First of all-I thought everyone had some interesting ideas to present to the class and while I was very distracted by the deliciousness of chocolate cupcakes I still felt I benefited from every ones proposals. So good job to those of us that are finishing out the semester and not withdrawing. Seriously, what's up with that?
Amy-I really was impressed with how you presented the new/old ideas of women's rights. The "assertion to self/heroin ism" and "quest for self/naturalistic" points you brought up will really illustrate just how severe the "oppression of men" was during the 19th century. I think your paper will kick ass. I think you picked out appropriate texts as well. Good luck!
Meredith-I think your paper surrounding "Man Thinking" will be interesting. The local color and transcendental genres you are piecing together will make a strong argument. I especially like that you are pulling in Hart's work to show what Emerson was saying is NOT "Man Thinking." Good topic.
Michael-You had so much going on in your paper that I didn't take enough notes but I think you had some brilliant ideas and if you can fit them all in then way to go! I really enjoyed how you proposed discussing the "reactions to rigidness" and I'll be interested to see what you come up with regarding that topic. Good luck with all the comparing/contrasting and have fun with all the dark literature we got to read this semester. That was definitely my favorite genre we studied!
Janel-Your claims of man looking inward equating inherent evil is really interesting as is the idea that man looking outwards will essentially create/invent new ideas. Very cool discussion points. I think you have a really interesting argument and with the texts you have chosen I'm sure you can support it. Best of luck!
Deb-I love how passionate you were about the texts you've chosen to write on. I definitely can see that there was a certain shift in writing due to the influence of the civil war. I think with your passion and obvious research and preparation you've done you will have a valid argument and you will strongly being able to support your ideas. You made texts that I disregarded as the more boring ones seem much more important. Happy writing!
Caitlyn-It was interesting to me that there were quite a few people in class that are using Fuller as the basis for their proposals. But every one's topics are different. I like that you are going to use her to compare different genres as well as tie in the differences between British/American literature. Way to go with the Feminist Movement!
Sara-I'm really interested to see what you have going on for tying in the Gothic genre to naturalistic/regional texts. I think they definitely share some similarities and I'm sure you can construct some interesting support to point out the elements these writing styles have in common.
Seriously, everyone...best of luck with papers and finals. I know this semester has kicked all of us in the junk but we are almost done!
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Truth about All Art: It's Quite Useless
I don't really believe that art is useless. Don't get me wrong, Wilde is a badass but sometimes he's a bit wordy and I think he likes to come up with catchy phrases just to create conversation and have them repeated. Which is fine by me.
I'm going to begin with two quotes, one from Norris and one from Zola and then begin my rambling.
"For the novel is the great expression of modern life. Each form of art has had its turn at reflecting and expressing its contemporaneous thought." -Norris-
"There is neither nobility, nor dignity, nor beauty, nor morality in not knowing, in lying, in pretending that you are greater according as you advance in error and confusion. The only great and moral works are those of truth." -Zola-
Honestly I don't really know what genre Wilde's text really fits in but I'm going to force it into a Naturalistic ideal because it fits the mold. There is an extremely pessimistic view of morality, detachment, determination and a plot twist in the end. If we apply Zola's principles of reading as an observer we can certainly see the "truth" that is so incredibly important to both Norris and Zola. Wilde tells a story about what could happen if someone was giving the opportunity to do whatever they desired. Wilde clearly writes Dorian Gray into his grave due to his own vanity and obsession with the corruption of his soul.
Referring back to the two mentioned quotes: Beginning with Zola's...Wilde writes the truly pessimistic side of humanity. People are sinful and corrupt at times and he puts us in a position as spectator to see the true nature and evil that exists in humanity. With Norris's statement it leaves us left to observe and "reflect" at what exactly we are to do with the truth of the potentially gross nature of human existence.
When I first read this back in the day I caught myself reflecting on my own existence and not that I'm a bad person by any means but I'm a totally vain person and some of my favorite things fit into the seven deadly sins category, primarily sloth and gluttony. Dorian thinks to himself "But the picture? What was he to say of that? It held the secret of his life, and told his story. It had taught him to love his own beauty. Would it teach him to loathe his own soul? would he ever look at it again?" (89) Honestly, if I had a straight view into my soul I'm not sure I would want to look into it. Scary.
To briefly summarize: we as readers, and as human beings, need to properly "observe" the "truth" and then figure out what we can do with it. Hopefully we won't end up like Dorian, that would be sad.
I'm going to begin with two quotes, one from Norris and one from Zola and then begin my rambling.
"For the novel is the great expression of modern life. Each form of art has had its turn at reflecting and expressing its contemporaneous thought." -Norris-
"There is neither nobility, nor dignity, nor beauty, nor morality in not knowing, in lying, in pretending that you are greater according as you advance in error and confusion. The only great and moral works are those of truth." -Zola-
Honestly I don't really know what genre Wilde's text really fits in but I'm going to force it into a Naturalistic ideal because it fits the mold. There is an extremely pessimistic view of morality, detachment, determination and a plot twist in the end. If we apply Zola's principles of reading as an observer we can certainly see the "truth" that is so incredibly important to both Norris and Zola. Wilde tells a story about what could happen if someone was giving the opportunity to do whatever they desired. Wilde clearly writes Dorian Gray into his grave due to his own vanity and obsession with the corruption of his soul.
Referring back to the two mentioned quotes: Beginning with Zola's...Wilde writes the truly pessimistic side of humanity. People are sinful and corrupt at times and he puts us in a position as spectator to see the true nature and evil that exists in humanity. With Norris's statement it leaves us left to observe and "reflect" at what exactly we are to do with the truth of the potentially gross nature of human existence.
When I first read this back in the day I caught myself reflecting on my own existence and not that I'm a bad person by any means but I'm a totally vain person and some of my favorite things fit into the seven deadly sins category, primarily sloth and gluttony. Dorian thinks to himself "But the picture? What was he to say of that? It held the secret of his life, and told his story. It had taught him to love his own beauty. Would it teach him to loathe his own soul? would he ever look at it again?" (89) Honestly, if I had a straight view into my soul I'm not sure I would want to look into it. Scary.
To briefly summarize: we as readers, and as human beings, need to properly "observe" the "truth" and then figure out what we can do with it. Hopefully we won't end up like Dorian, that would be sad.
Proposal Numero Dos
Alright, I've been working on cleaning up my proposal/final paper and I think I'm getting closer to a better finished product. I've changed the texts I'm using just slightly and I'm concentrating on a little bit of a different angle. So here are the texts I'm going to use for my paper.
The Picture of Dorian Gray-Wilde
Young Goodman Brown-Hawthorne
Edgar Huntly-Brown
Berenice-A Tale-Poe
I'm going to concentrate primarily on Wilde's text as it has the most support for my argument. So here it goes.
Throughout Wilde's work in TPODG there is a very clear example of influence and impressionism within the text. First, Dorian is influenced by Lord Henry then Dorian himself is able to influence others. Lord Henry acts as the foil to Dorian Gray which spirals the once "pure" adolescent into a corrupt and immoral being. The results of this contamination are visibly seen in the portrait of Gray and the protagonist becomes increasingly obsessed with the visible results of his sins and evil behavior which ultimately is the result for his demise.
The other texts will act primarily as further support that poor/evil influences and/or foils within the mentioned works lead to obsession which leads to an unhappy ending for the protagonists. For example:
In Edgar Huntly, Huntly himself becomes obsessed with avenging his friends death while being completely influence by Clithero's intense guilt. The obsession and influence nearly causes Huntly himself to lose his life but instead he is left feeling just as guilty as Clithero.
In Young Goodman Brown the protagonist is led astray from his path by the stranger in the woods causing Brown to begin to feel obsessively suspicious about his community and his wife leaving him to lead a miserable existence.
In Berenice, Poe's protagonist is influenced by opiates which causes him to brutally murder his love interest which leaves him left guilty and alone.
I know these are still really vague but I'm exhausted. Basically what I'm trying to argue is that the Foils, or variable influences to the protagonists, all are responsible for the constant/protagonists to become obsessed and or guilty and each is left which a negative result. Don't worry, I still plan on discussing the homoeroticism since Wilde's work is drenched in it, but really, you can kind of see it in all of the texts. Feel free to discuss with me how I can support that. Here are some outside sources that I have found.
"Poe and the Theme of Forbidden Knowledge" Jules Zanger
"Carnivalesque Freedom in Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown" S. Selina Jamil
"[Un]consciousness Itself Is the Malady": "Edgar Huntly" and the Discourse of the Other" Leonard Cassuto
"Come See About Me:Enchantment of the Double in "The Picture of Dorian Gray" Christopher Craft
"Aestheticism, Homoeroticism, and Christian Guilt in The Picture of Dorian Gray" Joseph Carroll
"The Strange Interest in Trivial Things: Seduction in Derrida and Dorian Gray" Forbes Morlock
"On the Discrimination of Influences" Andrew Elfenbein
I've really got all sorts of cool things to support my thesis, I just can't think of them right now because 2010 has been a crummy year (terrible excuse).
The Picture of Dorian Gray-Wilde
Young Goodman Brown-Hawthorne
Edgar Huntly-Brown
Berenice-A Tale-Poe
I'm going to concentrate primarily on Wilde's text as it has the most support for my argument. So here it goes.
Throughout Wilde's work in TPODG there is a very clear example of influence and impressionism within the text. First, Dorian is influenced by Lord Henry then Dorian himself is able to influence others. Lord Henry acts as the foil to Dorian Gray which spirals the once "pure" adolescent into a corrupt and immoral being. The results of this contamination are visibly seen in the portrait of Gray and the protagonist becomes increasingly obsessed with the visible results of his sins and evil behavior which ultimately is the result for his demise.
The other texts will act primarily as further support that poor/evil influences and/or foils within the mentioned works lead to obsession which leads to an unhappy ending for the protagonists. For example:
In Edgar Huntly, Huntly himself becomes obsessed with avenging his friends death while being completely influence by Clithero's intense guilt. The obsession and influence nearly causes Huntly himself to lose his life but instead he is left feeling just as guilty as Clithero.
In Young Goodman Brown the protagonist is led astray from his path by the stranger in the woods causing Brown to begin to feel obsessively suspicious about his community and his wife leaving him to lead a miserable existence.
In Berenice, Poe's protagonist is influenced by opiates which causes him to brutally murder his love interest which leaves him left guilty and alone.
I know these are still really vague but I'm exhausted. Basically what I'm trying to argue is that the Foils, or variable influences to the protagonists, all are responsible for the constant/protagonists to become obsessed and or guilty and each is left which a negative result. Don't worry, I still plan on discussing the homoeroticism since Wilde's work is drenched in it, but really, you can kind of see it in all of the texts. Feel free to discuss with me how I can support that. Here are some outside sources that I have found.
"Poe and the Theme of Forbidden Knowledge" Jules Zanger
"Carnivalesque Freedom in Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown" S. Selina Jamil
"[Un]consciousness Itself Is the Malady": "Edgar Huntly" and the Discourse of the Other" Leonard Cassuto
"Come See About Me:Enchantment of the Double in "The Picture of Dorian Gray" Christopher Craft
"Aestheticism, Homoeroticism, and Christian Guilt in The Picture of Dorian Gray" Joseph Carroll
"The Strange Interest in Trivial Things: Seduction in Derrida and Dorian Gray" Forbes Morlock
"On the Discrimination of Influences" Andrew Elfenbein
I've really got all sorts of cool things to support my thesis, I just can't think of them right now because 2010 has been a crummy year (terrible excuse).
Friday, April 9, 2010
Final Paper Proposal
Alright fellow students...I have a vague idea of what I'm going to write about and I'm not going to deny the fact that I'm kinda looking forward to my research. The writing part I'm not super keen on, mostly because I'm a poor writer, but the content will be at least somewhat rewarding to me. I'm going to concentrate on the following texts.
Byron's "The Giaour"
CBB's Edgar Huntly
Hawthornes "Young Goodman Brown"
Wilde's Dorian Gray
I may have to restrict this to only two of the four, but I would like to use all of them as they were some of my favorite readings from this semester.
Here's what I plan on doing:
I will argue that the following literary works all display a certain feeling of Christian Guilt throughout the texts that is illustrated by a loathsome self-image of the central characters in which self-destructive and immoral behavior is prominent throughout the progression of the stories. I plan to support my claim with specific examples which I will desperately attempt to support. I will touch on the fact that each of the protagonists are partnered with a central figure throughout the text that acts as an outside influence ie:Lord Henry to Dorian, the staffed man to Goodman Brown. These secondary characters represent the fight between moral and immoral desires in the characters struggles.
I know this is a grossly vague description of what I'm writing about but I've already found several interesting articles that will help me prove that I'm somewhat accurate in my claims. Also, as per usual there will be some discussion on homoeroticism and other sexual desires throughout some of the texts. I can't help it, sex is fun to write about. Sorry Julie!
If anyone has any suggestions or, more accurately, concerns feel free to leave me some feedback, I'd really like to write a good paper this semester and I tend to drop the ball when it comes to structured essays. Happy research and writing class!
Byron's "The Giaour"
CBB's Edgar Huntly
Hawthornes "Young Goodman Brown"
Wilde's Dorian Gray
I may have to restrict this to only two of the four, but I would like to use all of them as they were some of my favorite readings from this semester.
Here's what I plan on doing:
I will argue that the following literary works all display a certain feeling of Christian Guilt throughout the texts that is illustrated by a loathsome self-image of the central characters in which self-destructive and immoral behavior is prominent throughout the progression of the stories. I plan to support my claim with specific examples which I will desperately attempt to support. I will touch on the fact that each of the protagonists are partnered with a central figure throughout the text that acts as an outside influence ie:Lord Henry to Dorian, the staffed man to Goodman Brown. These secondary characters represent the fight between moral and immoral desires in the characters struggles.
I know this is a grossly vague description of what I'm writing about but I've already found several interesting articles that will help me prove that I'm somewhat accurate in my claims. Also, as per usual there will be some discussion on homoeroticism and other sexual desires throughout some of the texts. I can't help it, sex is fun to write about. Sorry Julie!
If anyone has any suggestions or, more accurately, concerns feel free to leave me some feedback, I'd really like to write a good paper this semester and I tend to drop the ball when it comes to structured essays. Happy research and writing class!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Daisy is actually a Dandelion...
I gotta say that Henry James is hit and miss with me. I've expressed my undying devotion to The Turn of the Screw on several occasions but I have a really tough time with his female characters. I was unable to complete Portrait of a Lady due to extreme boredom and throughout Daisy Miller I found myself continually rolling my eyes at the ridiculousness of Daisy. Yet there is some sort of genius in the progression of his female protagonists.
In the supplemental article we read for this blog assignment there is a really interesting analogy, or comparison, as to how James depicts his female characters. The author writes "Those who complain that he has not drawn the portrait of a noble and superior woman should remember that an artist may sometimes justly prefer to paint a dandelion rather than a rose." I love this statement. It helps me get over the so-called boredom. James writes and "every woman" type character which when I take a step back a realize this I find it easier to identify with.
Daisy is a somewhat boring character. There really is nothing that separates her from any other girl. She's not completely retarded, but she certainly isn't a genius either. She hits middle class, mediocre and medium in pretty much every aspect. And of course she's "pretty." The thing that sets her apart in this novella is she is the American "foreigner" so it's easy for her to capture the attention of her two suitors as they would find her more aggressive demeanor intriguing.
Really Daisy is no different than any other female and she encapsulates a sort of timeless feel. She could be someone who exists today that is just "playing the field." I hate to speak poorly of my own sex but some of us living ladies are a little overly flirtatious and speaking plainly are just kinda skanky. It's ridiculous to me that any one would string along two people simultaneously but people do that, they did it back in the day, and they do it now. I have to give James mad props for being so skilled at creating a generic female lead while he himself remains to be male. (I suppose that where some of the gay rumors stem from).
So there was one line in Daisy's many conversations that totally made me like her, a little. When having a conversation with Winterbourne he says to her "I beg your pardon if I say it wrong. The main point is to give you an idea of my meaning.' The young girl looked at him more gravely, but with eyes that were prettier than ever. 'I have never allowed a gentleman to dictate to me, or to interfere with anything I do." (40) I like that. Why should anyone let anyone interfere with their choices? Now after saying that I'm going to have to point out that Daisy made some foolish choices, but as she pointed out they were always her decisions. So good on her. I just wish she hadn't been killed off. I feel like this was completely parallel with The Coquette. I've already discussed this with Heather and I'm sure the other 371 students were made aware of the similarities but really it is disheartening that women are killed off for making their own decisions. It really defines woman as irrational and incapable of survival without the help of a man. So pathetic.
Anyway, as per usual our dear professor has given us some thought provoking material and even though I will probably never read this again I'm still looking forward to hearing what everyone has to say. So thank you teacher and thank you Mr. James.
ps-the above photo was taken with my hipstamatic again. I love having an iPhone!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Fenton vs. the Hipstamatic
After reading this article I have to say that our generation is beyond spoiled. Rather than fully devote all of my time to this blog assignment I've been distracted by my awesome iPhone which happens to take way cooler pictures than poor Fenton would ever have been able to accomplish. He certainly didn't have the latest application that I've obtained: the Hipstamatic. And it's not that he didn't have the necessary skills or talent, he merely was without the amenities that are available to us now. With that being said I have to point out how fortunate we are that we even have any sort of pictorial documentation of past events no matter how poor the quality.
It is only because of the recent exposure to Tennyson and his "Light Brigade" work that I'm even familiar to the disastrous events that took place. It's fascinating to partner up the history with the art work and photographs that are available. It makes everything seem more real, even though a lot of the pieces are staged. The Houston article we read states:
"The Crimean war is today less compelling,and the generic conventions
Fenton used to naturalize the scenes of war seem contrived or empty.
The very conventions that make these photographs difficult for us to
read were,however,what made them appealing to a Victorian audience
that desired to possess history."
I have to say that I agree, contrived could certainly be used to describe some of the photographs, but empty...no way. There's something beautiful in the staging of the works. Both the photographer and the subjects new that they were documenting history and for them to have taken the time to create the picturesque representation of the events is pretty profound and overwhelmingly important. Through these photos we don't get a play by play of the Crimean War but we do get to see who was involved.
Check out these proud subjects for instance:
I think these photos capture what Houston meant when she claimed "Victorian audiences understood it[photograph] as primarily truthful and documentary" and photos began to take the role of "souvenirs" which hasn't changed much. We take photos today to keep as souvenirs and documentation only now technology makes things much more accessible. I must mention that as morbid as it would be to see pictures of dead people I think it should have been included in Fenton's paid work. It would help people understand the impact of the Crimean War plus it would appease my naturally perverse sense of curiosity.
It is only because of the recent exposure to Tennyson and his "Light Brigade" work that I'm even familiar to the disastrous events that took place. It's fascinating to partner up the history with the art work and photographs that are available. It makes everything seem more real, even though a lot of the pieces are staged. The Houston article we read states:
"The Crimean war is today less compelling,and the generic conventions
Fenton used to naturalize the scenes of war seem contrived or empty.
The very conventions that make these photographs difficult for us to
read were,however,what made them appealing to a Victorian audience
that desired to possess history."
I have to say that I agree, contrived could certainly be used to describe some of the photographs, but empty...no way. There's something beautiful in the staging of the works. Both the photographer and the subjects new that they were documenting history and for them to have taken the time to create the picturesque representation of the events is pretty profound and overwhelmingly important. Through these photos we don't get a play by play of the Crimean War but we do get to see who was involved.
Check out these proud subjects for instance:
I think these photos capture what Houston meant when she claimed "Victorian audiences understood it[photograph] as primarily truthful and documentary" and photos began to take the role of "souvenirs" which hasn't changed much. We take photos today to keep as souvenirs and documentation only now technology makes things much more accessible. I must mention that as morbid as it would be to see pictures of dead people I think it should have been included in Fenton's paid work. It would help people understand the impact of the Crimean War plus it would appease my naturally perverse sense of curiosity.
Check out my hipstamatic photos, they certainly aren't as important as war documentation but they are pretty sweet regardless of their lack of historical content. I like to think of these as souvenirs from my day today, it sounds nice.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Whitman is my Homeboy
I'm apologizing before hand: I'm still not feeling well plus I'm sleep deprived. Regardless of my illness, I still went and saw the midnight showing of Alice in Wonderland. Hopefully I can write something creative and pertinent...
I hate advertising therefore I watch no TV and never listen to the radio. I'm more of the free streaming online type for my necessary shows and my mix CD's and satellite radio keep me company in my vehicle. I find product placement, billboards, magazine spreads and all other types of media advertising a waste of my time simply because if I'm in a store and the product jumps out at me, then and only then will I purchase it. And it definitely has nothing to do with Oprah's suggestions. Last time I took her advise I read an "autobiography" that ended up being entirely fabricated. That Million Little Pieces guy is an asshole.
As far as whether or not I agree with "McCracken’s claim that advertisers now play the cultural roles that poets played in earlier eras" I have to admit that I somewhat agree with him. Because of advertisers our generation will forever be familiar with "Where's the Beef?", "Got Milk?", and "Leggo my Eggo." And seriously "I've fallen...and I can't get up" still kills me, and I'm pretty sure I was in 2nd grade when that geriatric alarm system came out. Advertisers certainly have skills of creativity and persuasion but again, I hate advertising. I think it's hard to contrast the previously mentioned catchphrases with the insanely awesome Walt Whitman. That "America" commercial is genius. Whitman is a genius and the corporate execs at Levi are geniuses and I actually felt inspired to go buy some jeans. I didn't though, I bought some Van's for my little bro's b-day instead.
So back to McCracken's claim: it's hard to disagree with him because, although to me, there is nothing poetic about commercials, these messages that are sent to the public reach out to us and speak to us as a whole community and try to meet the needs of the generic and mass population. Whether the product is necessary or not, the masses are educated about them and even though I never owned a 'ShamWow' I always wanted one and I was really sad when Billy Mays died. Hopefully I'm making my point a little bit. Advertising along with current movies, music, television, the arts and literature encapsulate our current world and it's trends.
Now with the Levi's ads, I honestly thought they were beautiful. The "America" one in particular was insane. The shots, the people represented, the feel and Whitman's voice heard over the scratchy recording was a stunning collaboration. But what was different is that it felt as though it wasn't advertising jeans. It felt like it was advertising people. I felt as though it was utilizing Whitman's words to celebrate all types of people, which works well because Levi has all types of jeans and other finely crafted products.
I think that even Whitman himself would be pleased with their efforts. He tended to be a little on the pursuasive side when it came to his work. In his "Preface to Leaves of Grass" he writes "The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem." He's advertising the diversity and the beauty of the country. If Whitman were still alive he would be one of the biggest advertising execs in the world. Just look at some of his sayings that would be killer slogans for different companies,
"The fruition of beauty is no chance of hit or miss...it is inevitable as life."
"Nothing is better than simplicity..."
"Great is the faith of the flush of the knowledge and of the investigation of the depths of qualties and things."
"Whatever satisfies the sould is truth."
"Faith is the antiseptic of the soul."
"The known universe has one complete lover and that is the greatest poet."
All in all, I dig Whitman and I give Levi a valiant A for knowing their shit. They encapsulate a great American to rejoice in the greatness of the American people, all while they are fashionably attired.
Just for funsies...some commercials I do like.
I hate advertising therefore I watch no TV and never listen to the radio. I'm more of the free streaming online type for my necessary shows and my mix CD's and satellite radio keep me company in my vehicle. I find product placement, billboards, magazine spreads and all other types of media advertising a waste of my time simply because if I'm in a store and the product jumps out at me, then and only then will I purchase it. And it definitely has nothing to do with Oprah's suggestions. Last time I took her advise I read an "autobiography" that ended up being entirely fabricated. That Million Little Pieces guy is an asshole.
As far as whether or not I agree with "McCracken’s claim that advertisers now play the cultural roles that poets played in earlier eras" I have to admit that I somewhat agree with him. Because of advertisers our generation will forever be familiar with "Where's the Beef?", "Got Milk?", and "Leggo my Eggo." And seriously "I've fallen...and I can't get up" still kills me, and I'm pretty sure I was in 2nd grade when that geriatric alarm system came out. Advertisers certainly have skills of creativity and persuasion but again, I hate advertising. I think it's hard to contrast the previously mentioned catchphrases with the insanely awesome Walt Whitman. That "America" commercial is genius. Whitman is a genius and the corporate execs at Levi are geniuses and I actually felt inspired to go buy some jeans. I didn't though, I bought some Van's for my little bro's b-day instead.
So back to McCracken's claim: it's hard to disagree with him because, although to me, there is nothing poetic about commercials, these messages that are sent to the public reach out to us and speak to us as a whole community and try to meet the needs of the generic and mass population. Whether the product is necessary or not, the masses are educated about them and even though I never owned a 'ShamWow' I always wanted one and I was really sad when Billy Mays died. Hopefully I'm making my point a little bit. Advertising along with current movies, music, television, the arts and literature encapsulate our current world and it's trends.
Now with the Levi's ads, I honestly thought they were beautiful. The "America" one in particular was insane. The shots, the people represented, the feel and Whitman's voice heard over the scratchy recording was a stunning collaboration. But what was different is that it felt as though it wasn't advertising jeans. It felt like it was advertising people. I felt as though it was utilizing Whitman's words to celebrate all types of people, which works well because Levi has all types of jeans and other finely crafted products.
I think that even Whitman himself would be pleased with their efforts. He tended to be a little on the pursuasive side when it came to his work. In his "Preface to Leaves of Grass" he writes "The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem." He's advertising the diversity and the beauty of the country. If Whitman were still alive he would be one of the biggest advertising execs in the world. Just look at some of his sayings that would be killer slogans for different companies,
"The fruition of beauty is no chance of hit or miss...it is inevitable as life."
"Nothing is better than simplicity..."
"Great is the faith of the flush of the knowledge and of the investigation of the depths of qualties and things."
"Whatever satisfies the sould is truth."
"Faith is the antiseptic of the soul."
"The known universe has one complete lover and that is the greatest poet."
All in all, I dig Whitman and I give Levi a valiant A for knowing their shit. They encapsulate a great American to rejoice in the greatness of the American people, all while they are fashionably attired.
Just for funsies...some commercials I do like.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness,Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun;
Conspiring with him how to load and bless
With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eaves run;
To bend with apples the mossed cottage-trees,
And fill all fruit with ripeness to the core;
To swell the gourd, and plump the hazel shells
With a sweet kernel; to set budding more,
And still more, later flowers for the bees,
Until they think warm days will never cease,
For Summer has o'er-brimmed their clammy cell.
Does anyone remember Anne of Green Gables (movie, not book)? Well, it's irrelevant but Anne Shirley quotes this first line of Keats' "Ode to Autumn" to Diana and that's what came to mind when I saw this portrait. I picked Thomas Moran's Under Trees (The Autumnal Woods) because the colors are absolutely phenomenal. Fall is my favorite time of year. The short, crisp days are colored in gold, red, orange and yellow. The landscape looks like it's on fire. Which I guess would ultimately be a bad thing, but pretty nonetheless.
Another element I really liked is the feeling that the one human subject in the painting is completely engulfed in these flame-like surroundings. He seems to be wrapped in this autumnal cocoon and he doesn't look apt to abandon it anytime soon. He is content to simply enjoy his surroundings and think, and just be. He is revelling in the beauty of nature and is unattended with outside stresses. This goes along with what Ruskin says in an excerpt from Modern Painters that "if a person receiving even the noblest ideas of simple beauty be asked why he likes the object exciting them, he will not be able to give any distinct reason, nor to trace in his mind any formed thought." The subject couldn't care less as to why he is content in the safe haven nature has formed for him and honestly, I don't blame him.
This portrait epitomizes the peaceful relationship between an uncultivated natural surrounding and an appreciating patron that finds awe within the colors and setting which goes along with the whole idea of romanticism and the wonder that can be found in nature. Thomas Moran's work shows not only a harmonious relationship with nature but also the safety one can feel when enveloped in all it's splendor. (Sorry-totally cheesy and cliche, but still relevant) Ruskin also writes "But although everything in nature is more or less beautiful, every species of object has its own kind and degree of beauty; some being in their own nature more beautiful than others, and few, if any, individuals possessing the utmost degree of beauty of which the species is capable. This utmost degree of specific beauty, necessarily coexistent with the utmost perfection of the object in other respects, is the ideal of the object." I can't imagine any other place as peaceful and beautiful as where this lucky guy is and this would be my "ideal" destination.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Hawthorne should have been an Aquarius
I have no clue as to what is wrong with me but I really dig all of these morbid and dark readings. Maybe it has something to do with the decade and a half of consecutive Bible classes I was exposed to and I just don't want to read about salvation anymore. I hope that doesn't make me evil...
Here's what you get when you go to google images and type in 'The Mister's Black Veil." Spooky.
<----------------------------------
The definition that the ever helpful resource wikipedia has given me for Dark Romanticism refers to the pessimistic side of nature. This aspect of this genre jumps out in Hawthorne's short story 'The Minister's Black Veil' several times but there is a direct connection between the dark elements of nature and the Minister himself. I found a specific relationship to the minister and the horizon, the sky and its activity or I guess more specifically the element of air. (From here on out this blog will be me reading whatever the hell I want to into Hawthorne's work, because we as readers are allowed to do that and I'm taking advantage of it.)
Upon first introduction to the Minister's new attire his congregation is quite clearly very uncomfortable and "more than one woman of delicate nerves was forced to leave the meeting-house." I kept picking up on allusions to the minister being compared to wind. Hawthorne writes "There was nothing terrible in what Mr. Hooper said; at least, no violence; and yet, with every tremor of his melancholy voice, the hearers quaked." With this, I found myself envisioning a gust of wind passing through an area congested with trees and the leavings shaking in response. Shortly after the previous passage NH writes "So sensible were the audience of some unwonted attribute in their minister, that they longed for a breath of wind to blow aside the veil, almost believing that a stranger's visage would be discovered, through the form, gesture, and voice were those of Mr. Hooper." Again, with that 'breath of wind' the element of air is brought up.
It's made clear that Minister Hooper was not one to indulge his congregation with outbursts of visible emotion, even at weddings we learn that not much more that a "sympathetic smile" was seen. While officiating the young couple's wedding Mr. Hooper shows up again with "the same horrible black veil" and "such was its immediate effect on the guests, that a cloud seemed to have rolled duskily from beneath the black crape, and dimmed the light of the candles." Here nature again is personified through Mr. Hooper and the effect on the spectators of the wedding. Just as a cloud blocks the sun, Mr. Hooper's veil dampens the high spirits of the congregation.
Another reference to the sky is when Elizabeth is trying to convince Hooper to removing the veil and he replies "Know, then, this veil is a type and a symbol, and I am bound to wear it ever, both in light and darkness, in solitude and before the gaze of multitudes, and as with strangers, so with my familiar friends. No mortal eye will see it withdrawn. This dismal shade must separate me from the world; even you, Elizabeth, can never come behind it!" The idea of light and dark references sunrise and sunset, night and day and then "the dismal shade" is a type of eclipse, in his case the veil is causing him to receive negative judgement.
These airy characteristics mentioned throughout the 'black veil' were intriguing to me. Just as you can't see the wind itself only the outcome, the audience was unable to see the minister's emotions since he was shielded with the veil, only the church's emotional response to his bizarre costume were seen. One of my ridiculous zodiac books says "The element of air masks an intensely emotional nature." It was kind of interesting to read that after discovering the airy nature of the minister who does in fact wear a 'mask.'
Can we just keep reading stuff like this the rest of the semester?
Here's what you get when you go to google images and type in 'The Mister's Black Veil." Spooky.
<----------------------------------
The definition that the ever helpful resource wikipedia has given me for Dark Romanticism refers to the pessimistic side of nature. This aspect of this genre jumps out in Hawthorne's short story 'The Minister's Black Veil' several times but there is a direct connection between the dark elements of nature and the Minister himself. I found a specific relationship to the minister and the horizon, the sky and its activity or I guess more specifically the element of air. (From here on out this blog will be me reading whatever the hell I want to into Hawthorne's work, because we as readers are allowed to do that and I'm taking advantage of it.)
Upon first introduction to the Minister's new attire his congregation is quite clearly very uncomfortable and "more than one woman of delicate nerves was forced to leave the meeting-house." I kept picking up on allusions to the minister being compared to wind. Hawthorne writes "There was nothing terrible in what Mr. Hooper said; at least, no violence; and yet, with every tremor of his melancholy voice, the hearers quaked." With this, I found myself envisioning a gust of wind passing through an area congested with trees and the leavings shaking in response. Shortly after the previous passage NH writes "So sensible were the audience of some unwonted attribute in their minister, that they longed for a breath of wind to blow aside the veil, almost believing that a stranger's visage would be discovered, through the form, gesture, and voice were those of Mr. Hooper." Again, with that 'breath of wind' the element of air is brought up.
It's made clear that Minister Hooper was not one to indulge his congregation with outbursts of visible emotion, even at weddings we learn that not much more that a "sympathetic smile" was seen. While officiating the young couple's wedding Mr. Hooper shows up again with "the same horrible black veil" and "such was its immediate effect on the guests, that a cloud seemed to have rolled duskily from beneath the black crape, and dimmed the light of the candles." Here nature again is personified through Mr. Hooper and the effect on the spectators of the wedding. Just as a cloud blocks the sun, Mr. Hooper's veil dampens the high spirits of the congregation.
Another reference to the sky is when Elizabeth is trying to convince Hooper to removing the veil and he replies "Know, then, this veil is a type and a symbol, and I am bound to wear it ever, both in light and darkness, in solitude and before the gaze of multitudes, and as with strangers, so with my familiar friends. No mortal eye will see it withdrawn. This dismal shade must separate me from the world; even you, Elizabeth, can never come behind it!" The idea of light and dark references sunrise and sunset, night and day and then "the dismal shade" is a type of eclipse, in his case the veil is causing him to receive negative judgement.
These airy characteristics mentioned throughout the 'black veil' were intriguing to me. Just as you can't see the wind itself only the outcome, the audience was unable to see the minister's emotions since he was shielded with the veil, only the church's emotional response to his bizarre costume were seen. One of my ridiculous zodiac books says "The element of air masks an intensely emotional nature." It was kind of interesting to read that after discovering the airy nature of the minister who does in fact wear a 'mask.'
Can we just keep reading stuff like this the rest of the semester?
Friday, February 5, 2010
360 degrees represents "Infinity and Beyond!"
This above video is my epigraph. Upon reading Emerson's work I kept thinking back to learning about fractals in my AP Trigonometry class back in the day when I was still a size 4. Many years, and many pounds later I can still recall the fascination of the continuity of shapes, especially the circle and how they really are represented everywhere. For example, clouds, brocolli, snowflakes and shells are all fractals and all a part of nature. Now on to the important stuff:
"Nature centres into balls,
And her proud ephemerals,
Fast to surface and outside,
Scan the profile of the sphere;
Knew they what that signified,
A new genesis were here."
Emerson's epigraph was purposely placed at the beginning of "Circles" not to simply impress the reader, which no doubt he has, but to set the tone and introduce the concept that there is an infinite number of sphere's represented in everything, especially in nature. This "primary figure" is more than a geometric shape. It is an idea. A circle, just as an idea, has no end, just a new beginning.
The idea of inifity has always perplexed me because I really don't think a human is supposed to think in those terms. We are born, we live, we die...the end. Emerson has proved this is not the case. Everything lasts forever, and it is through nature that we can see this. So go back to the being born, the living and then the dying: one person may cease to exist but there is always something left in their place such as offspring. For instance, my mom and dad did some procreating, had three kiddos, now one of them has a bun in the oven. For my sake I'm going to claim that my family is going to live forever, but if that weren't the case then I would go on to say that someday my parents will no longer be here, leaving their offspring, who would then leave their offspring, who would then leave their offspring, etc etc etc. It's an endless cycle.
The circle that represents man is "a self-evolving circle, which, from a ring imperceptibly small, rushes on all sides outwards to new and larger cirlces, and that without end." I like this. I am thinking of it as in terms of the "ripple effect." Throw a stone into a pond and see the continuity of the small waves as they move farther and farther from the point of impact the circles become larger and slightly evolved. Think of the point of origin as an idea, the idea grows and reaches greater distances. These ripples, similarily to nature, are new, different and "In nature every moment is new; the past is always swallowed and forgotten; the coming only is sacred."
Emerson also states that "conversation is a game of circles." A tree's lifespan can be determined by how many rings, or cirlces, in its trunk. The more rings it has the older and larger it is and the more shade it casts. Conversation can be measured in similar fashion. The maturity of the topic and the more understanding of "love, faith, truth of character, the aspiration of man" the more it will be able to influence.
Let me conclude by saying that God and nature are unending. The circle's that make up everything are everywhere whether they are prominently seen or conceptual. Emerson writes St. Augustine's idea of the "nature of God as a circle whose centre was everywhere, and its circumference nowhere." This is still a little complex for me, but it makes the idea of God a little more relatable. He goes on to say that "we learn that God is that he is in me; and that all things are shadows of him." So as one who is a mere shadow of nature and God I leave you with a fun video clip from 24 Hour Party People that shows one "circle" of having an idea, acting upon it, seeing God which then leads to new ideas. Just a warning: there is strong language and marijuana usage represented which of course I'm not an advocate of either.
Friday, January 29, 2010
No one is an island...
First off, this is highly unimportant but I must mention it: Platoon came out in 1986 and Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984. I was wrong. Sorry guys.
Now for the assignment:
I'm going to begin with a beautiful quote...
“No man or woman is an island. To exist just for yourself is meaningless. You can achieve the most satisfaction when you feel related to some greater purpose in life, something greater than yourself.”Denis Waitley
This is what I thought of after reading Wordsworth's "Floating Island." I'm going to be honest, I typically stay away from poetry and for one specific reason. I'm terrified of feeling those pesky things called emotions. As one who refuses to hug or say "I love you" to even my own family I do my best to steer clear of things that might invoke vulnerabilities. Yeah, I'm pathetic I realize but seriously if I let my guard down I cry, and NO ONE is supposed to see that. Now on the other hand one thing I really appreciate about poetry is that the author's write in a way that leaves interpretation wide open. I'm sure they all had specific idea's of what their works were meant for but we as readers can read into them however we like. And again back to the quote mentioned previously, that is where my brain went after I finished "Floating Island" and I interpreted it as parallel to the quote.
Now to explain why my head went in that direction...
The very first Stanza tells me right away that nature is not a jumbled accident, it is "harmonious powers" that are the reason that nature exists. With the upbringing I have had I'm immediately one to assume that the author is referring to God, but I'm also aware that the idea of nature as it's own living breathing entity could also be considered a higher power as later in the piece nature is referred to as a "she." Regardless, the spirituality of nature is represented instantly and within the first stanza I feel clearly that whether "sunshine" or a "storm" is taking place, neither of these events is an accident and they are a part of a unified structure.
The next few stanza's introduce us to the island. The island is functioning on it's own as it is separated from the earth, yet it still obeys the wind as it glides on the lake. I'm still working on what this means but the poet tells us that there is life on the island. Flowers and insects make this island their home and while there are surviving beings it's only a matter of time before the island has "passed away" because she[nature] has ceased "to give."
"Perchance when you are wandering forth
Upon some vacant sunny day
Without an object, hope, or fear,
Thither your eyes may turn -- the Isle is passed away."
I like the possibility that perhaps what Wordsworth is referring to here is the idea that a person, or even all of humanity is the island. We, at least I, tend to get so detached from the beauty of nature and it's only a matter of time before we, or I, are punished for ignoring the "sublimity of nature." This brings me back to the above quote. No one can be an island. To exist completely self-absorbed would be a pitiful existence. So we must function along with nature, become a part of it, worship it and appreciate it or nature will give as a giant spanking and re-use our remains to make someone better.
BTW-I'm really disappointed with myself for not being prepared for class yesterday because The Giaour was truly epic and awesome and there really was a Vampire! It should be a movie.
Now for the assignment:
I'm going to begin with a beautiful quote...
“No man or woman is an island. To exist just for yourself is meaningless. You can achieve the most satisfaction when you feel related to some greater purpose in life, something greater than yourself.”Denis Waitley
This is what I thought of after reading Wordsworth's "Floating Island." I'm going to be honest, I typically stay away from poetry and for one specific reason. I'm terrified of feeling those pesky things called emotions. As one who refuses to hug or say "I love you" to even my own family I do my best to steer clear of things that might invoke vulnerabilities. Yeah, I'm pathetic I realize but seriously if I let my guard down I cry, and NO ONE is supposed to see that. Now on the other hand one thing I really appreciate about poetry is that the author's write in a way that leaves interpretation wide open. I'm sure they all had specific idea's of what their works were meant for but we as readers can read into them however we like. And again back to the quote mentioned previously, that is where my brain went after I finished "Floating Island" and I interpreted it as parallel to the quote.
Now to explain why my head went in that direction...
The very first Stanza tells me right away that nature is not a jumbled accident, it is "harmonious powers" that are the reason that nature exists. With the upbringing I have had I'm immediately one to assume that the author is referring to God, but I'm also aware that the idea of nature as it's own living breathing entity could also be considered a higher power as later in the piece nature is referred to as a "she." Regardless, the spirituality of nature is represented instantly and within the first stanza I feel clearly that whether "sunshine" or a "storm" is taking place, neither of these events is an accident and they are a part of a unified structure.
The next few stanza's introduce us to the island. The island is functioning on it's own as it is separated from the earth, yet it still obeys the wind as it glides on the lake. I'm still working on what this means but the poet tells us that there is life on the island. Flowers and insects make this island their home and while there are surviving beings it's only a matter of time before the island has "passed away" because she[nature] has ceased "to give."
"Perchance when you are wandering forth
Upon some vacant sunny day
Without an object, hope, or fear,
Thither your eyes may turn -- the Isle is passed away."
I like the possibility that perhaps what Wordsworth is referring to here is the idea that a person, or even all of humanity is the island. We, at least I, tend to get so detached from the beauty of nature and it's only a matter of time before we, or I, are punished for ignoring the "sublimity of nature." This brings me back to the above quote. No one can be an island. To exist completely self-absorbed would be a pitiful existence. So we must function along with nature, become a part of it, worship it and appreciate it or nature will give as a giant spanking and re-use our remains to make someone better.
BTW-I'm really disappointed with myself for not being prepared for class yesterday because The Giaour was truly epic and awesome and there really was a Vampire! It should be a movie.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Details are distracting...
Does anyone remember the movie The Cell with J Lo, Vince Vaughn and Vincent D'Onofrio? I hate to admit it because I loathe Jennifer Lopez but I found that movie interesting. The idea of someone getting to witness and even be a part of my dreams captivated me and perhaps Science will get us there someday. One thing in particular that got me thinking was how specific and detailed the crazy killer bad guy's dreams were. I don't know about everyone else but while I'm dreaming the minute details really don't exist in my subconscious. I might be able to recall certain colors, items, people and places that are involved in my nightly stream of consciousness but if it came down to painting an accurate portrait of all my surroundings there would be absolutely no way for me to do it. However, what does remain extremely vivid, whilst dreaming and even when I awake, is what took place and how these dreams made me feel. That's how I felt throughout the entirety of Edgar Huntly.
In class someone brought up the idea that they felt that it was "dark" throughout the whole text. I on the other hand never visualized anything. I vaguely recall thinking of trees, rivers and caves but what stood out to me more was the emotions that Edgar relates through his narrative, and even in repeating Clithero's narrative. Since this text involves not one, but two sleep walkers the dream-like writing style really worked for me. This allowed me to concentrate on what I felt like was really pertinent to C.B.B.'s novel. Even though we don't get a play by play of his fight with the Natives we know he fought and killed them while getting pretty bloodied himself. I kept thinking about how paralyzingly terrifying it would be to have to quietly sit in an unfamiliar environment while cautiously planning out some form of attack. Don't breath too loud, don't step there, stay low, etc all to avoid detection. When a bullet grazes Edgar's cheek it's easy to imagine the sensation of the stinging, the blood dripping and the sheer panic at being shot at but I was more concerned with him escaping.
Page 191 begins with Edgar having left the young captive girl with the group of beat up men, including her father and he sets out to find the remaining Native that he had not yet killed along with his companions.
"My eye was now caught by movements which appeared like those of a beast. In different circumstances, I should have instantly supposed it to be a wolf, or panther, or bear. Now my suspicions were alive on a different account, and my startled fancy figured to itself nothing but an human adversary.
A thicket was on either side of the road. That opposite to my station was discontinued at a small distance by the cultivated field. The road continued along this filed, bounded by the thicket on the one side, and the open space on the other. To this space the being who was now descried was cautiously approaching.
He moved upon all fours, and presently came near enough to be distinguished. His disfigured limbs, pendants from his ears and nose, and his shorn locks, were indubitable indications of a savage. Occasionally he reared himself above the bushes, and scanned, with suspicious vigilance, the cottage and the space surrounding it. Then he stooped, and crept alone as before."
I really like these three paragraphs for several reasons. One being that the nature surrounding Edgar creates a tunnel vision type feeling. Being surrounded by foliage on either side creates this feeling of claustrophobia which only enhances the fear of the danger that he is in. The brief mention of the field and the cottage left me as the reader disregarding them completely and concentrating on the animalistic qualities that Edgar uses to describe the dangerous human. In the first paragraph he even mentions that had he not already been aware of his assailant he would assume it would be some form of preying animal but since he is attuned to the existence of the "savage" he is prepared to deal with him. The way he describes the Indian's stooping, rearing and scanning creates this idea that his enemy is brutal and his animal-like characteristics give you a sense that Edgar is being stalked.
Rather than distract the reader with unnecessary details of what kind of shrubbery, what kind of fields, the exact floor plan of the cottage etc we know the necessities. Edgar could die and that would be bad.
Another much longer passage I would like to point out is pages 214-216ish. There is a very long excerpt regarding Edgar's relationship with water. He mentions that he "reached without difficulty the opposite bank" then thinks again about recrossing the water. Thinks maybe it would be a good idea to remove his clothing then decides he better not be running around the wilderness naked (for obvious safety reasons) and then comes to the conclusion that the river saves him from traveling by road. What I find really interesting in these pages is that this is a fairly beefy passage that shows us that although he struggles with exhaustion from swimming and he's uncomfortable, wet and most likely cold Edgar still embraces the advantages of utilizing the river. In his case he is saved by water while on the final page of the text (285) in one very brief sentence Clithero's fate is made known and his death was caused by forcing "himself beneath the surface, and was seen no more." To summarize water saved Edgar but water killed Clithero. This seems substantial as we've established that Clithero is Edgar's "alter-ego." If anyone has any thoughts on this matter send them my way.
Here's one of the dream scenes from The Cell. Enjoy!
In class someone brought up the idea that they felt that it was "dark" throughout the whole text. I on the other hand never visualized anything. I vaguely recall thinking of trees, rivers and caves but what stood out to me more was the emotions that Edgar relates through his narrative, and even in repeating Clithero's narrative. Since this text involves not one, but two sleep walkers the dream-like writing style really worked for me. This allowed me to concentrate on what I felt like was really pertinent to C.B.B.'s novel. Even though we don't get a play by play of his fight with the Natives we know he fought and killed them while getting pretty bloodied himself. I kept thinking about how paralyzingly terrifying it would be to have to quietly sit in an unfamiliar environment while cautiously planning out some form of attack. Don't breath too loud, don't step there, stay low, etc all to avoid detection. When a bullet grazes Edgar's cheek it's easy to imagine the sensation of the stinging, the blood dripping and the sheer panic at being shot at but I was more concerned with him escaping.
Page 191 begins with Edgar having left the young captive girl with the group of beat up men, including her father and he sets out to find the remaining Native that he had not yet killed along with his companions.
"My eye was now caught by movements which appeared like those of a beast. In different circumstances, I should have instantly supposed it to be a wolf, or panther, or bear. Now my suspicions were alive on a different account, and my startled fancy figured to itself nothing but an human adversary.
A thicket was on either side of the road. That opposite to my station was discontinued at a small distance by the cultivated field. The road continued along this filed, bounded by the thicket on the one side, and the open space on the other. To this space the being who was now descried was cautiously approaching.
He moved upon all fours, and presently came near enough to be distinguished. His disfigured limbs, pendants from his ears and nose, and his shorn locks, were indubitable indications of a savage. Occasionally he reared himself above the bushes, and scanned, with suspicious vigilance, the cottage and the space surrounding it. Then he stooped, and crept alone as before."
I really like these three paragraphs for several reasons. One being that the nature surrounding Edgar creates a tunnel vision type feeling. Being surrounded by foliage on either side creates this feeling of claustrophobia which only enhances the fear of the danger that he is in. The brief mention of the field and the cottage left me as the reader disregarding them completely and concentrating on the animalistic qualities that Edgar uses to describe the dangerous human. In the first paragraph he even mentions that had he not already been aware of his assailant he would assume it would be some form of preying animal but since he is attuned to the existence of the "savage" he is prepared to deal with him. The way he describes the Indian's stooping, rearing and scanning creates this idea that his enemy is brutal and his animal-like characteristics give you a sense that Edgar is being stalked.
Rather than distract the reader with unnecessary details of what kind of shrubbery, what kind of fields, the exact floor plan of the cottage etc we know the necessities. Edgar could die and that would be bad.
Another much longer passage I would like to point out is pages 214-216ish. There is a very long excerpt regarding Edgar's relationship with water. He mentions that he "reached without difficulty the opposite bank" then thinks again about recrossing the water. Thinks maybe it would be a good idea to remove his clothing then decides he better not be running around the wilderness naked (for obvious safety reasons) and then comes to the conclusion that the river saves him from traveling by road. What I find really interesting in these pages is that this is a fairly beefy passage that shows us that although he struggles with exhaustion from swimming and he's uncomfortable, wet and most likely cold Edgar still embraces the advantages of utilizing the river. In his case he is saved by water while on the final page of the text (285) in one very brief sentence Clithero's fate is made known and his death was caused by forcing "himself beneath the surface, and was seen no more." To summarize water saved Edgar but water killed Clithero. This seems substantial as we've established that Clithero is Edgar's "alter-ego." If anyone has any thoughts on this matter send them my way.
Here's one of the dream scenes from The Cell. Enjoy!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Practice and Retaliation
I'm just trying to figure out how to properly post videos and I wanted to clarify why "Freaks" is in fact terrifying. Can you imagine being attacked by all of these carnies?! I think it fits the bill:)
Thanks for the help on this one Tanner.
Thanks for the help on this one Tanner.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Terror v. Horror According to Me
Beginning with terror I am going to go into fuller detail regarding James' The Turn of the Screw. This book absolutely terrified me after reading it for the first time. As it was already discussed in class the governess comes to care for two children who's temperaments and physical attributes a
re constantly referred to as "angelic." The governess finds herself completely captivated by Miles and Flora. As she gets more comfortable in her unfamiliar settings by becoming better acquainted with the staff and the children she begins to see a strange man watching her and the young boy. These occurrences are then followed by a woman about her own age being present when the governess is with Flora. She asks the housekeeper, her only friend, about these strange guests and it is hinted that these two beings could be the ghosts of the former overseer of the house and the previous governess, Peter Quint and Miss Jessel. The governess continues to see these apparitions, if that is indeed what they are, but no one else seems to. The governess begins questioning the intentions of the children and wonders if they are possibly possessed by these two ghosts.
A couple other examples of terror, at least my idea of terror, are Tod Browning's 1932 film Freaks and Roman Polanski's 1968 film Rosemary's Baby. Neither of these I would consider scary but both have that suspenseful feeling of inevitable doom. While both films do display images that could be defined as horrible or shocking, it is the anxiety you feel while watching these movies that separates them from the more traditional horror genre. Also, The Innocents and The Others, both based off of TTOTS are worth watching. If you're a Lynch fan then The Innocents in particular may be some kind of wonderful.
According to the film, Satan comes out to play around 3:00 AM because that is supposed to be the opposite time that Christ died on the cross. Now normally I would consider this to be simply part of the movie and get over it but when I watched it I was very ill and very medicated and most likely more delusional than normal. I'm already an insomniac and when I have frightening images floating around my little brain it makes it that much harder for me to calm down. Well, around 2:58 AM I decided enough is enough, I need to chill out and perhaps getting some fresh air will do the trick. I decided to sit out on my patio with my dogs and try to relax. By the time I get appropriate outside attire on it is seconds away from 3:00 AM and Satan could get me at any time. (I can't really explain my floorplan so I apologize if this next part makes no sense). As I leave my room I see a light at the far end of my house on so I head in that direction. It is coming from my laundry room which includes a door to the garage. It happened to be that my asshole brother (whom I own a home with) had left the garage light on and the door wide open. I go to take care of these issues so I turn off the light and close the door and now I'm left alone in the dark. It is precisely at this moment that I hear my two dogs growling at something that is just outside of the laundry room where I am left all by myself. Obviously it was Satan that the dogs were growling at and I'm standing alone and terrified ready to give up and be assaulted by Lucifer himself. All at once, my two doggies change from growling to barking and I can hear that they are chasing the intruder towards me. Needless to say, it was not Satan in my house but in his place it was a lost kitty cat that had entered our house via the opened garage door and my dogs wanted to eat it. It still scared the shit out of me and I didn't sleep a wink that night. (Sorry for the long tangent.)
re constantly referred to as "angelic." The governess finds herself completely captivated by Miles and Flora. As she gets more comfortable in her unfamiliar settings by becoming better acquainted with the staff and the children she begins to see a strange man watching her and the young boy. These occurrences are then followed by a woman about her own age being present when the governess is with Flora. She asks the housekeeper, her only friend, about these strange guests and it is hinted that these two beings could be the ghosts of the former overseer of the house and the previous governess, Peter Quint and Miss Jessel. The governess continues to see these apparitions, if that is indeed what they are, but no one else seems to. The governess begins questioning the intentions of the children and wonders if they are possibly possessed by these two ghosts.I'm not going to go too much further into the plot because as Heather was kind enough to point out, I've written two papers on this text and I'm kind of over it. But I will explain why it terrorized me. The ambiguity of the text and the constant questioning of what the hell was going on really kept me on edge. At first I read it superficially and took it as a ghost tale and for some reason while I read it every single horrifying image I had ever seen came rushing back into my memory all at once. Try falling asleep to that when you're already someone who doesn't sleep. Now that I've reread James' TTOTS a few times I've come to the conclusion that the governess was completely insane for several reasons, bad home life, sexual repression (I can thoroughly back that up) and cabin fever (think Jack Nicholson). After psychoanalyzing her character my mind was put at ease but the initial reading of the text was definitely my idea of "terror."
A couple other examples of terror, at least my idea of terror, are Tod Browning's 1932 film Freaks and Roman Polanski's 1968 film Rosemary's Baby. Neither of these I would consider scary but both have that suspenseful feeling of inevitable doom. While both films do display images that could be defined as horrible or shocking, it is the anxiety you feel while watching these movies that separates them from the more traditional horror genre. Also, The Innocents and The Others, both based off of TTOTS are worth watching. If you're a Lynch fan then The Innocents in particular may be some kind of wonderful.
In the line of Horror, I'm not so much a fan. Blood and guts does nothing for me so my exposure is limited. I do find that the Jeff Lindsay 'Dexter' series is probably the only literature that I've chosen to both read and remember that fit within the horror genre. I find the books highly enjoyable and 
the television series might be one of my all time favorites and I would definitely make out with Michael C. Hall but both the literature and the television series are absolutely disgusting. The content really is beyond gory and entirely shocking. There is a plethora of blood and guts that normally I would avoid but because of the extreme wit and entertaining character that I've maintained an unhealthy sympathy for that Lindsay and Showtime have created I can't get enough of this serial killer. I'm not going to go into too much detail here but a woman rotting in a bathtub filled with her own blood (TV series example) and poor unfortunate former Special Ops tough guys having extremities removed and being turned into "yodeling potatoes" meets my idea of horror.
the television series might be one of my all time favorites and I would definitely make out with Michael C. Hall but both the literature and the television series are absolutely disgusting. The content really is beyond gory and entirely shocking. There is a plethora of blood and guts that normally I would avoid but because of the extreme wit and entertaining character that I've maintained an unhealthy sympathy for that Lindsay and Showtime have created I can't get enough of this serial killer. I'm not going to go into too much detail here but a woman rotting in a bathtub filled with her own blood (TV series example) and poor unfortunate former Special Ops tough guys having extremities removed and being turned into "yodeling potatoes" meets my idea of horror.Another film that horrified me was The Exorcism of Emily Rose. I know I am totally lame but there's a story behind this. First of all, Emily Rose becomes a contortionist while being possessed by Satan or one of his minions. A person's body should not move that way. Her body movements, creepy staring moments and that voice she talks in gave me goosebumps throughout the entire film. Now normally I would be a big girl and get over the initial fright and shock of seeing a movie like this but here's what happened following my viewing:
According to the film, Satan comes out to play around 3:00 AM because that is supposed to be the opposite time that Christ died on the cross. Now normally I would consider this to be simply part of the movie and get over it but when I watched it I was very ill and very medicated and most likely more delusional than normal. I'm already an insomniac and when I have frightening images floating around my little brain it makes it that much harder for me to calm down. Well, around 2:58 AM I decided enough is enough, I need to chill out and perhaps getting some fresh air will do the trick. I decided to sit out on my patio with my dogs and try to relax. By the time I get appropriate outside attire on it is seconds away from 3:00 AM and Satan could get me at any time. (I can't really explain my floorplan so I apologize if this next part makes no sense). As I leave my room I see a light at the far end of my house on so I head in that direction. It is coming from my laundry room which includes a door to the garage. It happened to be that my asshole brother (whom I own a home with) had left the garage light on and the door wide open. I go to take care of these issues so I turn off the light and close the door and now I'm left alone in the dark. It is precisely at this moment that I hear my two dogs growling at something that is just outside of the laundry room where I am left all by myself. Obviously it was Satan that the dogs were growling at and I'm standing alone and terrified ready to give up and be assaulted by Lucifer himself. All at once, my two doggies change from growling to barking and I can hear that they are chasing the intruder towards me. Needless to say, it was not Satan in my house but in his place it was a lost kitty cat that had entered our house via the opened garage door and my dogs wanted to eat it. It still scared the shit out of me and I didn't sleep a wink that night. (Sorry for the long tangent.)I'm going to end this blog post by sharing one more example of horror. How in the world is Leno justifying taking back the Tonight Show? WTF!!!! That guy is a douche and if someone wants to incapacitate him, I would fully support it. Team Conan!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Introductions
This is the second time I'll be utilizing this blog for academic purposes. Last semester was a lot of fun so I'm anticipating another enjoyable term with our dear capricornian professor. The reading material looks to be interesting and I'm excited to see some familiar faces, and to be honest, some absent ones too. I think Stephanie will be greatly missed though. If you see her convince her to drop econ or whatever it is that is taking up her valuable time.
So about me: I seldom talk in class. This is mostly because I tend to stick my foot, or entire leg, in my mouth and as I already stated, I would rather look dumb and stupid then actually say something dumb and stupid and remove all doubt. Outside of class I'm an avid reader, movie buff and karaoke-er. I relate every thing I read and experience to a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode and am the proud owner of a lifesize cardboard cutout of Edward Cullen. I have a filthy mouth that tends to make me seem much too inappropriate but whatevs, sometimes strong language needs to be inserted into conversations. I play the piano and dress up my two dogs much more than they care for. (Pictures at the end of this post)
I'm also a terrible Seventh-Day Adventist who enjoys wine and after two suspensions was finally expelled from Upper Columbia Academy, a boarding school, my senior year of high school. I was re-enrolled second semester, suspended once more, then graduated with honors. Not too bad for the rowdy Adventist that I am. I come across as callous and aloof but I really do care. I'm just terrible at showing it. I am a realtor so if anyone needs housing advice, come see me.
I'm beyond thrilled to be taking more classes with Heather, I really hope that I can start to see the glass half full and believe that love does in fact "conquer all." We'll see.
PS-Halloween is my favorite holiday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
