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.