The Beauty in Every Inch

"Howard looked at Kiki. In her face, his life. Kiki looked up suddenly at Howard - not, he thought, unkindly. Howard said nothing. Another silent minute passed. The audience began to mutter perplexedly. Howard made the picture larger on the wall, as Smith had explained to him how to do. The woman's fleshiness filled the wall. He looked out into the audience once more and saw Kiki only. He smiled at ther. She smiled. She looked away, but she smiled. Howard looked back at the woman on the wal, Rembrandt's lover, Hendrickje. Though her hnds were imprecise blurs, paint heaped on pain and rolled with the brush, the rest of skin had been expertly rendered in all its variety - chalk whites an dlively pinks, the underlying blue of her veins and the ever present human hint of yellow, intimation of what is to come."

Howard made me angry. His infidelity, his obscurity, his precociousness. I saw him as arrogant and undeserving, selfish and chauvinist. Like the rest of his family, I found myself hardened by his transgressions and thought of with him with feelings that could be nicely described as disdain. This last scene, however, made me see Howard as we all are: human. My heart not only softened, but it opened up to the perfect fallibility of Howard. There was something vulnerable, something selfless about this moment. He abandons his art. He abandons his theories. He abandons, in essence, himself. He surrenders to true beauty, the beauty he finds in Kiki. Suddenly, there is little more important than humanity and the greatest gift of humanity: love. The description of Hendrickje is, though short, perhaps one of the most powerful passages in On Beauty. To me, in emphasized the beauty of life, the sheer magnifience of human existence. Love is not perfect. Life is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But there is undeniable beauty in this imperfection.

I have, for many years, reveled in a particular prayer written by the late Archbishop Oscar Romero. In it, he writes, "We cannot do everything, and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that. This enables us to do something, and to di it very well. It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way, an opportunity for the Lord's grace to enter and do the rest." And while this certainly integrates very explicit Christian ideals, I feel it contains some universal, secular truth. We will, as humans, never be wholly perfect. There will be mistakes, hypocrisy, and pain. Nothing is every entirely good, bad, right or wrong. It is simply impossible. But this means something and it means something very great. It means that we are wonderfully incapable and gloriously vulnerable. It reminds us that our heart will beat strong until one day when it will, inevitably, stop beating. It ensures our humanity, our very life.

Binaries and Beauty

Amidst romantic entanglements, heartbreaking infidelity, and family struggles, On Beauty offers an insightful look at the complicated construction and deconstruction of familiar binaries. Beautiful and ugly. Intelligent and stupid. Right and Left. Big and small. White and black. Building them up and breaking them down, Zadie Smith offers a pardoxical perspective on seeing through a dichotomous lens.

Perhaps one of the most noticebale ways in which Smith complicates notions binarical structures is in her depiction of the Left. Howard is an intellgient, talented, Leftist. He works hard to convince his young students that there is beauty in the world, beauty that can be found in secret places. He urges his students to look beyond stereotypical constructions of art and beauty and, rather, embrace the individual beauty of the avant-garde. At first, the reader might cling to the quixotic sentiments of Howard, applauding his comfortability with interracial desire and advocacy for free-thinking. However, it is his affair with Claire that begins to shake the reader's faith in the old professor. Of course, the infidelity in and of itself is (at best) disconcerting, but it is the image of Claire that is most troubling. Small and white, she is the literal physical opposite of Howard's wife Kiki. Moreover, she is the standard of beauty. She is not large, she is not dark. She fulfills the most standard, stereotypical image of feminine beauty. What's this all about, Howard? Here, the reader can start to see the separation of practice and theory. Howard, righteous in his academic convictions, seemingly transgresses his own obscure conception of beauty.

Another binary addressed by Smith is the one containing Self and Other. This is made apparent in a conversation between Kiki and Carlene in which the latter insists that a wife must live for her lover and the former confesses that she has, in fact, not done that at all. Confused by what she should be living for, Kiki questions Carlene for her opinion. Carlene's answer sets up another complex binary. To Carlene, one must live his/her lover, for the Other. But what does this say about Self? Does the relationship become a complimentary one or a devouring one? Does Carlene lose herself in her husband? If she lives for her husband, and thus defines herself in relation to him, does she then have any real, independent definition? Later, after Kiki discovers the truth about Howard's affair, yells at her husband, "I staked my life on you!" Does this contradict what she had said to Carlene? Perhaps Kiki simply could not accept that she had depended so heavily on a man, a white man, a person whom was everything she was not. By allowing herself to be defined by him, she simultaneously sacrificed significant aspects of her Self.

The complication of binaries and trespassing of personal ideologies are at once troubling and comforting. It is troubling to think that, despite our most earnest efforts to become a person of whom we can be very proud, we are still inevitably and eternally susceptible to fallibility. Our righteous and admirable theories can, at any moment, be shaken by our own umanity.

Art According to Zadie

CULTURE WARS
Right (Canon-Loving Recognizers of "Great Art")
versus
Left (Bard-Rejecting Multiculturalists)

• (Zadie Smith) + (Multicultural Uplifting) = Zadie "The Bard" Smith?

Is the Left Wing Culture Army constructing the very figure against which they are fighting? Does rejecting "great art" simply mean the rejection of canonical art? Is it acceptable for sometihng to be worshipped if it is not supposed to be worshipped? That is, since the works of Zadie Smith is seen as counter-canon, does her transcendence into the terrioty of "genius" suddenly become allowed by the Left?

ART abandonment of vanity; "truthful picture of [one's] conception of the world;" a case/an analogy of morals; resisting self-imposed goodness; Zadie Smith, "We are so convinced of the goodness of ourselves, and the goodness of our love, we cannot bear to believe that there might be something more worthy of love than us, more worthy of worship."

GENIUS Death of the Author; death of the White author?; No one is a genius; Zadie is a genius?

Pride

What is mine? What can I truly, confidently call mine? Are the words I speak original? Are the thoughts I think authentic? Are the aspirations I seek crafted by my own personal perception of success and happiness or are they persuaded by socialized standards? And what if they aren’t? What if I am simply a walking canvas that has been decorated by the paintbrushes of others? Furthermore, what if I become a very famous painting? What if the critics praise me, lauding my contribution to the world? Will it matter that others and not myself have created me? And will I let myself be created? If I were to resist, surely I would risk success. Surely, I would never be great because, after all, to deny the projections of society is to denounce their standards and, thus, be a worthless member. To live in a privileged world—one that offers opportunity and relentlessly encourages personal achievement—is to reconcile one’s true self with society’s image of what is successful and valuable. An unavoidable aspect of this struggle, I believe, is pride.

Dignified and confident, arrogant and audacious.

Pride.

Personally, I’m worried about pride. I’m worried that any attempt to live life with a genuine heart and selfless intentions are simultaneously and paradoxically adulterated by self-serving motives. I’m worried that pride so subtly and so consistently propels us in our most earnest endeavors that we end up completely unaware of the ubiquitous vice. I’m afraid of the furtiveness with which it slinks through the winding corridors of our hearts and into the dark corners of our minds. I’m quite positive that it is slowly permeating the purity of us all and that the painters of society have created a very grim portrait of Old Man Success. I’m worried that the goodness and grandeur of the world is beginning to wane in the shadow of narcissism and the constant striving for worldly achievements. I’m afraid that we are all so blinded by what society has gradually deemed prosperous that we are intimidated by true happiness and pure love; we are terrified of “failing” in the eyes of others. I’m worried that humanity, in its entirety, is suffering at the hands of bankers and economists who are never fully satisfied. There is a constant yearning, a constant search. Houses are never big enough, cars are never fast enough, phones are never small enough.

Winterson writes, “The fatal combination of indulgence without feeling disgusts me….For myself, I prefer to hold my desires just out of reach of appetite, to keep myself honed and sharp. I want the keen edge of longing. It is so easy to be a brute and yet it has become rather fashionable.” This tackles another deadly sin: gluttony. Doesn't the proud presence of gluttony seem entirely problematic? It has become entirely acceptable to want too much, buy too much, sell too much, process to much. This has got to be a problem, right?

ART

Laura Mandell's Theory of Literary Art (In An Insufficient Nutshell):

There's genre. And what we know about the history of the genre that is the "novel" is that it originated in the 18th century. Novel genre is formulaic. Formulaic fiction. And then, of course, there is the canon (of great literature). But has the canon been blown apart? Theoretically, yes, it has. Now there exists an array of ethnic and minority literature studies. The "great literature' has, put simply, been supplanted by cultural studies. Laura thinks, however, that there does exist "great literature" and that the canon has undergone too much deconstruction.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts: they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty." This raises quite a few questions. Do we love authors because we love ourselves? When we read a text, fall in love with a text, and admire that text, is it because we see ourselves, our thoughts, in that text? What does this say about the self? The individual? How does this complicate notions of great art and great artists? It seems to me that great art and great artists do indeed exist. I believe in works of beauty, in works of genius. In the same breath, I also advocate the diversity of genius. I believe that genius can exist outside the canon. I believe that Ramona from Greenwich Village may recognize a different genius than Gerard from Dijon. I have no qualms with bardolatry. To each his own, is what I say. But I do, and earnestly, resist the exclusiviy of bardolatry.

TagCrowd: Whatchya Sayin?

With the help of TagCrowd, we took a look at word choice and frequency within three different versions of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818 Edition, 1818 Thomas Edition, and 1831 Edition). Listed below are some abridged results, focusing primarily on the words that that achieved the highest frequency of use:

1818 Edition:
Friendship (3 occurences)
Creature (2 occurences)


1818 Thomas Edition:
Deep (3 occurences)
Friend (3 occurences)
Creature (2 occurences)

1831 Edition:
Converse (3 occurences)
Creatures (3 occurences)
Spoke (3 occurences)
Man (3 occurences)
Friend (3 occurences)

Based on this brief comparison of texts, one can see that Shelley did not curtail her writing with every passing edition, but rather, she expanded and developed the storyline and its previous concepts.

Aurora Leigh

. . . 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 [to purify Aurora]; give out the fresh seed [to grow a new woman].

Aurora Leigh
Book I, 304-312

Aurora Leigh--a free bird, an unbridled spirit. Aurora's aunt? Not so free and not so unbridled. In this passage, Elizabeth Barrett Browning applies the metaphor of "woman as bird" to both Aurora and her aunt, allowing the comparison to operate in two different ways. Aurora is a bird who is not caged for she understands, appreciates, and takes full advantage of the freedom she has been given. However, upon joining her aunt--who "misliked women who are frivolous"-- Aurora's free femininity is curtailed by an ideology that perpetuates the containment of women. The aunt, born into and never encouraged to question this cage-like ideology, does not attempt to tame Aurora because of any misguided intentions; rather, it seems the aunt has pure intentions in "improving" Aurora. By "bringing the clean water" and "[giving] out the fresh seed," one could suggest that Aurora's aunt is cleansing her niece of the flawed femininity she has adopted as well as creating an entirely new woman.

As previously mentioned, Aurora's aunt has never known freedom, she has never lived outside the cage, and thus, she cannot value the "free" lifestyle. Aurora's tendency to desire that which lies beyond domestic duties and a confined existence demonstrates how vastly her views differ from the aunt's conception of life and femininity.

The Innermost Thoughts of Internet Airheads

The thoughts:

"Alright I'm just going to push out the collarbones a bit. Ype, that should look good. Very Marissa Cooper via The O.C. Okay, now pullllll your stomach back, push the shoulders forward. Are my lips pouty enough? Probably not. Note to self: call Dr. Johnson. My hair is totally covering my eyes right now. I kind of want to move it back, but I probably shouldn't. If the photographer wanted me to move it, he'd tell me to move it."

Thoughts of thinking others thoughts:

To insert thoughts into the minds of others is to project onto them what you want them to be. For example, when I imposed "airhead" thoughts onto the mind of the model, I posited her as a woman who offered only beauty. I mean, of course I don't want that gorgeous girl to be exceptionally brilliant. That'd be disconcerting for me, an ordinary girl, wouldn't it? So there's something to think about-- are our perceptions of other people simply a reflection of our own insecurities? Now to the story...

The Lifted Veil

Eliot writes, "But there is no tyranny more complete than that which a self-centred negative nature exercises over a morbidly sensitive nature perpetually craving sympathy and support" (22). Well yikes. This is overwhelmingly daunting to anyone who might be in search of sympathy and support, for it suggests that this weak state can leave one susceptible to the tyranny of another person. Essentially, this quote reveals the tyrannical manipulation that takes place when two forces--one self-centered and the other arguably self-deprecating--unite. The person who craves "sympathy and support" will inevitably blinded by his own insecurity to recognize that he are being taken advantage of by his seemingly doting lover. Love/attention/support is his drug. Love/attention/support makes him too high to realize his own subjugation.

Dr. Frankenstein and Mr. Monster

Victor Frankenstein and his monster-- are they one in the same person? Does the usage of the word "wretch" lend credence to this possibility?

• page 43 "how can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom...I had endeavoured to form?"
• page 44 "...I beheld the wretch -- the miserable monster whom I had created."
• page 60 "...I was destined to become the most wretched of human beings"
• page 62 "Alas! I had turned loose into the world a depraved wretch whose delight was in carnage and misery..."
• page 65 "that made me wretched"
• page 77, Elizabeth says to Victor, "My dearest friend, you must calm yourself. These events have affected me, God knows how deeply; but I am not so wretched as you are. There is an expression of despair, and sometimes of revenge, in your countenance that makes me tremble. Dear Victor, banish these dark passions."
• page 83:
• All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.
• page 85 "I have been the miserable origin and author? Cursed be the day, abhorred devil, in which you first saw light! Cursed (although I curse myself) be the hands that formed you! You have made me wretched beyond expression. You have left me no power to consider whether I am just to you or not. Begone! Relieve me from the sight of your detested form."
• page 165 "Human beings, their feelings and passions, would indeed be degraded if such a wretch as I felt pride. Justine, poor unhappy Justine, was as innocent as I, and she suffered the same charge; she died for it; and I am the cause of this -- I murdered her. William, Justine, and Henry -- they all died by my hands."
  

Frankenstein Children

Culture facilitates association and thus perpetuates the flaws of society. Locke suggests that, through this cultural association, children's attitudes and prejudices are informed by what other people insist is truth. Hence, if certain derrogatory values assigned to the figures/objects in society are not transmitted through generations, then Locke supposes that children will grow to be morally good.

How does the monster represent this philosophy? In what was is the monster like a blank-slate child? Was the development of Dr. Frankenstein's monster guided entirely by society or did he harbor some internal moral compass? Whenever this question of "nature versus nurture" arises, I think back to Kenneth Clark's (in)famous experiment conducted with children and baby dolls in the 1940s. In essence, Dr. Clark presented African American children with both black and white dolls. Most of the children were not only able to identify the race of the dolls, but additionally, a majority of the children associated the white dolls with positive characteristics and the black dolls with more negative characteristics. Dr. Clark supposed this reaction demonstrated the way in which [white] America has planted a seed of self-hatred in the psyches of African American youth. The experiment was created again in recent years. The results showed no considerable improvement. This scenario makes me think that the process of shaping one's own identity is one that cannot go uninfluenced by society. It's obvious that the biological composition of African Americans does not include innate self-hatred; rather, society has an inevitable hold on the way in which every single child perceives him or herself. In the same way, the aversion and terror with which Frankenstein's monster was met most likely led him to become the brutish character he was.

Losing Love

"Why is the measure of love loss?"

Since discovering this query in Jeanette Winterson's novel Written on the Body, I have noticed more and more how intensely love is guided by the possibility of loss. It seems that every single person in this world is searching desperately for some sort of pure, unadulterated love while simultaneously building enough armor to protect herself from the pain that may shadow this love. Of course, this suit of armor is hardly complete without perhaps the most direct form of protection--repelling affection and love. Just as the beloved followers of Jesus crucified their Savior and the mariner shot the adoring Albatross, there is a recurrent theme of eradicating the one thing/person that offers the most love. But why? We all want to be loved, right? Why does the prospect of being loved unconditionally drive us to not only avoid that source of that love, but additionally, kill that very source? This seems strange.

In the same light, what drives Victor to spurn nature and create the monster? Does he find naturally occurring love so tragic and unreliable that he must take control of the emotion? Are the rejection of Elizabeth and the creation of the monster nearly identical acts? Essentially. As long as Victor can control love, he can insure that he will not be hurt by the effects of love. In short, he desires to control the fate of his once-damaged heart.

Controlling fate. Does Victor usurp the reigns of destiny? He does, after all, assume an arguable God complex by working tirelessly to create life. Yet, he still insists that he was "attacked" by fate. Seems like a bit of denial to me!

Question: why did Victor create a man rather than a woman? Of course, the image of a towering, barbarous man is far more frightening than a pieced together woman, but is there anything to say about his monster's gender aside from the fright factor? Logically, it seems that Victor would prefer to create a woman whose love he could never lose. But, obviously, that's not the case.

Frankenstein

Walton's Wish for Fame

Walton aspires to find a passage to the North Pole in hopes of achieving fame. However, despite his desire to become a person with similar esteem to famous figures such as Shakespeare and Homer, Walton does not dedicate himself to the process of becoming well-known. What does Walton's preoccupation with achieving an elite status without actually practicing the diligence to achieve that fame say about his character?

Cultural Capital

With the proliferation of literary commentary, does the academy facilitate or fetter the survival of literature? It is quite possible that the precocious language and exclusive conversations that constitute scholarly articles are nothing more than a glaring "Keep Out!" sign posted for those who are seen as incapable and, arguably, unworthy of these continuing discussions. This exclusivity is easily comparable to the history of cultural capital that has delineated the social spheres of class and class members' consequent accessibility to success. Denying others the privilege of education has long been a means by which social hierarchy is exercised. Arguably the most obvious manifestation of cultural capitalism has occurred within the spheres of gender and race. Of course, class has always played a role in one's educational possibilities and still does. However, it is perhaps the lack of political progression in terms of class that makes it such a "silent killer." While it would be absurd to suggest that issues of sexism and racism have been entirely resolved, it is undeniable that there has bene sincere political and cultural progress. The feminist and Civil Rights movements evidence this. Hoewver, there has hardly been a Lower Class movement, an active rallying for economic equality! But will this ever happen? Will it ever happen in a democratic, capitalist society? My guess: probably not.

What's Eating Heathcliffe?

A brief compilation of words used to describe Heathcliffe: Savage vehemence; crushing his nails into his palms, and grinding his teeth to subdue the maxillary convulsions; rather morose; violent emotion; exaggeratedly reserved; rather slovenly; vexatious phlegm; a genuine bad nature

Could the gloomy starkness of Wuthering Heights be more perfectly completed by anyone other than the harsh and vindictive Heathcliffe? After being discarded by the class-conscious Catherine and mistreated by a vengeful Hindley Earnshaw, the spoiled child that Heathcliffe once was is soon replaced by a viciously hostile man. His "genuine bad nature" seems to be the manifestation of the grudges he holds against those who have wronged him. I assume that the trauma of being an orphan, losing a loving pseudo-father, being loathed by a jealous brother-figure, and suffering the heartbreak inflicted upon him by his possible soulmate Catherine was quite a burden to bear. This unpleasant exterior seems to be a protective facade meant to shield him from pain and betrayal. This is evidenced by his quick change of character upon Catherine's "arrival." He becomes softened upon seeing someone he feels he can trust and love.

Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights
Emily Bronte (Pseudonym: Ellis Bell)

The novel begins with the narration of Mr. Lockwood, a new tenant of Wuthering Heights who declares his recently-acquired dwelling a "misanthropist's Heaven." It is not long until the reader learns of Lockwood's ambiguously unrequited love affair. Lockwood once loved a woman, but ultimately, the romance behaved as sort of a direct exchange--as soon as Lockwood's beloved expressed similar interest in him, our narrator immediately recoils and his love vanishes. Seeing as Lockwood is the lens through which we read this gloomy love story, his romantic past should be of particular interest to us. He is a man who has no qualms with the disruption of love and is quite comfortable with being an "irritant."

Trauma, trauma, trauma

As I settled down to watch Clockwork Orange with my friends, I was warned by all 3 boys that I might not find the movie enjoyable. I rolled my eyes a little and stood up for my girly self, insisting that I liked creepy fiction and would be totally fine with whatever this film threw at me. I praised the eerie, reveled in the scary, and marveled at creativity--surely I would like this literary classic turned movie. I could not have been more horribly mistaken.

It was terrible. The words, the images, the music-- it was like nothing I had encountered before despite my life-long passion for "scary" movies. But let me tell you, this was not just a scary movie. It was, rather, a gruesome display of sex and violence. I could barely sit still and found my head buried nearly constantly in the shoulder of the friend next to me. To tell the truth, it was not long until I excused myself from the room, apologizing for my inability to endure the film in its entirety. I walked back home (quickly and cautiously, of course) all the while perplexed by the mind that had created the storyline from which I had just run. "What kind of person even thinks of that?" I asked myself. I was wholly distraught by the outward expressions of this obviously (?) deranged mind. But soon, my confusion and distress turned to anger. I became enraged that a person felt the need to pour even more violence into an already corrupt world. I was not just reacting to the film at this point, but I was also infuriated by whoever was involved in the production of that very film. To me, there was no separating the creator from his creation. In the same way, I find it difficult to separate the words and cyber-actions of Mr. Bungle from him as a person. His expressions were as dark and perverse as his mind...

Miss Shakespeare

Why is there no female Shakespeare?

• The Woman Writer and the Proper Lady
• Women writers --> inappropriate
• Women who did write were seen as whores who simply wanted to be apart of a profession--a world--that belonged solely to men
• Is it important to write like a feminist, according to Woolf?
  
• Men are writing "like men" because of the women's movement The normal is not there until the "abnormal." There is no white without black. There is no straight without gay. There is no man without woman (remember the one-sex model?)and being self-conscious about their maleness (this category, this identity) produces poor writing
• One must be free of anger (feminist anger?) in order to create good writing; anyone who incorporates gender pride is going to lose their writing in defense of themselves
  

Cyberspace Rape?

While technical details and anatomical specifications could certainly prove me wrong, I cannot help but to insist that Mr. Bungle did indeed commit rape. One defintion classifies rape as “unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent.” Bungle’s actions indisputably classify as “unlawful sexual activity.” He described, in sordid detail, the sexual performances he demanded of others. Furthermore, as evidenced by the victims’ outraged and hurt response, the act was committed completely against the will of fellow lambdaMOO users. So while I most certainly think that Bungle is a rapist, there are probably many others who cannot see past the caveat of non-corporeality. If there is no bodily contact—no physical presence—how can rape actually occur? How does this cyberspacial assault disrupt notions of a traumatic and violent rape? Well, I was drawn to Dibbell’s suggestion that perhaps sex deals not so much primarily with the physical body, but rather with its “psychic double, the bodylike self-representation we carry around in our heads” (203). One could argue that gender and sexuality (and the consequent identities) are subject to inevitable social construction. That is, one’s performance (via body) of their gender/sexuality is heavily persuaded and directed by social framework. It is the psychic body—the theoretical self—that precedes any bodily expression/form. Therefore, for one to subject another to any sort of psychologically damaging sexual activity is, perhaps, the most fundamental act of rape.

Mary Wollstonecraft

A Vindication of the Rights of Men

• Response to Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France (Nov. 1789)
• Published in December, 1789
• "Men" : a number of classes; all human beings

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

• Published in 1792
• "Woman" : suggests a class of persons who have treated the same?
• Society systematically, through education, trains woman to be not virtuous (immoral), not rational, not masculine
• Wollstonecraft is an advocate of "meritocracy"
• Hierarchy is injurious to morality
• Soldiers --> women

"The great misfortune is this, that they both acquire manners befor emorals, and a knowledge of life before they have, from refelction, any acquaintance with the grand ideal outline of human nature. The consequence is natural; satisfied with common nature, they become a prey to prejudices, and taking all their opinions on credit, they blindly submit to authority" (Chapter 2, Paragraph 20).

• Feminine wiles?

"Women, deluded by these sentiments, sometimes boast of their weakness, cunningly obtaining power by play on the weakness of men; and they may well glory in their illicit sway...but virtue is sacrificed to temporary gratifications, and the respectability of life to the triumph of an hour" (Chapter 3, Paragraph 7).

Mary Wollstonecraft's distinct aversion to the institution of marriage is, while strikingly unusual, in perfect harmony with the sentiments expressed by her feminist works. She recognizes how society in structured by and for men, and because of this, the marriage system cannot possibly be any different. It is at once heartbreaking and inspiring that Wollstonecraft lived by her own virtue, her own word.

Pretty Woman: Beauty, Money, and Prostitutes

Recipe for Success?

1 man
1 woman
Natural good looks
Billions of dollars

Combine man and money. Mix woman and looks. Allow the new products to cohabitate and voila! You've got yourself a fresh, steaming batch of The Perfect Life! If only this weren't true, or rather, portrayed by the media as truth. However, there is, undeniably, an increasing amount of social commentary on the presure for women to adhere to a stereotypical images of beauty. Celebrities and even marketing campaigns are speaking out about the sexualized images of airbrushed beauties. There seems to be slow and steady movement away from glorfifying the representations of women who do not accurately reflect true and natural femininity. There is, put simply, some sense of awareness. But what about the men? Who is looking at and after the men? Just as a woman is expected to be classicly beautiful, so are men expected to reap the plumpest of paychecks. And there seems to be nothing fighting this image. Have we ever seen a man, clad in a K-Mart tee shirt and a pair of thrift jeans, on the television with, smile entact, saying, "It's okay to be ME!" Not exactly. Are there images of men pulling up outside a swanky bar in a 1998 Ford Contour only to escort a beautiful woman to passenger seat? Hardly.

So while I--as a woman-am constantly and earnestly aware of the unrealistic standards set for my fellow ladies, there seems to be another cause waiting to be noticed. To assume that it is only women who suffer under the pressures of societal constructs would be so, so...1950's!

Cinderella, Cinderella

Disney is everywhere. Can I just lay that out there from the very beginning? Whether it is a Snow White lunch box or a Sleeping Beauty pillow case or my aunt's Mickey Mouse tattoo (what was she thinking?!), Disney has achieved universal ubiquity in a relatively short period of time. And, like any multi-billionaire dollar corporation that quite literally promises happiness to those who oblige, the Disney mecca has infiltrated ideology of western culture. Perhaps one of the most dominant ideals propelled by Disney is the concept of girls and women as "princesses." And while I would love to describe to you (in great detail) why the image of a princess is in many ways detrimental to the psyche of women today, I will refrain for a few reasons: 1) I'm sure you've all heard it before 2) It's beside the point and 3) Once I step on my proverbial soapbox, it's hard to tug me down! I digress.

I searched the Internet for "Cinderella" and was not surprised to find 25,800,000 hits. I sifted through the Disney version of Cinderella and found a music video by Christian musical artist, Stephen Curtis Chapman. Now, let me tell you, Stephen and I go wayyyyy back. As a 12 year old, I was quite smitten with the squeaky clean, blond hair, blue eyed Mr. Chapman. That's right. While other girls were fawning over JC, Lance, and Justin, I was dancing around to "Let Us Pray." No shame. Still love the song. Nine years later, I'm listening to him, this time with a focus on the aforementioned song. Unfortunately, I'm a little disappointed, for Chapman does little to resist the famous Cinderella fantasy. Allow me to post a few lyrics:

"'There's a ball at the castle
And I've been invited
And I need to practice my dancing
Oh, please, Daddy, please?'

So I will dance with Cinderella
While she is here in my arms
'Cause I know something the prince never knew
Oh, I will dance with Cinderella
I don't want to miss even one song
'Cause all too soon the clock will strike midnight
And she'll be gone..."

The rest of the song subscribes even more loyally to the typical Cinderella tale. The young girl goes from dancing with her father, to dancing with a boy at prom, to dancing with her husband at their wedding. What is this, I ask! An assembly line! Geez, Cinderella, let's chill out with the dancing for a bit. What I'm getting at is this: the song positions the girl constantly with a male counterpart. At the risk of sounding callous, she just changes hands, from one man to the next. I would argue that this is a particularly disappointing aspect of the Cinderella tale, because it emphasizes the necessity of couples. Man and woman must be together. Not only does this perpetuate the oppression and submission of women, it also emphasizes comulsory heteronormativity. That is, a true "princess" is made worthy by her "prince," And if there is no prince, well, sorry sister! No princess for you!

Now I'm not suggesting that Stephen Curtis Chapman is some sick chauvinistic sadist. I'm positive that the song was created with the purest intentions! The work does, however, show how subtly and consistently this fairy tale myth persists in our culture. There is nothing strikingly anti-feminist about the song. It is not until we really break down the song and recognize its relation to society on the whole that we see where the message is slightly problematic.

I'm not going to lie. The song is cute. It's soft and sweet and will inevitably pull at the heartstrings of any who, well, has a heart. And sure, I'll admit it: a very very small, feminist-denying part of me hopes that someday I will find myself on my father's arm and we will dance to this lovely tune on my own wedding day. Yes it's true! Despite my own earnest critique of the Cinderella myth, even I sometimes harbor my own fanciful hopes for a blemish-free future of fairy tale happiness. Oh whatever... I blame Disney.

Beauty and the Beast

The Courtship of Mr. Lyon

What does it mean to be human? How does maleness/masculinity function among humans?

• Maleness --> Masculinity --> Man/Boy --> Beast
  
• How do women react to the Other, the Beast?
• How does masculinity coming to terms with violence?
• Does femininity find its Other through disgust/revulsion?

The Bloody Chamber

How do issues of sexuality; male and female agency; and the geography of male violence function in this story?

• Does the room represent a womb? Does the key represent a phallus that grants the woman a sense of male agency?
• The red mark: possibly symbolic of the scarlet letter. The scarlet letter, as we know, functioned in Hawthorn's original work as a mark of ignominy--it signified that Hester Prynne exercised her own sexuality outside the boundaries of what society allowed. In the same way, perhaps this woman bore a red mark on her head as a sign that she (by assuming and, moreover, using the key) acted outside the boundaries of her gender. 
• The Bloody Chamber:  a parable about how marriage, in addition to male/female relationships, should function

Quiz: Friday, Jan. 16

Artistic retellings: does art help counteract ideology? 

If nothing else, artistic retellings of fairy tales demand that readers begin to interrogate the ideology they have been fed. To assume that one single story can capture and apply to the experiences of many is, at best, an absurd notion. Winterson writes, " Of course I wrote it directly out of my own situation. There is no other way." Exactly. Asking a young girl in Manchester, England to subscribe to the fantasies found in Cinderella-- the same fantasies being read by another young girl in Tuscon, Arizona--is breaching fascism. It risks the denial, the amputation, of one's true identity. Essentially, ideology (as perpetuated by ubiquitous and recurring tales) demands that everyone everywhere believe in the same things, wish for the same happy endings, and behave in the same ways. This simply is just not possible. By retelling these stories, by feeding these stories through the lens/feelings/experiences of a new voice, writers can begin to challenge and deconstruct what the universal formula for love and success.

Fairy Tales and Feminism

Initial reaction to The Cinderella Complex:

What does it actually mean for a woman to be "independent"? Does being self-sufficient always implicitly suggest the absence of a male? Is it not possible for a woman to be entirely self-sufficient and, additionally, ambitious even when she does enjoy a male counterpart? I cannot help but to adopt a sort of counter-counterculture position and suggest that perhaps a woman can, at once, be both taken care of and entirely fulfilled. Does feminism always imply a solitary existence?

Unfolding notions of Feminism/Success/Gender Politics:

I'm thinking that one of the most well-known and accepted dichotomies in Western society is the male/female separation. And, accordingly, there are certain formulas for male/female identities.  What if we start manipulating these formulas? Naturally, we will start seeing different products-- "masculine" women and "feminine" men. This really can't be okay, can it? A man who participates in activities or even expresses himself in a way that deviates from the preconceived formula of "man" calls his own gender and sexuality into question. Again, this really can't be okay. While one who resists gender stereotypes and proceeds to live his life in any way he pleases certainly signifies some sort of cultural progression, society and the ever-present ideology that drives society still provides regrettable framework. He is seen as "feminine." The problematic dichotomy, rigid and seemingly unavoidable, still remains...

Culture as self-amputation?

Anne Sexton's "Cinderella"

"Bonwit Teller"

This references a high quality women's clothing store that was founded in 1895, New York City. In Sexton's story, after the charwoman suffers an accident on a bus, she trades in her cleaning supplies for this classy apparel. Is it a coincidence that Anne Sexton situates material/physical wealth/beauty as the "dream come true?" Highly improbable.


"Al Jolson"

I decided to Google image Al Jolson in hopes of being able to put a face with a name when I went on to look up what significant role he played in American history. I got a face alright. Jolson was a singer, comedian, and actor who--wait for it-- enjoyed performing in black face! Cinderella was a stepdaughter, stepsister, and essentially a maid who--wait for it--was made dirty by cinders of the fireplace. Interesting. Perhaps this draws attention to the perception of blackness as "dirty" and, thus, inferior to whiteness.
Recap: Cinderella = dark = ugly = Other
Those who aren't white = dark = ugly = Other


"Bobbsey Twins"

Well, well, well. More perfection as manifested by whiteness! Sexton concludes her story with the depiction of Cinderella and her prince as eternally-smiling, infinitely happy plastic dolls. Since I had already heard of the Bobbsey Twins, I decided to (again) Google image this fine family! So white. So perfect. So what everyone should be.