Literature in the Now

It is interesting the world we live in today. Reading no longer means looking at words on a page, but rather to read is to interpret. Texts no longer are books, poems, and scripts, but are cultural artifacts. New criticism is not a single limb of literary criticism, but has branched out into psychoanalytic criticism, feminism, queer literary criticism, and race/gender/sexuality modes of criticism. While what we define as modern, the twentieth century to now, has changed significantly since the 1900s. Post modernism is now our current day, where ideology has changed so fast that definitions are redefined, criticism is being criticized, and constructions are being deconstructed. We no longer give a care to what the author means by a text they write, but rather we separate the product from the producer. We interpret characters and situations based on their depictions and how it relates to political and cultural institutions.
For Example:
Logocentric texts. Logocentric tells us the differences that tell us what makes a human, human by looking at the reason that people have. I agrue that reason is nothing more than a constructed ideology by the patriarchal system, that reason has sprung from white male logic. We cannot define someone as human based on the logic of a certain group of the populas. We talk the word reason, and must redefine it. Do we really know what makes a human, human? Aren't we all blinded by our own perceptions, not allowing space for differencial opinions, divergent thoughts, and reconstructing ideologies? Post modernism has deconstructed essentialistic mind frames by targeting language, culture, race, and the human concious (ect.). Everything now-a-days is questioned, and everything we say, think, and notion is not to be trusted. As confusing as this all seems, I confess it makes sense.

"On Beauty"

Monday in class we discussed the poem within Zadie Smith's novel. I admit that it is very confusing and cannot present all of its meaning, but I can describe what I got from it. There were two lines that really stuck out to me, and for my interpretation of the poem--these lines are the basis of the Poet's goal in the poem and its overall meaning: "They are the damned / and so their saddness is perfect / delicate as an egg placed in your palm / Hard, it is decorated with their face." The subject of the poem is "they"--the beautiful--and by having the subject italicized we (the readers, observers, the unbeautiful) are distanced from them. We interpret them from afar, their meaning based on our observations, and their face an object of wanton desire. This desire is created by the desirous, leaving the beautiful cursed because of their appearance, form, and structure. "The beautiful know this": here we see where the "saddness" described is coming from. They are concious of their beauty and of their objectivity. Yet looking upon these lines I understand that this passage is meant almost to defend the beautiful, and since it is written by Claire, we can imagin her objectifying her own beauty by expressing that she, and those other beautiful ones, cannot help but be beautiful. The poem is asking why then must the unbeautiful be unforgiving of their "sins"? That with perfection, with the start of every snow fall, there comes unperfection, a chill. That they possess wounds--the very wounds we give them by objectifying them, damning them, and subjecting them. Just as an egg in our palm sits, they are dependant upon us. In any moment we can tip our hand vertically, letting the egg slide gently from it and shatter on the floor. Throughout this poem I could not help but think about the story of Laocoon, a man who defied the Horse created by the Greeks and then later killed by snakes. His statue came to mind for it encompassed pain, beauty, and should be looked upon at a distance, for we do not know his pain, but can only see him in this structured statue.

A University's Systematic Ideology

Our culture today is based on systematic ideologies. Everything is a system. During colonialization patriarichal reason and logic grew rapidly along with industrialism and commercialism. Within these companies grew a systematic hierarchy that resonated through daily living, creating a system therefore among people. In order to have a system it is essential to oppress and subjegate in order to have a top and a bottom. Patriarchy created aversaries amongst women, people of color, and everyone else that strayed from their normal straight, white, successful male in order to have a system. Unfortunatly this certain ideology still has its barrings on our society still. In "On Beauty" by Zadie Smith we see a culture that represents this deeply engrained notion on normality and what it means to be in the American culture. From the earlier creation of systemizing as a way of living, we see systems in everything we do within our culture. For instance, the subject of the Academic world is presented in "On Beauty", describing the culture wars within the University. On one side, the right side, we see a systematic hierarchy based on the genius, the levels of intellect, and the importance of the individual. Where the ellitist minds occupy, where the intellect feasts, and where language is a way to exhibit smartness. On the other side, the left side, we see a broader and more accepting view of the person, incorporating race, gender, and sexuality. This left side is a way to turn from the systematic right side, and its opposition has created a dychotomy of truths within the University.

What is Good writing? What makes a work Art?

While watching the interview of Zadie Smith a few things that she stated stuck with me. As someone who wishes to begin writing novels I took to heart her opinion about what makes a good novel and what makes a novel political. If our vanities and self-perceptions stand as an obstacle to us being a good writer, the only thing to overcome this obstacle is by being truthful and honest about your perception of the world and of life within it. Though it is easily stated, it's idea is extremely difficult to imagine. I have always thought that my writing is good if it is true to me, if it is told in my voice, and if it is of my experience. But what is self expression if it is not a selfish desire to outshine my contemporary writers and sit beside Shakespeare in popular status? Is telling your story an attempt to become part of them instead of becoming a part of us--the multicultural world we inhabit? I'm not saying you cannot create a story based on your experiences, but rather take those experiences and write about the people that influenced it and how it mirrors humanity and worldly ideology. Artful literature encompass the morality of its time through analogies or the political battles between government and individuals, individuals against one another, and individuals against societal standards. Art to me screams against normalities, expresses perceptions of truthful realities, and tries to move the audience. I try not to fall into the elitist-made pit full of books of so-called genius writers, by reading only great names and approach any book by any author with the attitude to accept it as art if it demands such a title.

Why Cherish a Haunting Past?

The nature of one's heart is so mysterious. We love unconditionally family, friends, and lovers when we are surrounded by them and while we are away from them. We have comfort that when the people we love fade in death they are illuminated by remembrance, that in hindsight they are alive in past memories. In times that prove difficult, we calm ourselves down by remembering a happy and funny time in our lives and our hearts thrive in its colors, outstriding present stress. I admit I fall victim to this ritual and sometimes days pass me by while I stand still in one spot. Why is it that the past is so emotionally controlling? We dwell on happy memories to forget that we are living now and capable of doing something new to better our self, our situation, and our lifestyles. In consequence of this behavior, with happy memories come sad memories. Memories so hurtful, a lost love, an abusive parent, that it is etched on our minds, tugging hard at our hearts, hindering us from ever overcoming its influence.
Jeanette Winterson in Arts and Lies creates a "medical parallel" to these such abusive behaviors: "...those who lose a limb, either through accident or amputation, continue to feel pain in the non-existant part. Some claim their vanished arm is still hanging by their side." (pg. 44) Is this what the past condemns us to? Memories inflict upon us still a sense that it still lives and is still attached to us, when in reality there is nothing there. How can we still feel pain from a past lover that no longer is there to hurt us? From a father who no longer beats us? It is silly to depend so wholly on the past when it has no real substance to support us--and let alone guide us! We have spent too long looking down in tearful remembrances and looking up in happy recollections and not seeing the world as it presents itself in every moment. "We were happy"...."Remember when you used to do this?"...."I can never forgive men because this one time at school...."
What about now? Why use a false limb of air to drink that special hot chocolate mom used to make, when you can use the other limb still attached to pick up a steaming cup of the tea that sits in front of you? Winterson uses the imagery of a city being built, by it reusing materials to build greater buildings--can we do that with memories? If we could create a recycling system of memories, we could create a home from its materials. While living we have to comfort of them surrounding us, sheltering us from the cold heartless night. They would not be used as a false limb, constantly reminding us of what we don't have anymore, but rather a foundation to live life looking straight ahead.

Bijou Poems

While the HTML version of this poem contains the same words and sentences than the page image poem, the format of each differ so much that I did in fact read them differently. The page image was much easier for me to read, because each sentence ended on the same line and there were defined stanza cuts, whereas in the HTML version, stanzas were cut irregularly, throwing the tone of the poem off. It is the tone of every poem that helps the reader smoothly read through its passage and interpret its meaning correctly, or in the perspective the author wishes us to view it. Page image was a lot more similar to the TEI encoded version, because both versions have defined stanzas and sentences that start and finish on the same line. Though I have to admit, the encoded version is very confusing, but still the format is more definate than the HTML version.

It is my preference to read the poem on the page, or in page image. Digitalizing poems rearranges it in ways to emphasize a new meaning or to make one more apparent, but I fail to see the real importance of it. It is hard to see the poem as it should be--how the author wrote it. Digitalizing it almost makes it new, and therefore a poem authored by the digitzer. A poem that loses its format would lose its voice and tone, and that is why I appreciate the TEI encoded version, because even though it is confusing, it holds true the poem's stanzas and sentances. But call me old fashion, I enjoy reading a poem upon a page. Not only is it how the author intended, but the fresh smell of a newly opened book stimulates my excitement in reading it, a scent that contributes to the poem's/author's aim in writing the poem--moreso than what digitalizing poems would do.

Aurora Leigh: Class Notes on Book V

As a class we discussed what Aurora Leigh defines heroism as through her descriptive language and her constant example of past epic heroes. Through epic art she personifies Mount Athos as being actually carved into a statue of Alexander the Great, as mythology would tell us an architect of his time proposed. She also brings to light Homer, King Arthur, Agamemnon, other heroes and epic writers to emphasize that we live in a time of the past--that those great men were men as well as heroes, as we today are just men and women as they were then. "All actual heroes are essential men, / And all men possible heroes: every age." We live in a time where hindsight 20/20 is a fact of life, and we cannot obtain truth until we have lived it or learned it from history. She uses the heroes of ancient times and mythologies to show what models stand for us to learn from. But these models do caste shadows on us, for they were men, and we are men, and therefore have the same abilities or opportunities as they.

I believe whole heartedly that heroes exist among us today. Firefighters save people from a burning peril everyday; my father flies high in a helicopter to rescue a crashed victim; the mother that goes to all ends to ensure safety of her child. Heroism is relative. A hero to me is due to my perspective, while a hero to others is subjected to theirs. To think largely, Obama is a major hero of our time, for he obtains the potential to fulfill our hopes and to improve our economy. If he fails, he is a hero for trying, for heroism is not defined by the number of battles Achilles won, but rather his determination to push forth in territories not yet strayed upon. Action and accomplishment does not define heroism as well--poets and writers save me when I loose sight of life; they help me see and learn of the world, the heart, and the intellectual mind. Some of the greatest heroes are the ones who put pen to paper--at least to me they are.

Romney's Emphasis on the Death of Love and the Failure of Poetry

Book IV 324-40

This passage is Romney's attempt to explain himself to Aurora when Aurora asked why he was going to marry. I believe he was also defending his heart by slighting Aurora, the one who broke his heart. Romney and Aurora shares a "mutual love" while he is marrying Marian for "common love". In this passage we see a very cynical view of love, that mutual love no longer exists and no longer has substance, and is as old as the beginning of life. To Romney it is a paradise tainted by his reality. He claims to marry for the institution, to go with a wife to galleries and dates with other couples. Love is no longer the reason to marriage (he refers to it as "work"), but rather marriage is essential to live "honorable". He defies what Aurora stands for, for it is love that she expresses through poetry and cannot understand his reasoning for marrying someone just to obtain the institution's title. He has always thought she had not the ability to write poetry because she was a woman, but now he accepts her position--bashing her now for being a poet than a woman trying to be one. He feels that poetry is useless because love no longer holds its former position, that she has gnats instead of moths. To Romney love is dead, and therefore poetry has nothing to exist on, nothing to feed on, and nothing remain on.

Aurora Leigh: A Dynamic Character

From what I took from reading Aurora Leigh was that Aurora, the narrator of this novella, was an ambitious child, seeking the true meaning of life as well as following her scholarly abilities. She was a child who was under her father's care, because her mother died when she was four. At age 13 Aurora's father died and she was sent to live with her Aunt, who is a bitter and cold woman. I also see Aurora trying to identify herself and/to her position, especially when she explains the poet and the reader, and tries to make sense of what we are imagining her as. In her situation i feel she is trying to make sense of her life in her surroundings, living with the fact that she exists in a world wanton of motherly affection and without her father's influential form. It was without her mother's influence she had to identify with femininity as well as obtaining the language that forms from the mother sweetly giving "full sense into empty words".

I agree entirely with the topic we went over today, that Aurora defines and lives by two meanings of living. That there is a physical way of life and an emotional "real" way of life. Aurora exhibits both, for she obediently sews and acts properly under the eye of her Aunt, while in her father's attic and in a certain small room in the house she observes nature and breathes her true self.

Photo of J.K. Rowling

"Glorified! Look at me, overwhelmed with thousands of flashing lights...Do i smile? Do i speak? This is impossible. If i didn't cover up a pimple, will they notice it? I can't even think for myself anymore--am I an idol? Silly world, that my picture will sell for bucks."

The fact that we can create an entire thought process by gauging the appearance of a person tells us a lot about the way our minds function. If we can judge what people are talking about by the way they look and the way they dress and the way they talk, is it that that governs our feelings of emotions and love. You begin to project what you want them to be or not what you want them to be based on inadequate assumptions. We spent time in class talking about George Elliots's character Latimer, who had the ability to read minds. Taking in mind that we ourselves personify people based on their appearance and the way they act, can we agrue that Latimer's power is rather a truth about our humanity? I believe that Elliot intended to create a story in order to hold out a mirror to her readers, so that they may see their own "power" to create the face of someone through their personal judgement.

The Lifted Veil; or, the Modern Frankenstein

There are many similarities between Latimer and Victor. To begin with, they both suffer the loss of a mother, that variably affects their future ideology. We have Victor, who after the loss of his mother, was so crushed and hurt eventually dedicates his life to finding a way to avoid death touching those he loves. By being able to create life, he makes it possible to bring to life the ones he loves if anything were to happen to them. He dedicates years to this study, and upon accomplishing it, that very mindset occupies him in every aspect of his life. It has altered him to the point where he would not recognize himself, associating with a wretch more than humanity. If Victor is in fact the monster--taking on a seperate personality that kills all who Victor loves and loves him, we see this alternate personality as a result of the traumatic death of Victor's mother. Latimer early on loses his mother as well, no longer feeling her gentle touch and missing her dearly. It is this loss that alters his upbringing and his attitudes toward other people. He claims to "have never fully unbosomed myself to any human being" (Elliot, 8). Here we see Latimer disassociating himself to the societal world--distancing himself so that he may not be hurt by their death as he was with his mother. He says: "While the heart beats, bruise it--it is your only opportunity" (Elliot 8). He has an idea that to love is to let yourself down, to fall down a path that dead ends. Again, if Victor is the monster, isn't he doing the same thing? They together are warding off love--even Latimer, after being married, does not submit to everything the wife desires but instead stands in his own "indifference", independant alone and strong. Latimer also lives in Geneva and has a scientific education, which falls somewhat along the same lines of Victor's environment. Victor and Latimer adore the scenery of the outdoors and they both bask in the setting sun in the Alps and obtain a "perpetual sense of exaltation". Yet it is the fact that by the end of both stories we see both character's refering to themselves as being wretches. The life they both led had made them feel they obtained wretched knowledge and therefore wretched modes of life. Being a wretch, in his own terms, Latimer states a very interesting line, that characterizes Victor and what he is experiencing: "...when, after our mean striving for a triumph that is to be another's loss, the triumph comes suddenly, and we shudder at it, because it is held out by the chill hand of death." (Elliot, 25) Death inevitably follows the experiment by Frankenstein, whose objective in creating life was turned sour upon accomplishment.

Hero Machine

I created the Hero De Lacey by making an abstract persona of the old man; he is blind, and therefore without eyes; he lives in the wilderness, in a cottage, and therefore has weapons for hunting and skin that of an animal; he was an angel to the monster, kind to everyone, hence the wings. He is kind to the monster because he bases his opinion of the monster on his speech and mind and is unprejudiced on the monster's appearance.

An Essential Bond Exists between Mother and Child

Like every Cinderella tale, we have an ideal circumstance that acts like a model of love and lifestyles. From the standards that result from this tale, we notice a current and abusive ideology that occupies the mind frame of the influential. Frankenstein serves as a Monster tale, one that exhibits the black side of fairytales, that represents not a model to look at but a model to be repulsed by.
When reading Frankenstein's monster's tale, we see the image of a child. He is experiencing the world for the first time, feeling emotions that he does not understand. He learned that you can't stick your hand in a pit of fire, for it will hurt. He witnessed the change between light and dark, sun and moon. But there is something wrong with this picture: we have a creature perceiving things the way they are presented and without guidance. What does that tell us readers? This entire experience by the monster represents the importance of parenthood. Though seeming innocent enough, he goes into stranger's houses and eats their bread, cheese, and drinks their wine--he does not know that that is stealing and wrong, and he will not know that unless told. There are many instances where this novel represents human nature, such as the desire to be renown, the fear of being inadequate and the hesitation of losing status. But from this point on, i believe the novel's purpose is to reflect the bond between child and mother. It serves as a model to warn us that if we neglect our young impressionable minds, the result would be one like Frankenstein's monster, one who ends up killing to get his way. Is he wrong to kill, when no one told him that that was not OK? It is through observation that the monster begins to notice the kind bond between people when he looks at the family in the cottage, but the treatment that he got from them and everyone else molded the way the monster felt, thought, and reacted. Violence began to shape him, and there was nothing to prevent that, to show the monster acts of kindness and humanity. He is a product of his environment, and that statement in itself is what us readers must soak in, to avoid creating beings of violent tendencies.

A Life Lived in Fear, Is a Life Half Lived

It is brilliant the way in which Mary Shelley recreates the tale of Prometheus. Frankenstien tries to give to the human race a divine power, resembling how Prometheus stole fire and presented it to us. Victor gives us the power to recreate life and to eternally have the power to avoid death of loved ones and to bring them back to life. Though unnatural, there is something tempting about the idea, but why? We must then ask, what hold does Unconditional Love have upon our hearts, abilities, and reasoning?

Unconditional love is scary, I agree. Avoiding it to save yourself from being hurt is a selfish design upon yourself. Why would you rid yourself of love, when it can be the only thing worth living for? Would I have a child, if I knew that child would die before me? No, but I would have a child if I was ignorant to whether it will die before me or not. It is possible that our loved ones could die any day, that our children will die before us, but would you prevent loving and being with that person just because you are cautious and scared? What if they don't die? I don't think it is worth missing out on, for if they do not die and do not hurt you, your life could be incomplete without them. It is not living life if you avoid the chance of love and the chance to create a child that has the ability to complete or destroy your heart. It is possible to think that Frankenstein is driven to create his "monster" to avoid losing those dearest to him. If we are able to recreate those who died, would we ever be hurt? Even if I do not agree with the avoidance of unconditional love, we see the cowardice of Frankenstein to create a being, a discovery, that would lead to him never being hurt again. It is ironic that in his avoidance of death, death is the inevitable result to those closest to him, and therefore also the result to himself.

Walton, another Frankenstein?

There is of course, the obvious comparison that we can make between Victor and Walton. Both are ambitious and carefully foster their ambitions. We have Victor Frankenstein, who without considering the consequences of his discovery, wants to go where no one else has. He wishes to use electricity to create a science-made human--a discovery that in doubt would create a name for him, lasting throughout time. He would have a divine power to create life. Walton, as a younger gentleman, wanted badly to be remembered like Shakespeare and Homer. He therefore followed this dream and tried to find a path to Northern Pole through the North Pacific Ocean. We see both wanting to bring something to human kind, Walton's path and Frankenstein's ability to resurrect humans, as Prometheus gave humans fire. In trying to find this path. does Walton yield cautiously to the consequences that await him? Does he accept the possibility of death of himself and his fleet of men? No he did not, as Victor did not truely think about those he loved.

The two characters also are similar in the fact that they are compassionate toward their family. We have dear letters from Walton to his sister, and we have compassionate speech and actions from Victor towards his cousin. Victor and Walton are very similar, in my opinion, for they both occupy sentiments toward those close, and hold healthy relationships with them. But they both have a dangerous characteristic, one in which they give power to by allowing ambition and desire to blind reality from them, and in turn putting others in danger.

The Two Faces of Love: Bronte Represents Phenomena

Q: What does the article by James Phillips, The Two Faces of Love In "Wuthering Heights", do that helps people better understand the scene in Volume I Chapter IX when Catherine confesses her love for Heathcliff to Nelly.

In class there was much discussion on the relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine. The opposing viewpoints were that they should be together, and the other that it was right that they were not together. The scene created confusion, because we were unsure of what Catherine truely meant in her confession. It was difficult to decipher what she meant by: "...he shall never know how I love him; and that, not because he's handsome, Nelly, but because he's more myself than I am" (Bronte 71). Does Catherine mean that she would not be with Heathcliff because everyday of her life she would be talking to a replica of herself? Or because her materialistic mind won't allow her to be with the man who completes her? Of course it was my belief that Catherine was an idiot for marrying Mr. Linton and not following her heart, her sense of self, by marrying Heathcliff. If Heathcliff is herself more than she is, wouldn't she then be leading an incomplete life without him?

The majority of the class believes otherwise, mainly because of Heathcliff's barbaric nature. They, and I agree, believe that Heathcliff and Catherine bring out the worst in one another. But isn't that because they are not together? I counter their actions by saying that they are a product of the situation of the two lovers. Here I go again, defending my opinion. Catherine, as well as the readers of our classroom, cannot truely understand what this confession, this scene of passion, is truely about. "In whichever place the soul lives--in my soul, and in my heart, I'm convinced I'm wrong!" (Bronte 70). But through her later speech she answers this cloud of confussion, and it is with the article by James Phillips that we can translate what she means.

In Phillips's article, he breaks apart our definition of love, for that is what is molding our reaction to this passage as well as defining our misgivings about it. My definition of their love is different from the class' definition--I believe it to be the force that should guide them and unite them, whereas others think it to be an educated decision--for Catherine to marry Linton, so that she experiences variety of character and stability of a lifestyle. Love to us is a single idea that can be handled by different attitudes and approaches. Phillips re-guises love by presenting it in a Janus-like model, stating that there are two sides to love, and that it is not a single idea but an idea with two catagories. "Where Heathcliff is the transcendental face of love, Linton is its empirical face." We can see this because though she has loved Heathcliff from the beginning, she marries instead Linton--then on the day that she dies, it is still Heathcliff that her heart belongs to. Linton's influence cannot disturb her ever-lasting, ever-feeling passion for Heathcliff, yet serves as a type of love complementary to Catherine's feelings.

Can we now treat this scene differently? It is now easier to understand the meaning behind Catherine's statement: "Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same, and Linton's is as different as a moonbeam from lightning, or frost from fire" (Bronte 71). We see Catherine realizing the difference in love's "two faces" and that one will always be burning inside of her--in the comparison of Linton's and Heathcliff's representations the moonbeam is a more comfortable, soft, pleasant portrayal than the dangerous lightning. Phillips's help in pulling this interpretation from that line has in turn helped me view her feelings in a different light. Catherine's love for Heathcliff intimidates and frightens her, and she wishes not to live in such a thrilling lifestyle but rather in the calm with Linton.

The fact that Phillips brings to the table is that "Emily Brontë breaks love down into two parts." It is in these two parts that Catherine resides, for throughout the entire novel we see both sides of her love shine. In her confession to Nelly we can now distinguish Catherine's argument--that she is marrying Linton not because she does not love Heathcliff or loves him less, or that she would hate to be with someone who defines herself better than she, but because this face of love is one that suits what she wants to get out of love, and that the other face of love is to be set up, idolized and starved of her indulgence.

Heathcliff: A Hero of the Heart

From the beginning of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff's character begins to form in our opinions. He seems savage, a man of impossible manners and diminished faiths. We as readers cannot connect with him, nor can we feel any pity towards him. This initial approach in introducing his character is very effective, because Emily Bronte sets the mystery of his person so that the readers then pay close attention to his actions in the hope of discovering this dark character. When the end of the book comes to close and his character now better known, is still one that does not evoke sympathy from the reader. He is a bitter, regretful, and malicious man, who takes pride in his revenge. Yet as disgusting as his character may seem, I cannot help but love him! He, at the end of chapter three, pleads from the bottom of his heart for the return of Catherine, yearning for her spirit to be next to him. This to me, for she has been dead a very long time, shows a sentimental side of him, so unyeilding and ever burning! He shows so much in his small exclamation, a large heart that is unfortunately governed by its loss, and has hid away from all others. Only in the scene right before Catherine dies does the true Heathcliff shine. As for his attitude towards the other characters in the novel, can you blame him for his rough manners? A man who is the product of those who raised him in the same brutality and the same meanness? I do not blame Heathcliff, nor admire him, but cannot dislike him. To me he is a very strong character, who has stood against the brutal nature of the snobby household he grew up in, who has lived to see the death of his lover, and who has fought hard to keep his guard up against all others. His story is a sad one, heart wrenching, but also heart-capturing.

In class we discussed whether or not Heathcliff and Catherine should be together, when Catherine describes how he is more herself than she is. People claim that it would grow boring, that they would wear out conversation, and that there is a suffocating aspect to being with someone that resembles your essence. I still cannot believe this to be true. Is it true that you would deny being with someone who is your ultimate companion? Catherine's separation from Heathcliff drives her to insanity! Would this be her fate if they lived together--loved together--supported one another? I cannot imagine Catherine ever being herself, without being Heathcliff as well!

Physical Violation Constitutes Rape

I had argued that Bungle did not commit rape--and though I still adhere to that opinion, I do agree with many aspects we touched on during class. Do characters in books, who are raped, murdered, beaten, are they not to be taken seriously? Are they not to be pitied? Of course they are, and of course I would consider them raped. But they are characters in a world of fiction, whose bodies are violated and harmed---and therefore i cannot connect cyber "rape" to the rape in books. Again, it is abusing the mind, but no actual body is being harmed and violated, as they are in our reality and in the character's reality within their paged world. I agree that there is an emotional investment in being a character online, but to what extent should we consider it in our reality? Those who have committed themselves to going online have voluntarily set themselves up for new possibilities, new chances for abusive encounters, and cyber situations such as these, that take away from their claim of being a rape victim.

Rape in Cyberspace?

First off, the article makes a good argument on the subject of where the body ends and where the mind begins. There could possibly be a version of rape, a cyber kind, where the mind is tormented and violated as much as the body is in rape's usual terms. This cyber kind of rape should not be called "rape" though--especially because the victim has the option of closing the screen or "gagging" the violator. In rape, there is no option, there is but the utmost will to escape--a will i'm not convinced legba or Starsinger had. I would give it other names, such as abuse, or (to add a little modern slang) creeping. Did Bungle rape these girls? No, but he was certainly a creep. As for his false accusation, how could one think that he had raped? Especially after the statement: "...the extremely public nature of the living room meant that gagging would spare the victims only from witnessing their own violation, but not from having others witness it." Yes, it is true that others may witness this gross form of communical abuse--but they wished to avoid that at the expense of feeling violated and "raped"? I agree with Laura Miller's statement: "...the menace in sexual harassment comes from the underlying threat of rape of physical violence." The type of cyber abuse that Dibbell argues could be a species of the Rape genus, but it is not rape itself.

A Peaceful Enclosure

A Peaceful Enclosure is the name of the "room of my own". Every object I described to be part of it adds to what brings solace and comfort to my self. Loving to write, with the hope one day to publish a novel, I would fill my room with objects that have stimulated my interest and have acted as intellectual entertainment. I would have paintings and statues that represent mythologies; stories that have ever since I was little been the backbone for my interest in learning and reading. They have become a part of my childhood, a part of myself that I try with all my might to hold onto while the days grow old, and I older. I also placed a bookshelf in the room, that will hold all my favorite references when I am searching for inspiration and a work to relate to. Shakespeare, Dickens, Jane Austen, Whitman, Virginia Woolf, Harry Potter--to name a few. Yet the most essential part of the room is the Willow tree that occupies a corner in my room. Nature has always been a part of what I consider my essence. Nothing invokes reasoning, feeling, and emotions the way nature charms me. Trees are special--they not only are strong and sturdy, they make life possible, and they are firm in their duty. The sight of them brings peace to my state of mind, whatever it might be. There would be a large window behind the desk, which will bring with it enough light to bathe me in happiness; enough stars to feed my dreams; enough storms to stimulate my fears and sorrows. Lastly, the dog resting under the tree, would be something for my enjoyment. I cannot find another companion as loyal, playful, and virtuous than a dog, and therefore I cannot find another item i would wish more to be in my room than that animal.

Wollstonecraft's Ideas on Sexism

Mary Wollstonecraft is infamous for her publication of A Vindication of the Right of Women, which stands still as a feminist source in the fight against the patriarchal system. In class we talked about many points that she brought up, each one surrounding the main idea and purpose of her work: that every proffession involving subordination is injurious to morality. It is the morals of women that suffer the most when placed on a step below that of a man's.
Sexism is systematic, or structural. Society through education trains women not be rational, not to be virtuous, not to be manly. Women exert power where society allows them, so they reveal "a propensity to tyrannize". Wollstonecraft then compares soldiers to women: they are educated the same, and therefore they are trained inferior. She proves that it is a social system that makes women the way they are, and that they are not naturally subordinate. She also argues that women aggravate this situation by bowing their heads in response rather than doing something about it. There is nothing strong in the feeble manner of women and it is important that women begin to understand that sexism is there only as a tool for men, and holds no substance otherwise. Wollstonecraft believes that women need to seek their true virtue, staying loyal to their love, their voice, and their beliefs, as she does for herself.

A Modern Cinderella Fairytale

A story turned movie that resembles the plot and morals of Cinderella is that of Memoirs of a Geisha. There are several connections we can make among the characters within each story, as well as the message each one is portraying. It will be easy then to discover that Memoirs of a Geisha is actually a Cinderella story. Having lost her parents and family, a young child grows up in a place that institutionalizes the tradition of the Geisha. As she trains to be one herself, she is tormented by an older Geisha that resides within the same roof. This woman resembles the evil stepsisters which torture Cinderella, and who constantly place her in trouble. The young child is then shunned, because of the corrupted older Geisha, from becoming one herself; therefore beginning to live a life of servitude to her gardian--with no prospects of ever ascending to a higher role in society. It is in the end that everything takes a turn: A woman with an interest spurred on by the attention of an older man takes on this now-not-so-young girl and turns her into her dream of being a Geisha. This woman is symbolic for being the Fairy Godmother in Cinderella, and the man her prince, who she inevitably ends up with in the end. Not only does Memoirs of a Geisha re-tells the Cinderella Fairytale, it also ties in with the "Pretty Woman Myth" for it also sheds a lighter view on the profession of being a Geisha, a woman who uses her body for the entertainment of men, our equivalent of a prostitute.

"The Courtship of Mr. Lyon" Portrays a Journey through Manhood

I have read Angela Carter before, but I have never looked at Mr. Lyon the way we looked at him in class. The idea of otherness was accurate in describing the difference between masculinity and femininity. So many constructions of our time, race, gender, and sexuality are based on those who think in otherness-terminology. While these constructions create problems, especially when it comes to race and nationality, I cannot help but believe in "otherness". Women and men are different in genetics, bodies, and facial structures, and this difference creates a sense of otherness between each sex, which fits perfectly into this story of Beauty and the Beast. In the Courtship of Mr. Lyon by Angela Carter, we have the presentation of men as a beastly, hairy, clawed lion--bringing to light the growing of men by showing adolescent, fierce, and scary aggression. Boys have always been portrayed as aggressive, tempormental, and having two brothers I will have to agree with that description. For they are hairy and moody, and as a girl i would look at other boys in my class and see the same difference between us, that their otherness was based on their beastliness. Yet at the end of Mr. Lyon, the beast sheds into a man, portraying him shedding his violent potential and containing his aggression. I have never looked at Beauty and the Beast, or the Courtship of Mr. Lyon, as a story of growing up, maturation, and a portrayal of the journey into manhood.

Art's Role in Contradicting Conservative Ideologies

Question: In the artistic retelling of fairytales, does art help counteract ideology?

What do you mean by art? From Jeanette's introduction I can only assume that by art you are asking "In the artistic retelling of fairytales, does authenticity help counteract ideology?" I believe Winterson's meaning was to propose her concerns of people's immense interest in biographies, reality TV, and documentaries. But what is artful about revealing facts--without the makeup of imagination? The retelling of fairytales makes art authentic, therefore counteracting the ideology of our day by using mythic qualities to show the "permanent truths about human nature." These so-called truths are nothing more than fabricated beliefs about how, for example, a woman should act and look, most likely made up from patriarchal influenced ideology. And so through art we can bring to light what was thought to be truths of human nature and contradict them by retelling them using different ideologies. F or example, in Angela Carter's "Ashputtle" we see the modern concern of women who believe they must look a certain way to get the man that they want, but the artful presentation of this makes readers ask: would Ashputtle have gotten the man if she was her original self? Would he have wanted a burned wife? There is then presented the harsh reality of human nature, our mind-frames and corrupt ways of thinking, a representation to get readers thinking about problems at hand.

Notes on Colleen Dowling: The Cinderella Complex

In The Cinderella Complex, Colleen Dowling gives a personal account and description of her life. The most influencial part of her work was her last line, which was stated after being married: "There was nothing compelling me to rise". Her wonderful account is now converted into a pathetic story of a woman stripped of her independence. As a reader it is my responsibility to wonder why, and, while she lived a life within the fairytale sphere, it is evident this lifestyle was not true to herself. Fulfilling conventional beliefs about how a woman should act has left her lifeless and without motivation. She had found her husband, a comfy home, and a dutyful lifestyle; but a what cost? With all that she has found, she has lost her sense of self and personal ambition. I feel that ambition is essential for the drive of life and the difference that every person should strive to make, and her dependence on a man has weakened that passion and essence.
Are women trained to be like that today? I don't believe so, for the female-male relationship is very different today than what is was when our parents were growing up. The rate of feminists that exist today is astounding, showing the fall from these conventional beliefs.

Class Notes: Cinderella and Swine Lake

There were two very interesting topics that were brought up in today's discussion. In Anne Sexton's "Cinderella" she uses a unique language to represent her true feelings about the very popular and widely read fairytale. Her purpose, I believe, could be nothing more than to mock those who still hold tightly onto the Cinderella fairytale, blindly gripping its lovely tale, claiming it to be truth. Many hopeless romantics confuse the fairytale world with the should-be-reality, identifying love with a knight in shining armor. In comparison to the "Once upon a time" that many tales begin with, Sexton starts her tale with "Once". Now we have a story not set in a time that we can dream about, removing the mystic and sacred elements that help define fairytales, replacing the stony castle upon the flowering mountain, and eradicating the dragons and thorny bushes with a story that we can look at with a modern eye. Not only does she begin her tale with a word that could indicate any time period, but she also attempts to convince readers that this story is one that has only happened once. What does she imply by it? Can there never be again a perfect chivalrous man, destined to rescue us? While we can recognize that the fairytale world and reality are two separate ideas, can the true love emphasised in fairytales--love at first sight--can it spellbind us still, repeating its seductive "happily ever after"? Though I agree with Sexton, I cannot wish fairytales to be untrue, for while they send out bad messages most of the time, they are surrounding ideas of love and happiness, and without them i can only see dismal dreams from here on out.

Another interesting point we discussed was the role of art, stimulated by the reading of "Swine Lake". Art to me has always been beautiful and inspiring--but distracting? I had never thought of it before, and am quite satisfied with this partial definition. I say partial because art is revealing, intellectual, and transformative as well as distracting. It makes me wonder how far then, can we take art? Into the battlements in Iraq or to the chambers of terrorists? Can we show it to abusive mothers or neglectful fathers? Can we use art to our advantage, distracting those wrong-doers from doing wrong? In our advance Twenty-first century, I believe we have the ability to redefine art and its uses, making it not just portray human emotions and scenery but also use it to teach morality and empathy.