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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

My dogs are the cutest...

Aren't they?

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?

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.