and once she hits adolescence, her virginity becomes the thing that will either make or break her career as a geisha and allow her the means to escape her fate as a maid if she cannot pay off her debt. She sells her virginity for a very high amount, and through this wins the favor of Mother and secures her career as a successful geisha.
I'm sure there are other literary instances of this as well. Why is it that the poor girls in these two novels have to bank their life on their virginity to secure themselves in society? I haven't read that far into Pamela yet (about p150 or so as of right now) but the strong emphasis on her virtue and no wanting to be ruined makes me think that somehow her virginity may play an important role later on. Even if it is not as drastic as in Memoirs of a Geisha, the emphasis is still there and is commodified. I really don't know how to piece this together but have been thinking about it ever since I started reading Pamela. More on this once I read some more and can clarify the connection, if there even is one....
I thought of Memoirs of a Geisha because Sayuri also is a poor girl and once she hits adolescence, her virginity becomes the thing that will either make or break her career as a geisha and allow her the means to escape her fate as a maid if she cannot pay off her debt. She sells her virginity for a very high amount, and through this wins the favor of Mother and secures her career as a successful geisha.
I'm sure there are other literary instances of this as well. Why is it that the poor girls in these two novels have to bank their life on their virginity to secure themselves in society? I haven't read that far into Pamela yet (about p150 or so as of right now) but the strong emphasis on her virtue and no wanting to be ruined makes me think that somehow her virginity may play an important role later on. Even if it is not as drastic as in Memoirs of a Geisha, the emphasis is still there and is commodified. I really don't know how to piece this together but have been thinking about it ever since I started reading Pamela. More on this once I read some more and can clarify the connection, if there even is one....
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Unreliable Pamela
As I mentioned in class on Thursday, Pamela was really irritating me for many valid reasons. I will explore each of these one by one, in explicit detail because as I read, I can't help but notice how horribly bad this book is pissing me off.....And thus my list of complaints begins....
1. Are we really supposed to believe this girl???
This first questions highlights the main underlying issue of all the other issues raised: Can we trust our information source? As I first started reading, I began thinking about the means in which the story is delivered, which is a series of letters from Pamela, mostly addressed to her parents (at least up to page 108). These letters are very problematic for a number of reasons.
First, Because they are letters from the "dutiful Daughter," to her parents, she has a very particular audience that she is appealing to. Because of this narrow scope, the reader has reason to assume that the information presented in the letters may be skewed, especially since her parents are very adamant about her moral and virtuous nature. She wouldn't want to ruin herself and disappoint her parents. Even if she strayed from her moral and virtuous nature, I find it very hard to believe that she would write about this to her parents.
Secondly, her letters read more like stories than reports of actual events. At the beginning of Letter XXX, Pamela starts the letter out hoping that she can deliver it to them in person and leave the next day (Thursday), but ends the letter saying that she has to stay there for another fortnight. This type of inconsistency signals that she is writing for entertainment purposes rather than just letting her parents know that she is doing just fine. On 77, Pamela mentoins that she will tell stories of her life at this manor as entertainment. Does this mean she's fabricating them a bit to make them more interesting or rewriting the story to fully entertain her parents with the idea of her virtuous nature? She is also often referred to a "scribbling woman," suggesting that she was a fictional story writer which is how her letters read. There is something about the tone of them that makes a reader wonder about their validity and question Pamela's account of events.
2. Someone's a little full of herself....
I started to count the number of times she called herself virtuous, reminded her parents of her virtuous nature, or something along those lines and lost count. It really started to get old. Then I started to think, damn this girl is a little full of herself. This supports her unreliability as a narrator because her letters become full of self-promotion and making herself look like her parents little virtuous princess. She also cites her beauty over and over and over again as well. She talks about how everyone admires her and makes it a point to bring up how important her virtue is to her and what lengths she will go to to protect it. She makes it seem like she is willing to give up a pretty comfortable and luxurious life in order to keep our virtue (which the reader finds out is not entirely true....great princess quote on 81 that I'll probably visit later). I would give page numbers, but I would probably end up citing the whole book thus far. She also consistantly reminds her parents in her letters to them on how much better off she is at her Master's home and points out her elevated status. The are multiple instance of this (p 76 is one I have off the top of my head). Even though she says she is not ashamed of her lowly past or the lowly state of her parents, she is not as wiling to go back to that lifestyle as she makes it seem (see 80-81).
3. Whose story do we believe?
Even within Pamela's own narrative in the letters to her parents, the stories of Pamela and her Master don't always match up. Pamela makes it a point to highlight her innocence and make the Master out to be a vile pig while she has no idea of his bad intentions and always seems to have these outstanding instances with hiding in closets and all sorts of other bizarre stuff (the closet hiding is a whole other issue...). According to Pamela, she is always the unsuspecting victim. The Master tells the story a little differently, pointing out her "wit and good sense" (83, 73), how she has damaged his name, and other things that show she is capable to know what is going on and may be telling the story a little differently to protect herself. She also often portarys herself as being a little firty and using her beauty in ways she's probably not mentioning to her parents (62, 63). Who's at fault here: Pamela or the Master? So far this is a little unclear.
More to come on this later..............
1. Are we really supposed to believe this girl???
This first questions highlights the main underlying issue of all the other issues raised: Can we trust our information source? As I first started reading, I began thinking about the means in which the story is delivered, which is a series of letters from Pamela, mostly addressed to her parents (at least up to page 108). These letters are very problematic for a number of reasons.
First, Because they are letters from the "dutiful Daughter," to her parents, she has a very particular audience that she is appealing to. Because of this narrow scope, the reader has reason to assume that the information presented in the letters may be skewed, especially since her parents are very adamant about her moral and virtuous nature. She wouldn't want to ruin herself and disappoint her parents. Even if she strayed from her moral and virtuous nature, I find it very hard to believe that she would write about this to her parents.
Secondly, her letters read more like stories than reports of actual events. At the beginning of Letter XXX, Pamela starts the letter out hoping that she can deliver it to them in person and leave the next day (Thursday), but ends the letter saying that she has to stay there for another fortnight. This type of inconsistency signals that she is writing for entertainment purposes rather than just letting her parents know that she is doing just fine. On 77, Pamela mentoins that she will tell stories of her life at this manor as entertainment. Does this mean she's fabricating them a bit to make them more interesting or rewriting the story to fully entertain her parents with the idea of her virtuous nature? She is also often referred to a "scribbling woman," suggesting that she was a fictional story writer which is how her letters read. There is something about the tone of them that makes a reader wonder about their validity and question Pamela's account of events.
2. Someone's a little full of herself....
I started to count the number of times she called herself virtuous, reminded her parents of her virtuous nature, or something along those lines and lost count. It really started to get old. Then I started to think, damn this girl is a little full of herself. This supports her unreliability as a narrator because her letters become full of self-promotion and making herself look like her parents little virtuous princess. She also cites her beauty over and over and over again as well. She talks about how everyone admires her and makes it a point to bring up how important her virtue is to her and what lengths she will go to to protect it. She makes it seem like she is willing to give up a pretty comfortable and luxurious life in order to keep our virtue (which the reader finds out is not entirely true....great princess quote on 81 that I'll probably visit later). I would give page numbers, but I would probably end up citing the whole book thus far. She also consistantly reminds her parents in her letters to them on how much better off she is at her Master's home and points out her elevated status. The are multiple instance of this (p 76 is one I have off the top of my head). Even though she says she is not ashamed of her lowly past or the lowly state of her parents, she is not as wiling to go back to that lifestyle as she makes it seem (see 80-81).
3. Whose story do we believe?
Even within Pamela's own narrative in the letters to her parents, the stories of Pamela and her Master don't always match up. Pamela makes it a point to highlight her innocence and make the Master out to be a vile pig while she has no idea of his bad intentions and always seems to have these outstanding instances with hiding in closets and all sorts of other bizarre stuff (the closet hiding is a whole other issue...). According to Pamela, she is always the unsuspecting victim. The Master tells the story a little differently, pointing out her "wit and good sense" (83, 73), how she has damaged his name, and other things that show she is capable to know what is going on and may be telling the story a little differently to protect herself. She also often portarys herself as being a little firty and using her beauty in ways she's probably not mentioning to her parents (62, 63). Who's at fault here: Pamela or the Master? So far this is a little unclear.
More to come on this later..............
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Issues of Printing
In the beginning pages of Kernan's work, he expresses the anxieties that many people had in the 16th-18th centuries about the defamation of art and literature. There were many reasons for this as to why there was such a resistance to mass-produced printing. First, new mass-produced printing could allow the book to be distributed everywhere and anywhere, allowing people from all walks of life to enjoy literature. Second, in order to do so, this often meant translating books into the vernacular, changing their original form. This may seem like an really awesome thing at first, but the way I imagined it was like copying a painting. Paintings always seem to hold a higher value in our minds than literature, so this example helps to think how they were thinking (and our views of literature as not being "high art" may be a result of this time period and the mass production that made it available to all.) When somebody thinks of a painting, they usually always think of it in its original form and copies are thought of as just that, copies. The copies never hold as much value as the original and nobody wants a copy of a Picasso or Norman Rockwell piece. To make copies of this (even though it is done), is not thought of highly. This is the way that people thought of copying the Greek and Latin classics of the time. These were considered "high art," and to take them out of their original form through mass production was not accepted. This is like carrying around a credit card with VanGhogh's "Starry Starry Night" and acting like you really had a copy of it. This made something exclusive and turned it into common property. The book became commodified and democritized.
Another reason for this resistance that seems almost obvious is the standard resistance to cultural change. Any time things start to change in a society, there are always those who oppose it and do not want it to happen. The shift that was occuring, which we talked about extensively in relation to Addison and Steele, is the shift from an aristocracy to a more modern class system where people did not come to wealth only through family relations and marriages. More people had more money, the middle class was emerging, and a whole new literary culture was emerging, inviting a whole new arena of tastes and responses, all of which were not accepted with open arms. Literary cannons were no longer part of this aristocratic social structure and no longer served as part of the foundation as they once were. Once again, the mass production of the book changed the way people looked at literature and changed the way that literature was used as a marker of social status.
Another reason for this resistance that seems almost obvious is the standard resistance to cultural change. Any time things start to change in a society, there are always those who oppose it and do not want it to happen. The shift that was occuring, which we talked about extensively in relation to Addison and Steele, is the shift from an aristocracy to a more modern class system where people did not come to wealth only through family relations and marriages. More people had more money, the middle class was emerging, and a whole new literary culture was emerging, inviting a whole new arena of tastes and responses, all of which were not accepted with open arms. Literary cannons were no longer part of this aristocratic social structure and no longer served as part of the foundation as they once were. Once again, the mass production of the book changed the way people looked at literature and changed the way that literature was used as a marker of social status.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Printing and Property
At first I had a hard time trying to figure out how these essays went together. I should rephrase that....I have no idea how Locke's ideas fit in with the others that are obviously about print culture and the changes in law about printing. I was trying to figure out if it was just a general commentary about how things beginning to become less chaotic and monarch mandated. I thought that the Act of Anne was a way for the people to enter into a compact to bring printing up from nature and into the realm of reason and rationale. And then I realized we were supposed to only read Of Property...
So after re-reading Locke, I came to another conclusion. It seemed to me that the basis of Locke's argument was that if you do the work, the property is yours, except in those cases wen the property is common property and shared by all. This can apply to these things in two ways. First, in the case with the women in the printing house, since they were doing the work, it would only be natural for them to be recognized as the owners of the property that they were so heavily engaged with. Since they took ownership of the work, it should be theirs. The most important distinction here is that these women were not just working for a publisher, but they were involved with the actual running of the publishing business.
when it comes to publishing the written stuff, it seems like this could be interpreted in two different ways. On the on hand, when a writer writes something, he or she writes it for a public audience to read, share, think about, comment on, etc. In this case, the writing would be considered part of what Locke would call a common property and should not be regulated in any way, giving anyone the right to copy, distribute, and/or use the text in any way they feel is good and right and in the best interest of the common good. The Act of Anne does recognize this in a way and give power to the people to contest over-priced books which would conflict with the interest of the common good which was to promote the ideas of books and make them readily available to people.
On the other hand, there is a divide between rights by labor because even though the author wrote the book, the printer was the one distributing it, technically being able to take ownership for the distribution. However, from reading the Act of Anne it was not really clear if the act was in favor of the author or the bookseller. Maybe it was unclear because of the ambiguity of who does or should own a text once it goes into the printing stages. Hopefully we can clarify this a little bit because reading 18th Century acts alongside John Locke is not my cup of tea....
Here, due to the compact I have entered with my sovereign, Professor Maruca, is my February 17, 2009 post......did I mention how much I really dislike Locke and his sovereign compacts????
So after re-reading Locke, I came to another conclusion. It seemed to me that the basis of Locke's argument was that if you do the work, the property is yours, except in those cases wen the property is common property and shared by all. This can apply to these things in two ways. First, in the case with the women in the printing house, since they were doing the work, it would only be natural for them to be recognized as the owners of the property that they were so heavily engaged with. Since they took ownership of the work, it should be theirs. The most important distinction here is that these women were not just working for a publisher, but they were involved with the actual running of the publishing business.
when it comes to publishing the written stuff, it seems like this could be interpreted in two different ways. On the on hand, when a writer writes something, he or she writes it for a public audience to read, share, think about, comment on, etc. In this case, the writing would be considered part of what Locke would call a common property and should not be regulated in any way, giving anyone the right to copy, distribute, and/or use the text in any way they feel is good and right and in the best interest of the common good. The Act of Anne does recognize this in a way and give power to the people to contest over-priced books which would conflict with the interest of the common good which was to promote the ideas of books and make them readily available to people.
On the other hand, there is a divide between rights by labor because even though the author wrote the book, the printer was the one distributing it, technically being able to take ownership for the distribution. However, from reading the Act of Anne it was not really clear if the act was in favor of the author or the bookseller. Maybe it was unclear because of the ambiguity of who does or should own a text once it goes into the printing stages. Hopefully we can clarify this a little bit because reading 18th Century acts alongside John Locke is not my cup of tea....
Here, due to the compact I have entered with my sovereign, Professor Maruca, is my February 17, 2009 post......did I mention how much I really dislike Locke and his sovereign compacts????
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Poetry and Critics...
I found Swifts essay "Hints Towards an Essay in Conversation" quite humorous. He pointed out every characteristic of open conversation and spoke of its evil. What he didn't do, however, was give any advice as to how these faults and evils of conversations could be remedied. The only thing he does suggest is that having women present in conversation would help regulate the tongue. But he also says that if women have any usefulness in conversation, this would be it. He sees himself as a "True Critick," one who "is a collector and discoverer of writer's faults." If anything, Swift seems to be advocating that there need to be more critics to bring regulation to writing and speech. Even though he doesn't mention it, I'm sure Jonathan Swift was not fond of poetry either for its lofty ways and crooked speech. What I think is even funnier is that these "faults" of conversation are still present even after 300 years...Swift, your essay obviously didn't persuade anybody.
Speaking of poetry, I really dislike poetry as well and agree with the criticisms of it. I really think that poetry is an over the top way of writing that is overly showy and made much more complicated than it needs to be. People will sit there and tear apart lines of twisted words and come up with things that the author probably never intended. I would say that I agree with the Female Tattler's critique of poetry. I also think it is important to note that the argument on poetry parallels the argument about critics: ancient vs modern. Why is it that everything that is "old" seems to be so much better than that which is new? Is it because more people have been able to look at the old stuff with a more critical eye and there seems to be more to say about it or is it because people are always more critical about what is happening in the present moment? Any time there is change (which there is a lot of that going on during this time period), people begin to freak out and latch onto what is "normal" or "consistent," not realizing that these things evolved from previous forms as well. Maybe these essays are more critiques on change than anything else....
Anyways I'm just rambling now....back to a more focused approach...
In this section of essays, there was evidence of a very important debate that was going on about the role of the critic. In this section alone, there is a representation of both sides (Jonathan Swift vs Edward Ward). Swift sees the need for a critic that points out the faults of society to help uplift it from the evils of folly and vice that are running rampant through England at this time. Swift also sees this as the role of the critic throughout history. Ward sees the role of the critic much differently. He thinks the modern critic is overly negative, only pointing out the bad while not offering any sort of advice on it or providing helpful feedback like the ancient critics did. I have to say I agree with Ward here because Swift's essay could have been much more effective if he would have provided feedback as to how to conduct a proper conversation and what a proper conversation is rather than only what it is not. As Ward points out, this type of criticism is completely unhelpful and almost useless because it serves no purpose except to propagate negativity. This often seemed to be the problem in the excerpts from The Spectator and The Tattler. The articles often provided what was wrong with society, but offered no feedback as to what was right or how to fix it. Simply pointing out the problem and making people aware of it doesn't fix it. But at the same time, writing essays which simply "criticize" socity provide fuel for discussion in coffehouses and other forms of conversation, even if it is consistant with everything Swift said not to do....
Speaking of poetry, I really dislike poetry as well and agree with the criticisms of it. I really think that poetry is an over the top way of writing that is overly showy and made much more complicated than it needs to be. People will sit there and tear apart lines of twisted words and come up with things that the author probably never intended. I would say that I agree with the Female Tattler's critique of poetry. I also think it is important to note that the argument on poetry parallels the argument about critics: ancient vs modern. Why is it that everything that is "old" seems to be so much better than that which is new? Is it because more people have been able to look at the old stuff with a more critical eye and there seems to be more to say about it or is it because people are always more critical about what is happening in the present moment? Any time there is change (which there is a lot of that going on during this time period), people begin to freak out and latch onto what is "normal" or "consistent," not realizing that these things evolved from previous forms as well. Maybe these essays are more critiques on change than anything else....
Anyways I'm just rambling now....back to a more focused approach...
In this section of essays, there was evidence of a very important debate that was going on about the role of the critic. In this section alone, there is a representation of both sides (Jonathan Swift vs Edward Ward). Swift sees the need for a critic that points out the faults of society to help uplift it from the evils of folly and vice that are running rampant through England at this time. Swift also sees this as the role of the critic throughout history. Ward sees the role of the critic much differently. He thinks the modern critic is overly negative, only pointing out the bad while not offering any sort of advice on it or providing helpful feedback like the ancient critics did. I have to say I agree with Ward here because Swift's essay could have been much more effective if he would have provided feedback as to how to conduct a proper conversation and what a proper conversation is rather than only what it is not. As Ward points out, this type of criticism is completely unhelpful and almost useless because it serves no purpose except to propagate negativity. This often seemed to be the problem in the excerpts from The Spectator and The Tattler. The articles often provided what was wrong with society, but offered no feedback as to what was right or how to fix it. Simply pointing out the problem and making people aware of it doesn't fix it. But at the same time, writing essays which simply "criticize" socity provide fuel for discussion in coffehouses and other forms of conversation, even if it is consistant with everything Swift said not to do....
Monday, February 2, 2009
Totally in need of a Tatler.....
I'm not quite finished with the readings, but Then I came across Tatler No.144, I couldn't help but chuckle....and then I started to really think about it in relation to our current day and age and how an article like this may do our society some good. There are definitely parallels between 18th century England that are relevant today (political corruption, obsessions with commodities, frivolous spending, need I go on????). Even though it is not always in the best interest to look at literature or other material of the times in a modern light, I feel that becuase the issues addressed in the Tatler and Spectator are so relavent to what is going on now, it may do us some good to understand the time better by looking at them in relation to our own.
In Tatler No.144, Isaac Bickerstaff writes about how Britain at the time needed a censor to keep frivilous spending in check, especially when it came to purchasing elaborate coaches. He comments about how these coaches wee ruining the roads for the luxury of the select few and were used as a means to bring attention to a select few. "As for my Part, I cannot but admire how Persons, conscious to themselves of no manner of Superiority above others, can out of mere Pride or Laziness expose themselves at this Rate to publick View, and put us all upon pronouncing those Three terrible Syllables, Who is that?" (56). He is critiquing the notion of celebritydom in 18th century England. He goes on to say how puchasing a highly decorated coach served no purpose except to make one stand out among everyone else and outwardly show one's wealth. This made me think of lavish cars, limosines, and celebrities. I also thought about how our magazines and newspapers do the complete opposite of what the Tatler and Spectator do and how there really are no popular news outlets that discourage this type of high consumerism (and if there are some out there, PLEASE let me know what they are! lol). I began to ponder the idea of how our society could use a publication like this that would motivate people to critique the corrupt and disfunctional society we live in (and also reinforced the notion that history repeats itself all too often). Thinking about it in this way makes these publications more relevant to us and helps us realize why they became so popular. These papers sought to provoke thought above and beyond the superficialness that seemed to saturate society at the time.
Going off in another direction, the aim of these papers also paralles what John Gay was attempting to do in The Beggars Opera. Both are working to highlight the common problems of the time, but the Tatler and Spectator take it a step further than Gay does. While Gay simply highlights the corruption and consumerism of his time, the Tatler and Spectator offer ideas to remedy these problems and point them out explicitly, rather than (sort of) implicitly like Gay does. The papers also provoked thought and discussion on these topics within the coffehouses, which The Beggar's Opera did, but probably not to the extent that the papers did (or maybe they were talked about in conjunction...wouldn't that be something....?)
I should probably finish my reading now...or go to bed...whichever happens first....
In Tatler No.144, Isaac Bickerstaff writes about how Britain at the time needed a censor to keep frivilous spending in check, especially when it came to purchasing elaborate coaches. He comments about how these coaches wee ruining the roads for the luxury of the select few and were used as a means to bring attention to a select few. "As for my Part, I cannot but admire how Persons, conscious to themselves of no manner of Superiority above others, can out of mere Pride or Laziness expose themselves at this Rate to publick View, and put us all upon pronouncing those Three terrible Syllables, Who is that?" (56). He is critiquing the notion of celebritydom in 18th century England. He goes on to say how puchasing a highly decorated coach served no purpose except to make one stand out among everyone else and outwardly show one's wealth. This made me think of lavish cars, limosines, and celebrities. I also thought about how our magazines and newspapers do the complete opposite of what the Tatler and Spectator do and how there really are no popular news outlets that discourage this type of high consumerism (and if there are some out there, PLEASE let me know what they are! lol). I began to ponder the idea of how our society could use a publication like this that would motivate people to critique the corrupt and disfunctional society we live in (and also reinforced the notion that history repeats itself all too often). Thinking about it in this way makes these publications more relevant to us and helps us realize why they became so popular. These papers sought to provoke thought above and beyond the superficialness that seemed to saturate society at the time.
Going off in another direction, the aim of these papers also paralles what John Gay was attempting to do in The Beggars Opera. Both are working to highlight the common problems of the time, but the Tatler and Spectator take it a step further than Gay does. While Gay simply highlights the corruption and consumerism of his time, the Tatler and Spectator offer ideas to remedy these problems and point them out explicitly, rather than (sort of) implicitly like Gay does. The papers also provoked thought and discussion on these topics within the coffehouses, which The Beggar's Opera did, but probably not to the extent that the papers did (or maybe they were talked about in conjunction...wouldn't that be something....?)
I should probably finish my reading now...or go to bed...whichever happens first....
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
All this talk about beverages is making me thirsty....
We started this class talking about gin street and beer, and now coffee houses....too many beverages!
One thing I wanted to share is some insight into why beer was preferred over gin and seen as a nutritious beverage. My boyfriend and I are homebrewers, and becuase of this I know a lot about this tasty beverage and agree with the 18th century view of it as a wholesome drink.
First of all, the beer we generally think of as beer is not the same beer that they were drinking in England in the 18th Century. American beer is a watered-down, tainted version of beer, often using cheap ingredients that do not provide much more than a hangover. "Real" beer consists of about 99% water and made with whole grains and yeast that provide a lot of nutrients.
Because beer is 99% water and 1% flavor, it is actually a very hydrating. There was an article in a brew magazine last year that was all about beer as a hydrating and nutritious beverage (if I can find the magazine I will put in the citation....) The yeast in beer provides all of the B vitamins and is very good for you. The grain in beer provides small amounts of protein and other vitamins and minerals as well. Hops also have properties that are good for the body and promote health, helping break down unwanted organisms. Because of the caloric content of beer, it also has enough calories to give the body energy necessary to function, and it is easy to break down becuase it is in a simple sugar form. Since most people at this time usually drank ales or stouts which are very high in nutritious content, the beer they were drinking was literally good for them. For instance, a person could reasonably live off a beer like Guiness (a stout for those of you who may not know) becuase it is made with wholesome grains and has a lot of yeast.
This is just a brief overview of the very true health benefits of drinking beer. To us it sounds crazy that they sought this sort of beverage in good health, but they knew what they were doing. Next time you drink a brew, drink it in good health!
One thing I wanted to share is some insight into why beer was preferred over gin and seen as a nutritious beverage. My boyfriend and I are homebrewers, and becuase of this I know a lot about this tasty beverage and agree with the 18th century view of it as a wholesome drink.
First of all, the beer we generally think of as beer is not the same beer that they were drinking in England in the 18th Century. American beer is a watered-down, tainted version of beer, often using cheap ingredients that do not provide much more than a hangover. "Real" beer consists of about 99% water and made with whole grains and yeast that provide a lot of nutrients.
Because beer is 99% water and 1% flavor, it is actually a very hydrating. There was an article in a brew magazine last year that was all about beer as a hydrating and nutritious beverage (if I can find the magazine I will put in the citation....) The yeast in beer provides all of the B vitamins and is very good for you. The grain in beer provides small amounts of protein and other vitamins and minerals as well. Hops also have properties that are good for the body and promote health, helping break down unwanted organisms. Because of the caloric content of beer, it also has enough calories to give the body energy necessary to function, and it is easy to break down becuase it is in a simple sugar form. Since most people at this time usually drank ales or stouts which are very high in nutritious content, the beer they were drinking was literally good for them. For instance, a person could reasonably live off a beer like Guiness (a stout for those of you who may not know) becuase it is made with wholesome grains and has a lot of yeast.
This is just a brief overview of the very true health benefits of drinking beer. To us it sounds crazy that they sought this sort of beverage in good health, but they knew what they were doing. Next time you drink a brew, drink it in good health!
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Beggar's Opera
And on to week two...
Plays, poetry, drama, operas, etc are not really my thing, but I did find The Beggar's Opera especially amusing, and will admit that I actually liked it. I found Peachum and Mrs Peachum hilarious, especially when it came to justifying why their daughter should not get married. They would have rather seen their daughter as a tramp than see her get married. They saw her as being better off as a single woman than in marriage because she would lose the very few rights she had and simply become another man's property rather than being able to be a self-sustaining woman.
John Gay seems to use this situation found throughout the opera to say something about marriage. He consistently refers to the confining nature of marriage for both men and women. Women ruin men in marriage and men only take women as property. It is hard to discern if Gay is just pointing out the ridiculousness of marriage customs in the 18th century, making fun of dowries and marrying into families to preserve wealth, if he is only pointing out the crippling effect of marriage on women and how it stripped them of all their rights (tis better to be a widow moment on 61), or if he sees marriage as problematic altogether (92). It also seems like he is playing on the typical story of boy meets girl and girls parents don't like boy and keeps the boy away from their daughter at all costs and making fun of it (94). Overall, he tends to view marriage as just another problematic part of a corrupt society, from its lowest people to its highest people.
It seems to me that he is really poking fun of the traditions of Britain's high society, especially when it came to arranging marriages based on worthy wealth. Gay sees marriages as a financial transaction that if done properly can result in good things for both parties involved, just like a good business deal. A bad marriage, such as one with somebody who was considered unsuitable, would result in a loss of assets or wealth just like a bad business deal. "Money well timed, and properly applied, will do any thing" (89). In this quote, Gay is not only speaking about marriages, but other corruption throughout the aristocrocy where money can virtually buy anything from a marriage to government positions to immunity in a crime. Gay is obviously disgusted by this and outwardly depicts this throughout.
I am curious as to how to look at the marriage examples and see whay Gay is saying about gender roles in marriage. He switches from pointing out the degredation of women in marrige to the ways in which women ruin men. Is he trying to speak out against the oppresive roles of the domestic sphere (which I noticed DOES NOT exist in The Beggar's Opera and may be something else that Gay is bringing to our attention) and laws against women in England at the time? But then how do you account for him saying that women ruin men?
Regardless, Gay is bitter and he is letting everyone know it....and I think its hillarious. There is nothing better than some guy ranting and raving about the injustices of sociey in an opera...makes me chuckle just thinking about it....
Plays, poetry, drama, operas, etc are not really my thing, but I did find The Beggar's Opera especially amusing, and will admit that I actually liked it. I found Peachum and Mrs Peachum hilarious, especially when it came to justifying why their daughter should not get married. They would have rather seen their daughter as a tramp than see her get married. They saw her as being better off as a single woman than in marriage because she would lose the very few rights she had and simply become another man's property rather than being able to be a self-sustaining woman.
John Gay seems to use this situation found throughout the opera to say something about marriage. He consistently refers to the confining nature of marriage for both men and women. Women ruin men in marriage and men only take women as property. It is hard to discern if Gay is just pointing out the ridiculousness of marriage customs in the 18th century, making fun of dowries and marrying into families to preserve wealth, if he is only pointing out the crippling effect of marriage on women and how it stripped them of all their rights (tis better to be a widow moment on 61), or if he sees marriage as problematic altogether (92). It also seems like he is playing on the typical story of boy meets girl and girls parents don't like boy and keeps the boy away from their daughter at all costs and making fun of it (94). Overall, he tends to view marriage as just another problematic part of a corrupt society, from its lowest people to its highest people.
It seems to me that he is really poking fun of the traditions of Britain's high society, especially when it came to arranging marriages based on worthy wealth. Gay sees marriages as a financial transaction that if done properly can result in good things for both parties involved, just like a good business deal. A bad marriage, such as one with somebody who was considered unsuitable, would result in a loss of assets or wealth just like a bad business deal. "Money well timed, and properly applied, will do any thing" (89). In this quote, Gay is not only speaking about marriages, but other corruption throughout the aristocrocy where money can virtually buy anything from a marriage to government positions to immunity in a crime. Gay is obviously disgusted by this and outwardly depicts this throughout.
I am curious as to how to look at the marriage examples and see whay Gay is saying about gender roles in marriage. He switches from pointing out the degredation of women in marrige to the ways in which women ruin men. Is he trying to speak out against the oppresive roles of the domestic sphere (which I noticed DOES NOT exist in The Beggar's Opera and may be something else that Gay is bringing to our attention) and laws against women in England at the time? But then how do you account for him saying that women ruin men?
Regardless, Gay is bitter and he is letting everyone know it....and I think its hillarious. There is nothing better than some guy ranting and raving about the injustices of sociey in an opera...makes me chuckle just thinking about it....
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Rover
I'm going to start this blog out very bluntly....I was not a fan of The Rover at all, and for many reasons.
First of all, it was like reading a soap opera. I felt like I was reading The Days of our Lives of 18th cent drama. All the men wanted was sex, half of the women were whores, and the fighting and confusion and everything else just aided to the soap opera-ness of it.
Right from the beginning I was shocked at how graphic the play was. In 1.2 there is a point where Willmore is very graphically talking about how he wants to basically get with any woman that looks decent.
"Pray where do these roses grow? I would fain plant them in a bed of mine." Lines 84-86 (12)
"A pox of fear: I'll be baked with thee between a pair of sheets (and that's thy proper still), so I might but strew such roses over me, and under me. Fair one, would you would give me leave to gather at your bush this idle month; I would go near to make somebody smell of it all the year after." Lines 88-92 (12)
There are more lines just in this act that allude to very horny men looking for a piece of ass (pardon my wording here, but there is no better way to phrase it than this). This seems to be a recurring theme throughout the play. The men fight over women, pursue the wrong women, try to rape women they think are whores (mainly Blunt), and do anything, including pledging themselves for a free piece with no intent to stay tru to that pledge (Willmore and Angelina). The men even throw themselves at the "pure" girls, Hellena and Florinda, for a chance to "ruin" them discretely, causing Don Pedro to be constantly worried about his sisters maintaining their vrgin status (which is one of the reasons Hellena is destined to become a nun and Flroinda has to get married to somebody very soon).
All in all, the lesson, or moral of the story seems that whores are bad news and get you into trouble and getting with a good girl the right way seems to provide less troubles. I'm not even sure all that can be said considering all the trouble Belvile has to go through for Florinda.
Not knowing much about the social climate of the time, I can only critique what appears to me to be a very shallow plot line that is meant as pure pleasure and entertainment for the time.
First of all, it was like reading a soap opera. I felt like I was reading The Days of our Lives of 18th cent drama. All the men wanted was sex, half of the women were whores, and the fighting and confusion and everything else just aided to the soap opera-ness of it.
Right from the beginning I was shocked at how graphic the play was. In 1.2 there is a point where Willmore is very graphically talking about how he wants to basically get with any woman that looks decent.
"Pray where do these roses grow? I would fain plant them in a bed of mine." Lines 84-86 (12)
"A pox of fear: I'll be baked with thee between a pair of sheets (and that's thy proper still), so I might but strew such roses over me, and under me. Fair one, would you would give me leave to gather at your bush this idle month; I would go near to make somebody smell of it all the year after." Lines 88-92 (12)
There are more lines just in this act that allude to very horny men looking for a piece of ass (pardon my wording here, but there is no better way to phrase it than this). This seems to be a recurring theme throughout the play. The men fight over women, pursue the wrong women, try to rape women they think are whores (mainly Blunt), and do anything, including pledging themselves for a free piece with no intent to stay tru to that pledge (Willmore and Angelina). The men even throw themselves at the "pure" girls, Hellena and Florinda, for a chance to "ruin" them discretely, causing Don Pedro to be constantly worried about his sisters maintaining their vrgin status (which is one of the reasons Hellena is destined to become a nun and Flroinda has to get married to somebody very soon).
All in all, the lesson, or moral of the story seems that whores are bad news and get you into trouble and getting with a good girl the right way seems to provide less troubles. I'm not even sure all that can be said considering all the trouble Belvile has to go through for Florinda.
Not knowing much about the social climate of the time, I can only critique what appears to me to be a very shallow plot line that is meant as pure pleasure and entertainment for the time.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Very Interesting...
So this will be the place where I ramble about readings from Eng 5200...
Fun stuff to come before next Tuesday...
~C
Fun stuff to come before next Tuesday...
~C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
