Final pages of "On Beauty"

What is the consequence of showing the painting with no verbal representation? Howard is allowing the audience to interpret the painting. He does not give the painting any of his own perception or interpretation... yet isn't that what he is to be judged on? He is also declaring his own submission to his life. This was his big chance, yet he has sabotaged his own future. He wanted to destroy his life because it was killing him, killing his entire spirit. Maybe he tries to drive his entire life into the ground as an attempt to start over. 

Do you sometimes read a novel or see a film that is ruined by someone else's interpretation of it, or their perception of particular aspects of it? 

You can't seem to enjoy anything anymore, you are stuck on understanding the deeper meaning to it.  You lose the ability to let the art do what it is suppose to do to you.. appease your eyes, appeal to your emotions. Intense analysis of anything can often ruin it's pure and natural beauty. 

The painting he presents to the audience, is actually a gift to Kiki. He is saying that he loves her, that his life is a mess, yet he still loves her. Does this happen in real life? Do people purposefully destroy their lives? Alcohol and drugs are a great example of something that people abuse as a way to destroy their own lives.  These people are trying to fail in someway. Yet they really want something out of it, they want to be noticed, they want to be recognized. What alternative motivation does Howard have for wanting to fail? He has pressure that he must live up to a certain expectation. Howard's father does not seem to appreciate Howard and what he has accomplished. He is lower class; racist, watches TV all day, does not make it out of his own environment. His father is very ignorant (his father thinks good art is only the Mona Lisa). 

on beauty

In today's class we discussed the significance of the poem entitled "On Beauty", sharing the same name as the title of the novel. What is the significance of itemizing a list of sins? The list of sins are what not to do in life. The "we" in the poem can either represent the beautiful people, or from the other viewpoint, it could be the "non-beautiful". This poem seems to be saying that beautiful people must live up to a certain expectation, that is how they are wounded. While they appear as statue-esque, they actually are wounded by this very appearance. Can you draw a line between beautiful people and "ugly" people? What makes someone ugly or beautiful? Could the poem also be saying that the ugly cannot forgive the beautiful for being the ideal? This goes along with Kiki's own issues with beautiful and ugly. When she finds out that Howard has been having an affair with one of their good friends, she refers to herself as the black, ugly bitch, while Claire is the small, white leprechaun. She obviously finds her own weight and race as a burden to her own marriage, yet she refers to the women her husband has chosen as an equally undesirable match. All assumptions which characters are built upon disappear throughout this novel. The beautiful features of Kiki (large bosom, beautiful complexion, etc.) are all compromised when her husband choses a smaller and lighter woman. Kiki does not seem to be desirable anymore in societies standards, yet she has always relied on Howard's love to validate her own beauty. When he strays from their relationship, he has compromised any of her own feelings of beauty. Kiki has always said that she defines herself, yet she finally admits that "I have staked my life on you [Howard]}. She realizes she is no longer sharing a mutual love, yet she is defined by Howard's opinion of herself. Where she seemed to be so confident in her beliefs, she is easily compromised by a man's perspective. Having a voice seems to be a way to have subjectivity and/or power in this society. Kiki is saying that her husband most give her substance in life. Where the Belsey family appeared as so liberal, independent, and equal - yet Kiki proves that the lines between left and right are not so clearly defined. 

Zadie Smith

You can not just hit people over the head by telling them your own political truths, novels are however political (or "moral"). You can't tell people that they have to believe in what she says, the politics of what she says. She is describing how she gets politics into her morals without forcing it upon the reader. Art is an analogy for morals - if novels tell you to be moral in this way, it is characterized as bad art. Iris Murdoch "Art is a case of morals". Smith says art is being truthful and honest, and it is very difficult due to self-perception. The adult is able to see the world as not completely about herself, she is not at the center of the universe. Art allows us to see multiple points of view, it is not us vs. them, it is just different opinions falling into place and identifying with all views. 

This novel is about the cultural wars. Some say we need to teach Shakespeare, the great authors - while others say we need to look at multicultural texts (it is hanus that women have been left out of the canon). Smith has been elevated into the canon by those very multiculturalists. Reverse Discrimination - someone is elevated because of race and sex. The attack of "Zadie Smith", means the ideal of Zadie Smith, the brand, the figment. Literature is about human relationship and the difficulties with that. This book is going to take us through the multicultural debate (right is Howard and family vs. Monty on the left- Jerome is the intermediary). 

Moving on to the text (On Beauty)- Jerome has gone off and working for Monty Kippses ( a British family, dad is rivals with Howard). Monty is very religious, white wing, pro-business, spiritual, Christian, pro-family, wife does not work to stay home and take care of the family WHILE Howard and his family are left-wing liberals, let their children sware in the house, the children have a lot of liberty. Monty and Howard both have books on Rembrandt coming out, although Monty's book is going to become a bestseller. Howard attacks Monty and says his reading is horrible, and Monty writes back and says he has the wrong painting. Howard is mortified that he had the wrong picture, Monty was right. Jerome went to work with the fathers art rival to get his fathers attention, he is totally rebelling against him -- yet it's strange that he is rebelling by becoming uber conservative. Kiki is upset at Howard because he had an affair - maybe Jerome is getting his father back for hurting his mother. Is there room in a family to support a difference of right-wing v. left-wing. Jerome sees this family and it is what he thinks he wants, he wants to test out this "perfect" family. When you marry someone you also marry their family in a way, you are taking on more than just one individual. Family defines someone differently than any other social group they are in. Part of falling in love with someone is seeing their interactions with all of these groups, and falling in love with these parts too. 

Further comments on Picasso

Winterson makes Picasso as a female lesbian in this portrayal of the famous painter. If Picasso was a female, would she be remembered? Picasso's father completely diminishes the worth of her art, she is a woman who can accomplish nothing through her passion. Why can't she be more like her mother or brother who have come to terms and accepted mundane, black and white lives. Art, painting provides color for Picasso, color that brings to light the lies of her family. They are just envious that she has not resorted to the same dull lifestyles they maintain. Their anger, violience, and abuse towards her is not because they just hate her, they are actually jealous of her spirit. Picasso is making a name for her self, making herself memorable, while the whole time her family tries desperately to blow her confidence, tear apart her self-image. Her brother brutally ravishes her body for sex, while her father pushes her off a roof. All along they need to make her feel worthless to regain some sort of purpose and importance.

Picasso - Art and Lies

I really enjoyed reading Jeanette Winterson's Art and Lies, and her portrayal of the character "Picasso". Picasso has been virtually ignored all of her life, for she does not fit into her seemingly perfect family. Yet what seems perfect, always contains its faults. Her father is what Picasso calls "dead", a defeated spirit vowing to bring every other being into his dead zone. His only problem is that he has no hold over Picasso, for she is vibrating with life, with color. Picasso's mother is an unsatisfied housewife, never accepting of Picasso, trapped in a black and white world. Picasso's brother is the most fascinating. His envy of Picasso, and her vibrancy for life, has led him to insult and humiliate her the only way possible, through sexual force. While he claims to "love her", his only control over her is by raping her. A families love is supposed to be unconditional, unwavering; yet Picasso is not sure whether to relic in the piercing dagger of a fraudulous love, or a love too deep to imagine. She lives in a virtual world of color. Crimson reds. sunflower yellows, she is able to see a certain reality through color and art. She constantly refers to the sun, the sun that "magnifies" reality. While her family shy's away from the sun, fearing a consuming recognition that will blast apart all of the lies they have structured themselves upon, Picasso embraces the light. Picasso contrasts the revealing sun with forgiving rain. She often wonders if the blame is on herself for failing to be lovable; if she had fit in better to this black and white family perhaps her brother would not need to rape her, or mother not condescend her, or her father not want to kill her spirit. Picasso must "lean on" this wall of rain, allow herself, her family to at once be forgiven. As much as Picasso craves this luscious color, she also must fear it. For illuminating her own world forces her to make sense of her past, of who she was and who she has become. She has realized the sinister nature of marriage, a fraud that her parents and millions of others have signed over to. "Till death us do part", yes for there is a parting of ways from death, both parties become dead to one another in the act of marriage. Her entire family is so afraid of color, of letting someone else realize any of their own intricacies. It is all a fraud, and yet Picasso finds joy in forcing light into their lives. Each member is stained with the past, with memories, hopes, dreams never realized - yet they desperately try to maintain their pristine appearance. As much as Picasso fears memory, she is also infatuated with it. Things that are no longer present, things hidden and covered, take form of their own through imagination. Those things are more prevalent in the present and future life than tangible, present objects. An old house torn down, an arm amputated - since they no longer are visible, the mind begins to create. In the end, Picasso proves that everybody is an artist. We may lie about the past, about the present, yet we are forever visibly stained with the truth. There are those that create lives desperately trying to shield away all color, and those that try to erase past lives by immersing themselves in color in the present. Regardless we are all at work creating art, creating a past, present, and future.

Laura Mandell's theory of art in a nutshell: Genre, and what we know about the Genre of the novel, is that it begins in the 18th century. Aphra Behn's Oroanoko is maybe the first novel. The short story comes into existence around 1800. Genre Fiction just means kind; e.g. science fiction, romance, realistic novel, etc. It is formula fiction, if you could just find the formal to write for example a Harlequin Romance, you would fit into that genre. In college literature, do we stick to canon or do we stray? It has been theoretically been blown apart (the Pope's, Swifts, Shelley, Dickens, Keats, Byron, Wilde, Faulkner, anything in the Norton Anthology besides for women). Canon has been transplanted by Cultural Studies (ethnic minority literature). People have become aware of politics of thiis, there were professors who would exclude works because they did not fit into their own cultural views. But has the politics gone too far, it has completely torn up the canon. There still is great art, why should we abandon this concept entirely? Just when we discover women artists, now we say there is no great art anymore? Everyone in this room is potentially a great artist, great art is narrowly defined. When we read and adore an author, we get a "return of our own alienated majesty".

Art & Lies: Handel and Picasso for next time.

Art, Poetry, and the Digital World

In Felicia Heman's poem, she is expressing the unbiased, un-jaded, innocent perspective of a child. They can carelessly come to terms with nature, loving the simplest of it's gifts, with no fear and no regret. They have not yet experienced the hardships of life; the broken hearts, the terror, the biases that life brings about. They are merely satisfied with the smallest tokens of nature, and see them only as a simple amusement to life. They have not experienced what these simple things can turn into, while the onlooking adult is all too consumed with the brutalities of nature. 

For a day is coming to quell the tone

That rings in thy laughter, thou joyous one!

And to dim thy brow with a touch of care.

There will be a day that will change your perspective on life forever, make you see the hardships nature brings. Until that day comes though, revel in the beauty of nature and it's smallest gifts. 

Art and Nature VS. Technology 

After reading all three presentations of the Heman's poem, I realized that presentation of the text is  very important. The HTML version is a very generic version, like we are so used to reading. Just a simple recreation of the original text. I 

was alarmed to read the TEL encoded version. I have never seen anything like this before, and although I am aware that it is the same poem (same words and everything), the layout of the page is alien to my eyes. I do not get the same feel as when I read the HTML or page version. Now all I see are computerized, digitized keys of what was once words. I do not really understand the point of this presentation of the poem. It seem like a bunch of jibberish strewn on a page, with confusing marks denoting line breaks and such. I finally came to the page version, which is the most authentic version. I personally liked reading this one the best. It was the most romanticized version with it's layout. I could somehow relate to the words and feelings more in this version. I saw the dull yellow and worn pages and I thought about the author and her feelings while writing. While the HTML version is probably the most comfortable to me, now looking at it, it look's so fresh and new, with the glistening white background of the computer screen. Not having the page version really does not give full justice to the author or the piece. This was how she intended the reader to view the piece, and I feel we should stick to her original intentions. They are all the same poem, but in another light they really are not. Poetry is suppose to move the reader, feel in-tune to their own senses and that of the authors, and I certainly did not get that by reading the encoded version. Digitizing really takes away the romantic perspective of poems, and makes it like an alien, cryptic sort of message. Looking at the aim of Heman's poem, to discuss the beauties of nature and art, and the difficulties adults have at seeing art as mere art, I do not believe that Hemans would approve of this version of her poem. She is saying to revel in the simplest things, for later everything is made too difficult, there is too much trying to decode nature in it's simplest, most beautiful form. Here we are trying to transform her work into a complicated, technologically advanced version. It really seems to destroy her message. I understand the benefits of digitizing. With all the resources available on computers and through the internet, it makes it easy to have a digitized version readily available to find the simplest of things in poems. I just believe that the most justice is given to the original, or closest to the original, version of the poem. We should be able to take Heman's message to heart. Stop trying to make things more difficult than they need be, just value them for what they are, in all their innocent and natural beauty. 

The 1818, 1818 Thomas, and 1831 versions of Frankenstein: 

Are they different novels? The themes seem to be different in all three novels. When each of the members of my group put the texts into TagCrowd, the most frequent words all changed. In my version (the 1831 version), the most frequent words were CONVERSE, CREATURES, MAN, FRIEND, and SPOKE. It is strange that converse and spoke are both present three times in this particular text, considering they both have the same general meaning. It seems as if this text is really a narrative, trying to get across the narration of the conversation between Victor and Mr. Walton. While I do not think the three versions are different novels, they seem to be contributing different themes to the text. 

Aurora Leigh discussion

Elizabeth Barrett Browning biography: Elizabeth had many anxiety problems throughout her life. She was bedridden throughout much of her adolescence. Her father had forbade his children to marry, representing a strict and confining youth. She rebelled against her father though, and married Robert Browning. This biography helps explain her Aunt's strict and rigid disposition versus Aurora's own desire to be independent of these regulations. 

Passage no. 1:

"She had lived

A sort of cage-bird life, born in a cage,

Accounting that to leap from perch to perch

Was act and joy enough for any bird.

Dear heaven, how silly are the things that live

In thickets and eat berries!

I, alas, 

A wild bird scarcely fledged, was brought to her cage,

And she was there to meet me. Very kind.

Bring the clean water; give out the fresh seed."

Aurora is in essence choosing between this voluptuous, Italian, and free lifestyle, juxtaposed to the  marm-ish and rigid English lifestyle of her aunt. She compares both lifestyles to that of a bird; her aunt is a caged bird, who enjoys the subtlest jump from perch to perch - while she is the free bird, ready to spread her wings, yet encased in her aunt's cage. Her aunt wants to take care of her, raise her as an English woman, yet Aurora's mindset is entirely elsewhere. She wants to follow the footsteps of her wild mother, the farthest thing from her rigid aunt. Her aunt means well, but the English lifestyle is all that she knows and approves of, she neither understands nor advocates her Tuscan sister-in-law. Her aunt accuses Aurora's mother of stealing her brother and introducing him to a completely different lifestyle, controlled completely by his emotions. She accuses this lifestyle of draining him from any level-headed thought pattern, for he is a complete romantic. Aurora is stuck between these two lifestyles, for she knows the life of freedom, and thus, it is that much harder to cage a free bird. While the aunt thinks she is doing the right thing, she refuses to acknowledge both sides of the spectrum. She thinks she can almost re-train Aurora to live a devout English lifestyle. 

When thinking about the elements of a caged-bird versus a free-bird, I started to think of the transformation from high school to college. My roommate freshman year was a very conservative, family-rooted, homebody; that is until she came to college. She had been so rooted in this infrastructure, and then came to a place that had no limitations, no parent influence. This loss of structure led her to go completely wild. She now had a taste of the freedom that college could bring her, and she never wanted to revert back to her past ways. While this is opposite from Aurora (Aurora started in the wild lifestyle and then was introduced to the rigid, strict environment of her aunt), it still shows the power that freedom maintains. Once anyone has been given the taste of freedom, it is virtually impossible to go to back. You learn to be self-reliant; there is no longer any adult figure telling you what time to be home at night, or to finish your homework before you see your friends. Once you know what it is like to be on your own, you are spoiled into that sort of lifestyle. To go back home and have to follow rules once again becomes a major adjustment. It is also interesting how Aurora's aunt completely rebelled against this lifestyle. She had grown up living a conservative and strict existence, and when faced with the liberation of change, she preferred her past lifestyle. My roommate, on the other hand, had lived this obedient life, and then when introduced to this freedom, immediately accepted a new lifestyle. I think this has to do with different time periods. Where in Aurora's case, being a devout Christian was valued and appreciated, we no longer see the ultra-religious types as much now. We have now embraced what it means to be a democracy and to have freedom of thought and the ability to exercise one's own beliefs. I am most impressed by Aurora's acknowledgment of both lifestyles. Yes, she is a 'free bird' but she also understands her aunt's lifestyle, and that her aunt is trying to protect her. I think for my roommate, she could no longer balance both of these environments. Instead she began to resent her parents for their techniques in raising her. She could no longer understand that they were only trying to protect her, and she really lost the ability to reason between the desire to have ultimate freedom, and the responsibility to one's upbringing. 

Aurora Leigh

Aurora's mother dies four years after her birth, making it rather difficult for her father to bring her up because she was not only a reminder of his beloved wife, but also because men are not groomed to bring up the children. Her father then dies when she is 13, forcing her to live with her aunt. Her father fell madly in love with her mother, he was made uncommon, but does not take a step further to live the life as a free spirit, because she dies. He becomes melancholy over his loss, yet must raise the young aurora. "I Aurora Leigh was born to make my father sadder"

(de-facto literature cases are usually men's literary classes)

A bildungsroman (IPA: [ˈbɪldʊŋs.roˌmaːn]; German: "novel of formation") is a novelistic genre that arose during the German Enlightenment, in which the author presents the psychological, moral and social shaping of the personality of a (usually young) protagonist.

"OF writing many books there is no end;
And I who have written much in prose and verse
For others' uses, will write now for mine,–
Will writ

e my story for my better self,
As when you paint your portrait for a friend,
Who keeps it in a drawer and looks at it
Long after he has ceased to love you, just
To hold together what he was and is."

-Often people look at photographs of old friends or old lovers, to just remember for a second what you felt like at that moment - and how things have changed so much since that very moment. At one moment you try to unite two periods, two psyches of your life - one past and one present. 

Aurora Leigh's comments on motherhood: "kissing full sense into empty words" - mother's have an ability to understand their children even when they speak babble. Mothers encourage the children to speak understandable words. Many of the nursery rhymes and lullabys that are sung to babies are rather barbaric and gruesome, but neither mother or baby listens to those words, it is just there mere sound of the mother's 

voice comforting the child. 

Stream of Consciousness for picture A: I hope my cleavage looks good, I paid a lot for this bosom so it better be photogenic. This seductive pose should make all the men desire me, and sitting on this lounge chair should make them think of just one thing. I am glad that I paid for the leg wax as well, who would have known the photographer would transition the dress so provocatively.

When you look at someone you can imagine what they are thinking because of all sorts of clues. Does Latimer have supernatural powers, or is he doing exactly what we do by inferring facts upon appearance? Charles Bridge in Prague

The evidence that he has supernatural powers: the vision of Prague, which comes forth after his disease has stimulated these powers. When he goes to Prague to see if his vision was correct, it was. Is it possible that he at one time saw pictures of Prague, and remembered them vividly, so when he went there it was all true. If he could read Bertha's mind,it would take the fun out of it. You can project what you want someone to be onto them.
Bertha is not the ideal of beauty, lots of pale blonde hair - "perpetually craving sympathy and support", "closed secret of a sarcastic woman's face"- he thinks something is going to move her, and it is going to be him - desire to conquer the cynical woman. The mother in Latimer's life worshipped him. He sees himself as pretty exceptional, scholarly, and worthy. He goes to Geneva, home of Rousseau and Frankenstein - speaks about himself as Rousseau, he calls himself romantic

Monster- Justine

(the image I created was e-mailed to you)

My Creation of a "monster- turned heroine" in Frankenstein depicts Justine as the courageous, fallen hero of the novel. She is accused of the murder of William, who she loved dearly, and must bear the consequences of this accusation. Even though she is innocent, she choses to take the blame, a heroic act forced upon her, yet that she choses to help the family with the pain, allow them to blame someone and feel some sort of vengeance come to life. I chose to put wings on her because she did die, so she is like the angel figure. She has has bandages on her legs because she is hurt, she is vulnerable, and this visible symbol of pain and wounds shows her pain. She has a two-sided face because while she confesses at one point and takes on the persona of a villain, underneath she alwå¥s maintains her innocence and is able in her final moments to express her innocence to Frankenstein and Elizabeth. The shield are the people who are trying to protect her. Elizabeth and Frankenstein always maintained her innocence, and Elizabeth even stood up in court to defend her. These are people who are trying to show the real Justine to people, and the impossibility of her having created this viscous crime. The lion is shown because for me the lion symbolizes honor and courage, things that Justine possesses. She has so much loyalty to the Frankenstein family, to the mother as she was dying and to Elizabeth as a confidant and friend. She is also protected by these honorable characteristics. Even though Justine is wounded in the end, she must lose her life, she is still valiant in her persona. She comes off as a weak character, incapable of a believable solution to the crime, yet I see her as heroic - always keeping in mind the families emotions, and simultaneously trying to fend for her own life while comforting the Frankenstein family. Her face is also visibly angry, because it is alright to be angry and upset - yet she triumphs over this and shows her heroism. Far too often, people forget that heroes can be human - they can be angry, desire vengeance, crave revenge - yet they try to make the right choices in light of the situation. They are able to weigh all choices and delve through their emotions to come up with sound decisions.

The monster as a symbol in Frankenstein

Association of ideas (Locke): culture produces these associations; If you have the flu and eat a lot of honey and it makes you sick, you will always associated honey with sickness, and disgust. If you can infiltrate good, humane ideas in children - we will have a better world. What if you brought up your children with nothing,  no prejudices? The child, the blank slate, will learn for him/herself and have healthy associations free of corruption. Thomas Day (name?) raised two adoptive children in this fashion, they both grew up schizophrenic . 

Do we grow up today as narcissists? 

How does the monster represent the philosophy; if we just raised our children properly they would grow up morally? Is monster like a poor child, did Victor reject his child? If you do not teach moral things, than what model/standard of life do you have?Violence becomes a wa

y to get what you want - to get attention. This girl I used to babysit for who is now 15 is very  violent. She has brought a knife to school, chased her mother around the house with scissors, and kicked windows out - I definitely see how her upbringing brought her to react in this way, her parents do not not how to deal with her and therefore almost ignore her, which in return makes her act out even more. If she was a blank slate when she came into the world, ther

e must be some sort of outside influences which have shaped her. 

In Frankenstein, is there some moral choice on his part to act out in that way? He

did frame Justine, knowing what he did was wrong - therefore by transferring the blame of his act, he was showing that he knew what he did was immoral. What happens if a child must live out their parents wishes, as the monster must live out Victor's dream? It is almost that they must rebel, the parents only loved them for

 that dream, not really for them. The monster kills William, framing Justine, showing that he is deliberately trying to hurt Victor. His initial desire is not to kill William, but to have a friend. He says that he was good, yet circumstances made him bad. To be a parent, there needs to be a serious effort, a serious choice to bond with the child. How does abortion fit into this? 

Frankenstein

Victor is the modern Prometheus. Prometheus is said to have given fire to humanity. Just as Prometheus ignited the flame in a lifeless object, Victor is trying to give the creation of life to humanity. 

Allusions to Rime of the Ancient Mariner: The story is told that a man prevents a wedding guest from going to a wedding to tell him a story. He explains that there is a bird that flies to the ship everyday, and the crew members love him, feeding him and taking care of him. One day, the ancient mariner shoots it, and all of a sudden all of these terrible things begin to happen. All of the crew members begin to die, yet a thousand slimy snakes survive (as does the Ancient Mariner). He looks at the slimy snakes, and as the moon shines on them, they begin to become beautiful. The bird falls off of his neck, and the ship successfully sails back to land. 

He is cursed to tell the story over and over again. Why would the Mariner shoot the bird that was so beloved? Unconditional, deep, divine love is scary as hell. As the saying goes, you do not want to be a member of any club that would have you as a member. You think A) I am not that lovable and B) I do not want to get hurt. The Mariner was terrified of love, telling this story to a wedding goer, to be aware of the terrible anxiety and fear of being alive and suffering for the loss of one you love so much. If you kill it, push it away first before deep involvement, you save yourself the heartbreak.

Alastor; The Arab maiden is in love with him, wanting to take care of him, yet he does not realize this. He falls asleep and dreams about a veiled maiden, his soulmate entertwined with his own soul. He wakes up and travels all over the world looking for this woman. Maybe he did not want to get involved with somebody who is real, who may not live up to imagination or perfection. This poet ends up dying in search of this dream woman. 

... do either the Mariner or the man in Alastor remind us of Victor? He creates the monster, in this process he is defying nature. On page 41, he talks about the obsession of his project and the neglect he feels towards real nature during this time. Now finally, in his recovery, he is able to see outside. He has previously had no contact with his family, his betrothed Elizabeth, or his friends.

The day that his dream ends, the day that the monster is created, he runs from his apartment, appauled by this creation and never wanting to see this creation again. Maybe he wanted to create the monster so he could bring back his mother, or if Elizabeth should die, he can bring her back. By building the monster and rejecting Elizabeth, not being in touch with her, are they the same act? They are an attempt to prevent her from  hurting him. He is afraid of a world without her. "I was attacked by that fatal passion" - It is not him being passionate, but as fate coming to get him and attacking him as an innocent bystander. 

Does this picture to the right, depict Frankenstein's mother and Elizabeth as the archetype, the inspiration for the monsters creation?

End of Wuthering Heights beginning of Frankenstein

Character Descriptions:
Haerton: uneducated, uncivilized upbringing, constantly swaring, Heathcliffe encourages the brute nature
Young Catherine: spunky, selfish, fearless to Heathcliffe,
Heathcliffe's regard for Haerton is one of his only redeeming characteristics, even though he has raised him in this brutal, savage upbringing, he cares for him in a way because he must see himself somewhere within Heathcliffe

MOVING on to FRANKENSTEIN...
Walton is looking for a passage to North Pole, if he does he will be considered the greatest explorer of all time. Writing letter to his sister Mrs. Saville, desires fame immensely - fails as a "Shakespeare or Homer" but only tries for one year. Does Walton want to me famous so that he controls relationships? (e.g. Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise)
When Walton meets Victor Frankenstein:
Two editions of Frankenstein 1819 edition and 1831 edition- Percy might have revised the 1819 version; Percy fell in love with Mary Shelley, he had a pregnant fiance, he is an incredible poet (Mont Blanc, Ode to the West Wind).
Victor shared the madness of Walton, he desired that fame, desired to be recognized for something, wants to warn him of the consequences of this passion for fame.

The mediums of Wuthering Heights

Scholarly Article; Can there be two soulmates?
Imperical love of Cathy and Linton - they complemented each other in terms of wealth, future desires
Heathcliffe and Cathy are transcendentalist lovers - different people from different worlds, yet soulmates of the heart

Heathcliffe representing the ideology of the time; Britain sort of consuming their inhabitants, as Heathcliffe consumes the Grange and the Heights - He becomes the master of everyone and everything
... what is the medium of the scholarly article? is this a media form that will last? Scholarly articles are really written for the average person, so as the form may die out for an average reader, it probably will remain for the academia realm- How do you make scholarship relevant and humane? But do ordinary people (not-lit people) desire to get more complex? Is a summary sufficient or do we still need to read the text?

Cathy's death scene? "You are sorry for me - very soon that will be altered" Heathcliffe is justifiably angry with Cathy, and he carries this on beyond her death to her daughter. He tortures Catherine because he is still angry and seeks vengeance on her mother. In the 1992 version, Cathy and Catherine are played by the same actress, showing the resemblance that irks Heathcliffe so much.

movie vs the classic

I watched the 1992 version of Wuthering Heights and was greatly impressed with it's representation of Bronte's classic tale. I think one of the most interesting appeals of the movie was that they decided to recast the deceased Cathy Linton as her daughter, Catherine. It was apparent that movie was trying to show the distinct resemblance of daughter to mother, and therefore used the same actress as both parts. Bronte's novel shows a direct parallel between the romances of Heathcliffe and Cathy to that of Haerton and Catherine. Both portraying the wealthy almost snobby, yet likeable women to offset the dark, brooding, melancholy males. There is almost a hope that unlike Heathcliffe and Cathy, Haerton and Catherine may be able to live a life of happiness and true love, unaffected by the societies hierarchy of wealth and status. Since Cathy really has no parental influence (besides Nelly who appreciates the marriage between Cathy and Haerton), they are able to live separate from the prying eyes of family obligations.
A remarkable difference between the text and the movie was the role of Mr. Lockwood. In the text, he seems to play a key part as part-narrator. The ending of the text shows Mr. Lockwood having several indepth conversations with the residents of Wuthering Heights, a narrator of the true feelings of these characters. In the movie, he is kind of the awkward bystander with no real effect on the characters, and his desired romance with Catherine is severely played down. It is also Lockwood who at the end wanders by the graves of Edgar, Cathy, and Heathcliffe to make the last remarks about their deaths.
I also found it interesting how the movie dealt with the death of Mr. Heathcliffe. They actualy showed him being summoned by the "white light" and into the arms of Cathy, to live an eternal life with his true love. The text only shows Heathcliffe's descent into a hazy, surreal-like place where he prepares for his death and constantly feels that he is in the presence of Cathy. The death scene is left to the readers interpretation, we only know what Nelly finds when she comes across Heathcliffe's body, wide-eyed, strewn in front of the open window. The reader gets the sense that he is now in a better place of sorts, but the movie uses theatrics to grab the viewers attention with the death-scene dramatics.
When you compare a textual narration with that of a movie's narration some things become lost, while other things flourish. In the novel, we are unable to see the inner-workings of many of the characters because it is narrated by Mr. Lockwood who only hears things from other characters. We need a Mr. Lockwood in the text to decipher the actions, emotions, the EVERYTHING of the other characters. When we move to the movie versions which really excludes Mr. Lockwood from any major role, it is because the audience no longer needs a major narrator like Mr. Lockwood. We are able to see everything first hand, right from the characters themselves. While in essence we gain a first-hand entry into the very character's lives, we also lose the major narration, and major character in the text, Mr. Lockwood. I personally thought Mr. Lockwood's presence in the text was almost too much, for he was an outsider to this family, just commentating on past tales and current circumstances. In the movie we can actually visually see the character's own emotions living out right before our eyes. The death scene in the end of the movie is so moving because we see Heathcliff gravitating to the outstretched arms of his love Catherine. The text can not refer to this moment because it was a moment just shared between Heathcliffe and "Catherine", and therefore neither Nelly or Lockwood (the two narrators) witnessed the events. Movies definitely have a way to dramatize events that books can not. Books are great though because it is the readers imagination that dictates the visualization of actions and emotions.
I was pretty impressed with this version of the text though, it remained pretty close to the text and really portrayed the characters as I think Bronte intended them to be.

Soulmates in Wuthering Heights

For most of class today, we did not blog because we turned our chairs into the center to have a more "intimate" discussion.

The idea of "soul mates" is the idea of somebody dying because they could no longer live without you. It is the epitome of the phrase "I can't live without you", taken literally.  

Literally Heathcliffe and Catherine can not live without each other. What are the implication of dying for love?

As someone who is not overly-romantic, I cannot really understand Cathy and Heathcliffe's destructible relationship. I understand their deep connection, yet I do not think that each person has only one other soul mate. It does not make sense that there is only one other person in the world for you. Cathy and Heathcliffe seem to be sort of naive and selfish about their love. They only live for each other, and while to some that may seem as the ultimate devotion of love, I think that it is very selfish. They are not only responsible for their own feelings, but they have family, children, parents, that they should take more into consideration. It is the same thing with committing suicide. While to some it may appear as heroic and as being "a martyr for the cause", I see it as a selfish way to avoid your own responsibilities. Cathy and Heathcliffe also have their own responsibilities; they have people to take care of. After Cathy dies, Heathcliffe aborts any sort of kindness or humanity to live a loveless and bitter life, effecting all others around him. It is a little sad that he does not have the courage to face her death and move on. While many people would call this a beautiful tale of romance, I see it as very selfish and ignorant to the other elements of life. To have love and to share that love with someone else is a huge part of life, and something that everyone strives for, but to put all of that love in one person is a little naive. When that person leaves, you have literally been so reliant on them, that you no longer no how to fend for yourself. Love is not only about devotion, but learning how to equally devote yourself to all of the different aspects of your life (including yourself, your family, your lover, etc.) I really resent Heathcliffe for not being able to see past the immediate tragedy of Cathy's death. 

There are many love stories that I read that make me want to experience that type of love. I loved reading Jeanette Winterson's novel "Written on the Body". Even though I am not the romantic type, I could not stop thinking about the narrator's love for Louise. She loved her enough to leave her, and I think that is the ultimate form of respect. This book is also about loss, for Louise has cancer and is most likely going to die. Instead of selfishly hoarding Louise to herself, she gives her back to her husband so that he can treat her cancer. She is willing to lose her to make her safe. She does not seem bitter about this loss either, she is very rational in this loss. She begins to see Louise as many parts of a whole, learning about each of the systems of her body, the different parts that are slowly deteriorating from this deadly cancer. Instead of bitterness, she shows intelligence, intellect, even truth. I could never see Heathcliffe acting in this manner. While he loves Cathy to the ends of the earth, he loves himself with her more. He could not even fathom the union of Cathy and Linton, and instead of understanding social circumstances, he sets out to make everyone's lives miserable. I wish he could have loved her enough to lose her, or to do the respectable thing. His actions portray him as a selfish and bitter man who only wants one thing, and will destroy everything else around him if he does not obtain it. 

Wuthering Heights

Heathcliffe was adopted, found in the streets - mother does not want him, not a warm family scene, they are pretty abusive to him. 

"it would degrade me to marry heathcliffe now" - Heathcliffe hears this, "he is more himself than I am" - They are the same person at heart, she is really herself with Heathcliffe.

What is the feeling you get when you are with someone who knows you so well, someone  you completely feel yourself with? you become almost one, identities become so bound with each other - they almost act as if they are each other. Do you really want a relationship where you are them, and they are you? It would get boring. Is just living with yourself enough? I wouldn't actually mind living within myself for the rest of my life. 

Bronte- Wuthering Heights

Who is Emily Bronte? Family History: Sister of Charlotte and Anne Bronte - used pen names to write, interpreted as male writers. Later Emily was called a "female Shakespeare" for her work in Wuthering Heights. 

The first two chapters of Wuthering Heights have a sort of dark, satirical feel. Mr. Lockwood calls Wuthering Heights a "misanthrope's heaven", meaning a haven for those who hate people. People go to the shore to meet new people, the girl referred to in chapter one is overwhelmed because Lockwood is head over heels in love with her which she knows, and she returns the look of love. He then starts to hate her until she thinks she has misunderstood his looks, doubts her own sentiments. He humiliates her, yet he is impossible to understand, he is the problem, not her. 

He may think "if she likes me, how good could he be" - she must be unattainable, and yet if they suddenly become attainable, they will turn away - afraid of the possibilities. It is truly a mode of self-protection, never have to lose anything or feel the hurt of love. 

The reader is now aware that the story comes from a man who is scarred in some way, someone afraid of their emotions. He loves being an irritant.

What does the reader think of Heathcliff? Selfish, 37, son who has died and left him a daughter-in-law who hates him. His relationship to his dogs is pretty brutal, has no real relationship with it instead of acknowledging it as a hunting dog, not a pet. 

In Chapter 3: know meaning of term maxalary convulsions: grinding your teeth because you are so angry and you are trying to keep from crying

Virginia Woolf - A Room of My Own

Virginia Woolf's talk was first delivered to a response to the question "What is the relationship between women and fiction?" If women have the habit of freedom and the courage to write what we want- that there is no arm to cling to, that we go alone - could there be a woman Shakespeare?
In 1928, Woolf is convinced that there has never been a woman Shakespeare because of several reasons. First, women are responsible for the children. Raising children is a time-consuming job, leaving them with no time to write, or write with the value of Shakespeare. Second, women are not presented with the same opportunities as men. Women have always been a part of a male-dominant society (some could argue that we have finally made it to that point of recent), and opportunities have always been fashioned around men. As hard as women could work to become a Shakespeare, they would never have the same opportunities as men to publish, or gain the credit that they deserve. Third, women did not have the opportunity to participate in acting. Their writing was also devalued; men said that women who wrote were doing so to be like men, to spend time with the men. There was no way that their work would maintain any credibility or value. 

Woolf begs the question "is it important to write like a feminist/ like a woman?"
It seems that because women had so much to prove they first started writing like men. To be accepted they had to have the ideas of men. Then suddenly, women wanted to show the female aspect. To gain value as a writer they should not act as a man, they should speak out as a woman. This 'woman's voice' became tremendously important; it became a statement on it's own. Now to be a woman writer with value, you had to speak on women's issues, you had to be a feminist. If you were somehow now portraying yourself in this way, you were making a mockery of women all over, humiliating your own sex. I completely understand why women feel  the pressure to write like a feminist. It is this obsession to bring women's issues to the forefront, to shed light on your own sex. I don't think though that women should have to reside in this stereotype. Women should write whatever they feel like writing, regardless if it is considered "mens writing" or not. That is the real problem. Why does there have to be a set difference in women's and men's writing; can't we all be sympathetic to each other's struggles. Writing is a different process for each person, and to be restricted to write within a certain genre, takes away the personal process writing is. However you feel like expressing yourself, should be accepted by everyone. 

"I thought how unpleasant it is to be locked out; and I thought how it is worse, perhaps, to be locked in," Virginia Woolf

I am sure this quote can be interpreted many ways, but I see it as Woolf saying that the idea of being "locked in" is the real problem. Regardless if you are locked in a man's world or a woman's world, we should not have to be molds to any certain design. Even as a female student in college, I feel as if everyone thinks that all my papers must be about feminism, about the woman's struggle. Why I am a feminist, and I do like writing about women's issues (because that is what I know best), I don't want to be cast into a certain stereotype because of my sex. I love writing about other things as well, and knowing that what I write is my own feelings, that I am being true to my creativity by writing from the heart, not from societies standards. While Woolf hates the thought of being locked out from the literally world, it is almost worse to be locked into a certain mold once in that world. Once she writes about the female struggle, she is automatically locked in as a feminist, woman, writer. While yes, she is a feminist, but she is also a human, who undergoes human struggles everyday as well. She sees the literary scope as a lose-lose at this time period. She either remains on the outside, or she maintains a position on the inside, but must remain within this feminine sphere forever. 

Vindication of the Rights of Women

Mary Wollstonecraft

History: Reflections of revolution 1789, she published one of the first responses called Vindication of Rights of Men, published anonymously - speaks as if written by a man; manly= virtuous, rational - Vindication of the rights of Women

men is a number of classes; all human beings - she doesnt just mean masculine men, she means humans. 

term man for humans? mankind? - making man the norm, principle form, the most exemplary 

society systematically induces sexism through education, trains women not to be virtuous, rational, or manly

attacks kings - every profession which involves subordination, is highly injurious to morality (teacher to students?) - proponents of meritocracy  

 Soldier=Woman 

pg. 41: standing armies - understanding is rare to be found among soldiers and women; only taught to please- only taught about manners before morals - both blindly submit to authority - - if you educate men to be as stupid as women, they will be therefore you could potentially educate women to be as smart as men. - women are not naturally inferior, they just are nurtured to be this way

so upset with Rousseau because he stands for equality of men, social contract - he would have endorsed her vindication of the rights of man, but when it comes to women, he does not endorse it 

Women aggravate the situation though- using your sexual power, play on the weakness of men - not using your wisdom -- become so attractive so that men faun over you and worship you; leads to sensuous fantasy DONT BUY INTO THIS

first time there is a clear opposition to education; suggestive of reform 

Wollstonecraft believed in virtue, very rationalistic, fell in love professed this love and for her this is marriage did not with anything to do with traditional marriage - had a child out of wedlock; he felt he was just involved with a mistress, so she tried to commit suicide, felt the world had utterly betrayed her for her word did not hold

believed in absolute transparency, and what you say holds forever; if i say that I am going to live with you for the rest of my life, this sticks - she was absolutely consistent with her claims about virtue; people were scandalized by her behavior

pg. 74/75: she says man and means humans ; every individual is a world within itself

1/23 Pretty Woman

You have to be filthy rich to get the woman and live happily ever after... men under so much pressure to be successful in this society, because that is how you become the "prince". Woman have pressure to be helpless as well, you have to be like in distress. 

Cinderella complex: Almost every "chick flick", well almost every movie that is at the theatre always has some elements of the cinderella-esque fairytale, yet these movies make money, lots and lots of money, and I am right along there contributing, because I do yearn to see the happy ending. I want women to fall in love with their dream man and live happily ever after, because this is entertaining, this is hopeful, this COULD happen. Most often you see the woman who consumes herself with work, gets to the top of the ladder (baby momma or wedding planner), and then suddenly realizes that she has been burying herself in her work only because she is void of a male security unit. She suddenly finds her Prince charming, or more often he finds her by saving her in some sort, and she decides love trumps all and work in no longer necessary. 

... and I was just thinking of the concept of a wedding. The husband waits at the alter, while the bride walks, what does this signify? The man waits to take his bride, not the other way around, the father gives the daughter to the  new man. So essentially she is never independent of a man, she is first her fathers "property", and than hopefully transferred to her husband. 

The Pretty Woman Myth/ Cinderella Complex

When asked to come up with just one example of the Cinderella Complex (the idea of a man sweeping a woman off of her awaiting feet and living happily ever after), I found it hard to narrow it down to just one I wanted to discuss. I at first thought about the game I used to love to play when I was little, it involved a board that had all young mens faces on it and cards that had their fake telephone numbers.

 All game you would attempt to successfully make your dream guy fall in love with you. This was a normal saturday evening, trying desperately to make fake men fall in love with me on a fake cell phone. So it all starts as little children, but progressively gets worse as we age. I can only think of the reality show the Bachelor (and there are others, Rock of Love, Flava Flav, etc). 

These shows get girls to come on reality television, flaunt around their assests, go after the same man as 25 other woman want, and then when kicked off, have an emotional breakdown because the man did not chose them. I almost appreciate the naughtier versions like Rock of Love more because those girls at least know what they are doing and almost seem to be playing the game right back.

 Bachelor though is serious, woman actually want to fall in love, and think it is necessary to share their "love" with 25 other woman. They are wined and dined in fairytale circumstances, for what seems to be the white knight sweeping them from their fragile feet. Yet this is Hollywood, where dreams come true, and than once no one cares anymore and you aren't whisking off to Paris every weekend, all falls apart. It is just an interesting concept for a feminist to approach because while i disapprove, I think that all women need to have their own dream, and I can't hate these women for dreaming what every little girl must have dreamed, but just carrying it through to their adult years.

Winterson

I think Winterson's article is most interesting in the fact that she accuses the human population of becoming obsessed with reality because of an innate fear of imagination. We are obsesssed with reality tv, biographies, etc, because we fear the steps into our inner life, our inner poetic goddess. 

Winterson also explains how she re-works traditional myths to explore innate human feelings, feelings that often take on their own persona, feelings that take a tremendous amount of imagination to understand and develop on paper. Language must force the author to find the essential human truths, to capture imagination, yet work it into the reality of human truths.

The Cinderella Complex

I agree with what Dowling says as the idea of the "cinderella complex". I think that many woman prepare their entire lives for the sweeping off their feet-type of romance, but moreover for security. While men depend only on themselves, even though i have witnessed some exceptions, women are able to experience their own independence with the backdrop of eventually finding someone to take care of them in essence. I personally do not believe in this, I think I can only truly and happily depend on myself, but I understand the need for the this attachment, because I know people who desire this/who need this, at least thats what they think. Dowling calls this marriage as a "collapse of ambition", which I am not sure I would go that far, but I understand that once you find this security, there is a sense of slowing down, becoming accustom to a life of dependency - no need for a quest/search anymore. 

Class Notes 1/16/09: the rich are really amputated in some fundamental way - literally the stepsisters chop off their feet - Carter's version of Ashputtle- Cinderella is not just dirty, but literally burned; sacrifice for the purpose of pushing  someone into independence "give your own milk next time, I'm dry" - anticlimax for giving her all your milk, blood, claws - "she did alright". 

Turning now to Weight, the retelling of fairytales by artists: (Jeanette Winterson)

In artistic retelling of fairytales, does art counteract ideology (wounded by wishes) - 

- I do not think art so much counteracts the surrounding ideologies of fairytales, moreover gives a deeper notion into the human interactions behind these ideologies, reinterprets these ideologies. For example, I have read Jeanette Winterson's novel "Written on the Body", and I have to say it is my favorite book to date (the only one I never sold back to the bookstore!). In the book she falls madly in love, a love that is so deep, so fairytale, so passionate that it literally consumes the narrator - yet this is not a rag to riches tale, it is just a journey through the emotions of love. Yet the ideology behind fairytales is the happily ever after, that is the essential notion of a fairytale - yet this novel reworks happily ever after. The narrators lover is diagnosed with cancer, and she consequently dies, but the imagination and vigor with which the narrator writes is so poetic, that it is almost as the creation of art is her happily ever after. 

What is "art" ... does it transfer, sedate, traspose, satisfy (hunger)?