Reflecting on this class this morning, I realized that I have been fooled into learning more than I thought. Very sneaky! The weekly research topics made sure we all read A LOT of periodicals in a short period of time because we all wanted an artifact that captured the American understanding of a topic, or surprised us, or made us laugh. And, the fact that we all ended up "chasing rabbits" and getting off-track in our research means we learned even more-- usually without knowing it. For me, it is difficult to settle on the three most helpful artifacts that I found in the periodicals over the last few weeks because it is difficult to connect them with a common realization or new knowledge. So I have been putting off this blog. I think that my inability to connect three artifacts points to what I did learn in this class-- the early American periodicals were far more varied in opinion and subject than I expected, more people were allowed to print on more subjects than I thought, and for some reason, though periodical's life expectancy was minute and profit was a joke, people still published more and more periodicals. Of my three favorite sources, (and all of my sources, I think) each was printed in a different periodical. Also, each dealt with an external focus-- and not because of the search parameters. Most of the artifacts I discovered, regardless of the search terms, were pointed to England or distant lands rather than focused on the struggles at home. The few I found focusing on the United States discussed liberty and slavery, and many were in Christian or Quaker publications. I discovered what appeared to be a sociological perspective rather than a politically or societal charged atmosphere in publication. For instance, my search for liberty brought up liberty in fashion, Indians brought up a report of Quaker's assistance to Indians and their education, and Hottentot appearance brought up the story of converted Africans visiting a London church and meeting an English born African. Each of the articles I found deal with propriety and use religion and freedom as a shared concept-- as if one naturally relates to the other-- though in different ways. I think each of the artifacts strives to teach tolerance for human life and imperfections or differences and steps outside the boundaries of social expectations. I guess I was surprised at how often the periodical research surprised me-- how often my assumptions about early American opinions were proved wrong.
And one more thing: often the most interesting items I found I didn't even talk about in class. Its amazing the number of things I weeded out as too long and complex to discuss or too odd or too much like other things I found.
I suppose that is all I have for now, but I don't think I am done with American periodicals for long!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Fashion and Lady Liberty
I haven't blogged about my primary research in awhile, and this week's find is too good to pass up! When searching American Periodicals this week using the key words "Lady Liberty," I discovered a letter to a young lady with a very different explanation of liberty. The letter (five pages in two columns) appears as a reprint from the Monthly Magazine in The New York Magazine, or Literary Repository (1790-1797) in the Nov. 1797 edition (very close to the end of the eight year run). This letter entitled "FASHION--A VISION. In a Letter to a young Lady" is, in truth, about liberty, but in significantly different terms than we may expect. The author introduces his dream or vision with the statement:
"Young as you are, my dear Flora, you cannot but have notices the eagerness with which questions, relative to civil liberty, have been discussed in every society. To break the shackles of oppression, and assert the native rights of man, is esteemed by many, among the noblest efforts of heroic virtue; but vain is the possession of political liberty if there exists a tyrant of our own creation; who, without law, or reason, or even external force, exercises over us the most despotic authority; whose jurisdiction is extended over every part of private and domestic life; controuls our pleasures, fashions our garb, cramps our motions, fills our lives with vain cares, and restless anxiety. The worst slavery is that which we impose upon ourselves; and no chains are so cumbrous and galling, as those which we are pleased to wear by way of grace and adornment."
Nice intro, huh? A total prank in which you begin by thinking about liberty and end with a brilliant thesis on fashion. The rest of the letter is equally captivating. The author continues: "-- Musing upon this idea, gave rise to the following dream or vision:" and begins to describe a scene (reminiscent of Gulliver's travels) in which he is in a new world ruled by an evil queen who forces her subjects to change the shape of their bodies, paint their faces and hair, and changes the unwritten laws every hour, punishing those who do not follow the rules by allowing her subjects to ignore and starve the perpetrator. The dream is brilliant, three and a half pages describing fashion rituals and comparing the corseted figure to a wasp, false moles to "some pestilential disorder," and fashionable collars to goiters. The author describes the altered silhouettes made by clothes and causes us to imagine how horrified we would be if our bodies were really shaped that way. The author also describes corseting and hair fashions for adult women as a type of bondage and punishment, but praises the Queen of fashion and her assistants Vanity and Caprice for the commerce and value to the economy which feeds the poor and gives jobs to the needy, but the author does see this as a contradiction at the same time-- perhaps because it is the wealthy who are enslaved? In the end, the author sees his own Flora taken up to the alter of fashion, and just as the corset is brought up, his extreme fear and emotion for her wakens him.
On the surface, the social commentary of this letter on fashion is fascinating by itself. However, the connection to liberty and (fashion as repressing liberty) is even more interesting. Further, the ideas of a queen and an alter of fashion bring up the British monarchy in a negative light and put a twist on the ideas of the church at the same time. The author mentions the British connection "I saw the genius of Commerce doing her homage, and discovered the British cross woven into the insignia of her dignity" when he notices the "industrious poor" working behind the throne and paid by the queen. The author admits this is a complication to his ideas of fashion, but is then distracted by the appearance of Flora at the alter of fashion. Unfortunately for us, he doesn't really explain his meaning here, but it appears to be a positive British description, a complexity to the queen of fashion the author did not expect.
I think the letter relates to national identity building and feminism, which I find interesting, but mostly I was captivated by the message and the way it was presented. I have been present for a few lectures by parents explaining to their daughters that makeup and fashion is just hiding their real beauty, but this is one of the first that has compared it to a monarchy. Still, the tone of a parent guarding his or her daughter comes through and the descriptions of fashion from an outsider's perspective are brilliant. Unlike the satire of Pope and Swift, this one seems directed from individual to individual, but in a relationship the audience could all relate to. The rhetorical device is deeply political, but pointed to what we often consider to be a superfluous area, and the power of the device makes the issue of fashion seem much more significant. Rather than joking that high heels and pantyhose are made by men to change improve women like you may hear in modern circles, this letter makes fashion seem even more devious and controlling.
Okay, I went on and on about that, but seriously, you should read this letter! The descriptions are captivating and so true!
"Young as you are, my dear Flora, you cannot but have notices the eagerness with which questions, relative to civil liberty, have been discussed in every society. To break the shackles of oppression, and assert the native rights of man, is esteemed by many, among the noblest efforts of heroic virtue; but vain is the possession of political liberty if there exists a tyrant of our own creation; who, without law, or reason, or even external force, exercises over us the most despotic authority; whose jurisdiction is extended over every part of private and domestic life; controuls our pleasures, fashions our garb, cramps our motions, fills our lives with vain cares, and restless anxiety. The worst slavery is that which we impose upon ourselves; and no chains are so cumbrous and galling, as those which we are pleased to wear by way of grace and adornment."
Nice intro, huh? A total prank in which you begin by thinking about liberty and end with a brilliant thesis on fashion. The rest of the letter is equally captivating. The author continues: "-- Musing upon this idea, gave rise to the following dream or vision:" and begins to describe a scene (reminiscent of Gulliver's travels) in which he is in a new world ruled by an evil queen who forces her subjects to change the shape of their bodies, paint their faces and hair, and changes the unwritten laws every hour, punishing those who do not follow the rules by allowing her subjects to ignore and starve the perpetrator. The dream is brilliant, three and a half pages describing fashion rituals and comparing the corseted figure to a wasp, false moles to "some pestilential disorder," and fashionable collars to goiters. The author describes the altered silhouettes made by clothes and causes us to imagine how horrified we would be if our bodies were really shaped that way. The author also describes corseting and hair fashions for adult women as a type of bondage and punishment, but praises the Queen of fashion and her assistants Vanity and Caprice for the commerce and value to the economy which feeds the poor and gives jobs to the needy, but the author does see this as a contradiction at the same time-- perhaps because it is the wealthy who are enslaved? In the end, the author sees his own Flora taken up to the alter of fashion, and just as the corset is brought up, his extreme fear and emotion for her wakens him.
On the surface, the social commentary of this letter on fashion is fascinating by itself. However, the connection to liberty and (fashion as repressing liberty) is even more interesting. Further, the ideas of a queen and an alter of fashion bring up the British monarchy in a negative light and put a twist on the ideas of the church at the same time. The author mentions the British connection "I saw the genius of Commerce doing her homage, and discovered the British cross woven into the insignia of her dignity" when he notices the "industrious poor" working behind the throne and paid by the queen. The author admits this is a complication to his ideas of fashion, but is then distracted by the appearance of Flora at the alter of fashion. Unfortunately for us, he doesn't really explain his meaning here, but it appears to be a positive British description, a complexity to the queen of fashion the author did not expect.
I think the letter relates to national identity building and feminism, which I find interesting, but mostly I was captivated by the message and the way it was presented. I have been present for a few lectures by parents explaining to their daughters that makeup and fashion is just hiding their real beauty, but this is one of the first that has compared it to a monarchy. Still, the tone of a parent guarding his or her daughter comes through and the descriptions of fashion from an outsider's perspective are brilliant. Unlike the satire of Pope and Swift, this one seems directed from individual to individual, but in a relationship the audience could all relate to. The rhetorical device is deeply political, but pointed to what we often consider to be a superfluous area, and the power of the device makes the issue of fashion seem much more significant. Rather than joking that high heels and pantyhose are made by men to change improve women like you may hear in modern circles, this letter makes fashion seem even more devious and controlling.
Okay, I went on and on about that, but seriously, you should read this letter! The descriptions are captivating and so true!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
"Wo"Men Writing in the Early Republic?
Woman Writing in the Early Republic
Dobson and Zagarell
After last week's reading, I was looking forward to another article about writers in the early republic. However, this article was not quite as fascinating as last week's (sorry, ladies!). Comparing the two really made it seem like women authors had an easier time as authors or writers and this makes me question the perspectives of the two articles. Did women have an easier time than men, or just an easier time than women before them and in other countries? Or just an easier time than we expected? Or, compared to other difficulties for women, the identity of authorship is simply another struggle (and by now, we are used to them)? Were the identity struggles for the men writing in the early republic so extreme simply because the struggle was new and unexpected?
Hmmm...
I think the statement that struck me and elicited these questions was "The relatively limited number of accomplished indigenous writers was a matter of concern in the new nation, in which a cultural premium on learnedness and the adept use of rhetorics prevailed." The passage goes on to state that "able writing by women...was enthusiastically received" (369). It seems in direct opposition to our discussion of male authors from last week in which learnedness and making money through writing were frowned upon. I suppose I have just struck the heart of the question-- economics as usual. Sarah Wentworth Morton is quoted stating she only writes "amid the leisure and retirement, to which the sultry season is devoted" (369). Perhaps the male authors ought to have only written when the harvest was in to seek approval?
Then again, I am still curious why writing women are not credited with some form of identity crisis similar to male authors of the times. Maybe we just haven't noticed it yet or put it in those terms. The public/domestic transition may be a type of identity crisis...
The discussion of Sedgwick as a woman writer and as an American writer (374)-- two different categories-- seems closely related some of the discussion from last week's reading, and reiterates the point above explaining women's "enthusiastic" reception "The urgent need for the United States to develop a coherent national identity from disparate regional cultures and a national culture distinct from that of Great Britain still took precedence over constructions of gender..." (374) at least for women, it appears. But writing for men seemed to complicate gender construction-- something that does not appear as significant for women (for example, most of the female authors mentioned in the text married at some point, and there doesn't seem to be the same reproductive anxiety we read about in the male authors last week).
I'm glad we read these essays in this order; it definitely gave me something more to consider this week!
Dobson and Zagarell
After last week's reading, I was looking forward to another article about writers in the early republic. However, this article was not quite as fascinating as last week's (sorry, ladies!). Comparing the two really made it seem like women authors had an easier time as authors or writers and this makes me question the perspectives of the two articles. Did women have an easier time than men, or just an easier time than women before them and in other countries? Or just an easier time than we expected? Or, compared to other difficulties for women, the identity of authorship is simply another struggle (and by now, we are used to them)? Were the identity struggles for the men writing in the early republic so extreme simply because the struggle was new and unexpected?
Hmmm...
I think the statement that struck me and elicited these questions was "The relatively limited number of accomplished indigenous writers was a matter of concern in the new nation, in which a cultural premium on learnedness and the adept use of rhetorics prevailed." The passage goes on to state that "able writing by women...was enthusiastically received" (369). It seems in direct opposition to our discussion of male authors from last week in which learnedness and making money through writing were frowned upon. I suppose I have just struck the heart of the question-- economics as usual. Sarah Wentworth Morton is quoted stating she only writes "amid the leisure and retirement, to which the sultry season is devoted" (369). Perhaps the male authors ought to have only written when the harvest was in to seek approval?
Then again, I am still curious why writing women are not credited with some form of identity crisis similar to male authors of the times. Maybe we just haven't noticed it yet or put it in those terms. The public/domestic transition may be a type of identity crisis...
The discussion of Sedgwick as a woman writer and as an American writer (374)-- two different categories-- seems closely related some of the discussion from last week's reading, and reiterates the point above explaining women's "enthusiastic" reception "The urgent need for the United States to develop a coherent national identity from disparate regional cultures and a national culture distinct from that of Great Britain still took precedence over constructions of gender..." (374) at least for women, it appears. But writing for men seemed to complicate gender construction-- something that does not appear as significant for women (for example, most of the female authors mentioned in the text married at some point, and there doesn't seem to be the same reproductive anxiety we read about in the male authors last week).
I'm glad we read these essays in this order; it definitely gave me something more to consider this week!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Plunged into Flux and Ferment
"Men Writing in the Early Republic" by David Leverenz is one of the most interesting articles I have read in awhile. Maybe I should say, "thought provoking"? I tend to think about the perspective of women writers-- out of a habit I have developed in the last few years. The ideas that early American male writers were writing as women, struggling with ideas of masculinity in marriage and fatherhood (and the relationship between fatherhood and authorship) is very different from what I usually consider in literary criticism. Though I have studied the immortality of authorship-- which is like parenthood in a way-- it is usually from the perspective of masculine attempts to create life in the way women can create life, or in relation to "man's" desire for a legacy (related to ego). Thinking of the American male author as creating identity and creating a new meaning of authorship in conjunction with the financial instability of authorship offers a new way to look at early American male psychology. Though I am not sure that Leverenz's analysis of early American male writers is completely convincing (were authors really "plunged . . . into flux and ferment" (356)? Torn between making money and writing? Or tormented by not marrying and procreating?) as an eighteenth century British literature major, the very different American perspective on authorship is fascinating. It seems logical that American writers who had to make their living by writing would struggle with identity considering the very different American perspective with its "aversion to everything that is not practical, operative, and thorough-going" ( Longfellow in Leverenz 359) as well as lingering ideas of aristocracy and who "ought" to write and who needs to write for money.
This essay helped to pull together everything we have been discussing in class with the emerging early American print culture. By looking at American manhood and how it is both an "obstacle and an asset" (360) to authors, the way the American male author-identity developed shows a parallel to the development of American identity. The nation and the male author were both responding to the context of the new Republic, but the response is deeper than rebellion against British traditions, book production, copyright, finances, and social commentary. To be an author in early American print was to "write about manly individualism . . . by incorporating its underlying flux of moods, fears, and resilience" (363).
Though I feel I still do not fully grasp Leverenz's points, I feel he has brought up a subject that bears more thought, and which may be the key to understanding a much more complex view of authorship than I had from our other readings this semester. Perhaps it is my modern fascination with identity formation, but this article points towards a nagging sensation that there is much more involved in American authorship than selling books and social commentary or even social activism. However, I still do not fully understand the significance of this approach or my realizations, so this nagging feeling will have to just keep nagging.
A hint about pirates:
What is a pirate's favorite letter of the alphabet?
RRRRRRR!
This essay helped to pull together everything we have been discussing in class with the emerging early American print culture. By looking at American manhood and how it is both an "obstacle and an asset" (360) to authors, the way the American male author-identity developed shows a parallel to the development of American identity. The nation and the male author were both responding to the context of the new Republic, but the response is deeper than rebellion against British traditions, book production, copyright, finances, and social commentary. To be an author in early American print was to "write about manly individualism . . . by incorporating its underlying flux of moods, fears, and resilience" (363).
Though I feel I still do not fully grasp Leverenz's points, I feel he has brought up a subject that bears more thought, and which may be the key to understanding a much more complex view of authorship than I had from our other readings this semester. Perhaps it is my modern fascination with identity formation, but this article points towards a nagging sensation that there is much more involved in American authorship than selling books and social commentary or even social activism. However, I still do not fully understand the significance of this approach or my realizations, so this nagging feeling will have to just keep nagging.
A hint about pirates:
What is a pirate's favorite letter of the alphabet?
RRRRRRR!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Mary Murderers
I am interested in transportation of felons from Britain to the U.S. in the eighteenth century, so I thought this weeks' topic would really give me room to research alternatives to execution (as transportation was usually seen to be). However, my search terms did not bring up any information on transported thieves or murderers, and I began to notice that the criminals I was finding in the periodicals were often foreign-- French, British, Indian, German-- everything but what I wanted to find.
I have also been reading Dan's book, Pillars of Salt, to get some insight into female execution tales in the U.S., so I began to search for "murderess" and "infanticide" or "child" executions to pair up with some of the women presented in Dan's book. I found a couple of interesting, child killing Marys to discuss, and in both cases, the nature of women in discussed in scientific terms which carry interesting cultural implications.
The first story I came across is "Infanticide-- Mary Mulcahy: [From our Clonmel Correspondent]" in
I have also been reading Dan's book, Pillars of Salt, to get some insight into female execution tales in the U.S., so I began to search for "murderess" and "infanticide" or "child" executions to pair up with some of the women presented in Dan's book. I found a couple of interesting, child killing Marys to discuss, and in both cases, the nature of women in discussed in scientific terms which carry interesting cultural implications.
The first story I came across is "Infanticide-- Mary Mulcahy: [From our Clonmel Correspondent]" in
United States Catholic Miscellany
My second Mary appears in "Pages From the Diary of a Philadelphia Lawyer: The Murderess" printed in
The Gentleman's Magazine,
He then tells us of the trial, how she was found "not guilty" and how he came to know her true story through a letter she left for him to read in the event of her death. It appears she and her husband killed his old relative for an inheritance, she then killed her husband and had an affair with his Italian friend, and killed her child. A year later, the Italian lover killed her, and the lawyer was able to read and publish her letter. While this tale seems too sensational to be true, the lawyer's assertion that women cannot be converted from crime and the depiction of a faulty law system in the U.S. are most interesting-- especially coming from the lawyer who defended her and won the case. He does not discuss his own involvement in the system which freed her, but instead uses this tale as a caution: once women start down the road of villainy, they cannot recover but will be brought to greater crimes. A very strange crime. My next mission is to discover if any other periodicals mention Mary Stewart in attempts to discover if there is any truth to this tale.
Feb 1838 on page 107. In this account, Mary Stewart is accused of killing her child and confesses to a neighbor that she accidentally threw it against the wall while playing with it (you can't make this stuff up...). The author-lawyer introduces the subject by discussing the "principles in the physiology of woman which peculiarly capacitate her for endurance and perseverance under protracted affliction." However, the author argues that women, once tainted or criminal, will not repent or regret their actions and gives the example of Mary Stewart to support his cause.May 30, 1829; 8, 47 pg. 373. In this tale, Mary, a "young and extremely interesting looking female" was tried and convicted of the infanticide of her newborn. Under the threat of execution, it appears Mary was pardoned for several reasons: the help of a gentleman, her appearance and demeanor which proved she could not murder, and the expert opinion of a doctor who claims that after delivery, some women are "seized with a temporary insanity" which allows them to commit actions they would not otherwise do and of which they are conscious. This is an interesting early mention of post-partum depression, and coupled with this explanation and Mary's "extremely interesting" appearance, sorrow, and previous good character, Mary is given respite and expected to be released altogether. Interestingly, the author of this article mentions a lack of evidence, "but her own confession." This seems to be pointing out that her own confession is not enough to convict her-- possibly because of her youth and appearance? There is also some confusion about the father of the child who Mary never names. In fact, the article almost hints that the father is a gentleman with sway over the courts. I am not sure why this tale appears in the Catholic Miscellany, unless it is presenting mercy for non-deliberate murderers.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Oh, the Times, They Aren't a'Changing
While I found Richard D. Brown's Essay "The Revolution's Legacy for the History of the Book" a bit dry, repetitive of other readings, and strangely, confusingly punctuated, I did find the discussion of American print ideology to be interesting in the ways our print ideologies have and have not changed. Is our passion for Internet accessibility not our belief that "only an informed citizenry could properly identify and repel threats to liberty" (58), or to repel any other evils, for that matter? And, don't we feel we have the "divine right to that most dreaded, and envied kind of knowledge...of the characters and conduct of... [our] rulers" (59)? The Clinton scandals seem to shout "Yes we do!" even though other countries were surprised and confused by the American population's interest in and "divine right" to know about private lives of government officials. Further, is our world of print encouraged to be further polysentric than before? Divided by sub-cultures and interests as well as geography?
I also find the libel laws interesting in light of recent Homeland Security laws and slander lawsuits. While we would like to believe in our first amendment rights, they may not be any more protective than in the early republic, still a bit of a grey area, in fact.
The differences I see in each of the examples above came from Brown's statement that early Americans would criticize government, "but they would not suffer criticism of the cause of independence" (63). I think this is one area where we have changed. I took a seminar in Christian ethics course once entitled "Seminar in Christian Ethics and Economic Justice for All" in which we attempted to find a better form of government than the U.S. democracy. All the ones we found that eliminated the problems in the U.S. also eliminated independence. Many of my fellow students felt, in weighing the costs and benefits, it would be worth the loss of independence to have a healthy, well-fed population. In fact, independence was not a concern mentioned at all and socialism and communism were weighed solely based on their economic successes. I think the ideologies of Independence Brown discusses, and the American exceptionalism, patriotism, and "tyranny of the majority" (Tocqueville 64) found in other readings are changing. Once we had no other tyranny to rebel against, a victory afterglow and westward expansion held Americans together. Then patriotism and exceptionalism and the American dream. Now we wonder if there is a better system of government and study and discuss and attempt to bind people together in the common goal of spreading democracy. I would much rather focus on celebrating Independence, but I suppose we have already had that party and the cake has gotten stale.
We still strive to create a "correctly informed citizenry" (68) (whatever that means for whoever is informing whichever group at the time), and we strive to be informed (in a way and on subjects that may be less related to social aspirations on a class level and more to social aspirations on a person to person level). But can we argue the "tyrannous majority" has less control over privileged perspectives presented in publication (mmmm... p's) than in early American print culture? The Internet does not protect us from this-- Google is hierarchical in nature, presenting the popular and paid for first. Though more voices have outlets, do they have audience? And a "correctly informed" audience at that?
So....witches.
I have written a few papers on witch and vampire traditions, so I know quite a lot about historic representations, but I found a couple of new stories:
I ended up looking for vampires instead after finding a piece about the Malay tradition of carrying around a little, witch/ vampire/ devil hybrid which grants beauty to women in exchange for blood. These Polong are worn in a small, finger sized vial around the neck, and fed weekly by cutting a finger and inserting it into the container. If they are not fed weekly, they will emerge and drain all the blood from the wearer. It is a bit like a vampire, but also like a devil's pact in which one sells one's soul for a temporary, earthly price.
The Penangalan is a bit more like our version of a witch and inhabits a female body, but can leave it to fly about and wreak havoc. This one also drinks blood and is in cahoots with the devil.
In another article, "THE TRAVELLER.: THE VAMPIRE SUPERSTITION."American Masonic Register and Literary Companion (1839-1847); Sep 2, 1843; 4, 52, the author describes in detail the superstitions surrounding vampire lore. It is mostly what we already know like stakes through hearts and pale skin, but it talks a bit more about the signs a corpse is a vampire like hair and finger nails continuing to grow. This article actually mentions another source's attempts to give scientific explanation of the "signs" of a vampire like an excess of saltpeter in the body. The author doesn't seem to think these explanations quite satisfy the vampire myth, but then again, neither do I.
I also find the libel laws interesting in light of recent Homeland Security laws and slander lawsuits. While we would like to believe in our first amendment rights, they may not be any more protective than in the early republic, still a bit of a grey area, in fact.
The differences I see in each of the examples above came from Brown's statement that early Americans would criticize government, "but they would not suffer criticism of the cause of independence" (63). I think this is one area where we have changed. I took a seminar in Christian ethics course once entitled "Seminar in Christian Ethics and Economic Justice for All" in which we attempted to find a better form of government than the U.S. democracy. All the ones we found that eliminated the problems in the U.S. also eliminated independence. Many of my fellow students felt, in weighing the costs and benefits, it would be worth the loss of independence to have a healthy, well-fed population. In fact, independence was not a concern mentioned at all and socialism and communism were weighed solely based on their economic successes. I think the ideologies of Independence Brown discusses, and the American exceptionalism, patriotism, and "tyranny of the majority" (Tocqueville 64) found in other readings are changing. Once we had no other tyranny to rebel against, a victory afterglow and westward expansion held Americans together. Then patriotism and exceptionalism and the American dream. Now we wonder if there is a better system of government and study and discuss and attempt to bind people together in the common goal of spreading democracy. I would much rather focus on celebrating Independence, but I suppose we have already had that party and the cake has gotten stale.
We still strive to create a "correctly informed citizenry" (68) (whatever that means for whoever is informing whichever group at the time), and we strive to be informed (in a way and on subjects that may be less related to social aspirations on a class level and more to social aspirations on a person to person level). But can we argue the "tyrannous majority" has less control over privileged perspectives presented in publication (mmmm... p's) than in early American print culture? The Internet does not protect us from this-- Google is hierarchical in nature, presenting the popular and paid for first. Though more voices have outlets, do they have audience? And a "correctly informed" audience at that?
So....witches.
I have written a few papers on witch and vampire traditions, so I know quite a lot about historic representations, but I found a couple of new stories:
I ended up looking for vampires instead after finding a piece about the Malay tradition of carrying around a little, witch/ vampire/ devil hybrid which grants beauty to women in exchange for blood. These Polong are worn in a small, finger sized vial around the neck, and fed weekly by cutting a finger and inserting it into the container. If they are not fed weekly, they will emerge and drain all the blood from the wearer. It is a bit like a vampire, but also like a devil's pact in which one sells one's soul for a temporary, earthly price.
The Penangalan is a bit more like our version of a witch and inhabits a female body, but can leave it to fly about and wreak havoc. This one also drinks blood and is in cahoots with the devil.
The Atheneum; or, Spirit of the English Magazines (1817-1833);
Nov 15, 1820; 8, 4)In another article, "THE TRAVELLER.: THE VAMPIRE SUPERSTITION."American Masonic Register and Literary Companion (1839-1847); Sep 2, 1843; 4, 52, the author describes in detail the superstitions surrounding vampire lore. It is mostly what we already know like stakes through hearts and pale skin, but it talks a bit more about the signs a corpse is a vampire like hair and finger nails continuing to grow. This article actually mentions another source's attempts to give scientific explanation of the "signs" of a vampire like an excess of saltpeter in the body. The author doesn't seem to think these explanations quite satisfy the vampire myth, but then again, neither do I.
(From: MALAY DEMONS AND WITCHES.: THE POLONG.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Exotic Erotic
You can lose yourself in the results of a key word search through early American periodical poetry-- especially when your keyword is "Arabian" and you time period 1820- 1860. I was struck by the focus on romantic and erotic love depicted both in poems attributed to Arab men, and in poems written by American women with a self-proclaimed Arabic theme. For one thing, I was surprised at the men and women who considered themselves expert enough after traveling amongst Arabs, to title their poems "Arab Song." Further, the sexualized characters in the poetry written by women surprised me. Were they simply mimicking other Arabic poems? Or was the title "Arabic Song" a safeguard, allowing them to write in a different character and thus not bound by social expectations? Many of the poems praise women and romantic love, depicting the love interest as a precious jewel, flower, and reason for man's living. The poems seem excessively romantic compared to other poems (even romantic British Victorian poems) and the sexual nature of the woman characters attractions seems less covert than the typical vague garden and fruit references in Victorian poetry. While other poems speak of an imaginary garden existing separate of the woman subject, these poems place the garden image as a part of the woman in a much less subtle way. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into them.
With all that said, I chose to look at a collection of several Arabic poems which appear crammed on a page in the Christian Spectator Apr 1, 1825 edition. Entitled "Specimens of Arabian Poetry" this page collects several incongruous poems including: "On Moderation in Our Pleasures," "On Avarice," "To a Friend on His Birthday," and "On a Cat That Was Killed as She Was Attempting to Rob a Dove House." The first of these poems is attributed to Abou Alcassim Eben Tabataba and has a very different tone than the romantic poems I found at first. In fact, all of these poems seem to be a direct rebuttal of the "othering" of Arabic people which occurs in the erotic and exotic romantic poems. In the first poem, the poet seems rational and fair, focused on monogamy and marriage rather than sexual pleasure in the first poem (an idea supported by Arabic symbols like a allusion to the wedding lamp, which is explained and underscored in an editorial footnote). In the second poem, by Hatem Tai (noted to be a generous Arabic chief) expounds on the temporary state of wealth-- a "you can't take it with you argument" which aligns neatly with Christian notions of charity and greed. The third poem "To a Friend on His Birthday," is short and sweet, depicting a kind of a toast to a friend, but with the caution to live "that at thy parting hour" your friends weep at your loss and you are rewarded or dressed in smiles after death. The final poem is, admittedly, the reason I selected this group. Any poem on the death of a cat is tops in my book. But this one is spoiled a bit by another editorial footnote (the editor really wants us to see the moral implications of these poems, I think. As a side note, the notes' font is larger than that of the poems... take that as you will). This note states: "The occasion of these verses and their real intent are variously related: but the opinion generally received is that they were composed by Abou Beor as an elegy, on the death of a friend who owed his ruin to the rash gratification of a headstrong passion." Really ruins the poem for me with that heady moral attached. In the poem, the narrator has a very jovial, humorous tone, sad about his loss of a cat, but accepting that she had to die because of her behavior. That is really scary, actually. Especially if we imagine the poem is symbolic of other particular life errors or sins. The idea that we just have to accept death as the punishment for falling for temptation seems a bit heavy for poetry. But what does this mean about the religious doctrine of the Christian Spectator?
More questions:
What was the goal of the Christian Spectator in presenting this alternative view of Arabic culture which is so closely aligned with Christian values? Why are they called specimens? Is this a reaction against the erotic nature of other examples? Is the Christian Spectator capitalizing on the fascination with the exotic Arabian in order to present Christain values and refute immoral insinuations of other texts?
With all that said, I chose to look at a collection of several Arabic poems which appear crammed on a page in the Christian Spectator Apr 1, 1825 edition. Entitled "Specimens of Arabian Poetry" this page collects several incongruous poems including: "On Moderation in Our Pleasures," "On Avarice," "To a Friend on His Birthday," and "On a Cat That Was Killed as She Was Attempting to Rob a Dove House." The first of these poems is attributed to Abou Alcassim Eben Tabataba and has a very different tone than the romantic poems I found at first. In fact, all of these poems seem to be a direct rebuttal of the "othering" of Arabic people which occurs in the erotic and exotic romantic poems. In the first poem, the poet seems rational and fair, focused on monogamy and marriage rather than sexual pleasure in the first poem (an idea supported by Arabic symbols like a allusion to the wedding lamp, which is explained and underscored in an editorial footnote). In the second poem, by Hatem Tai (noted to be a generous Arabic chief) expounds on the temporary state of wealth-- a "you can't take it with you argument" which aligns neatly with Christian notions of charity and greed. The third poem "To a Friend on His Birthday," is short and sweet, depicting a kind of a toast to a friend, but with the caution to live "that at thy parting hour" your friends weep at your loss and you are rewarded or dressed in smiles after death. The final poem is, admittedly, the reason I selected this group. Any poem on the death of a cat is tops in my book. But this one is spoiled a bit by another editorial footnote (the editor really wants us to see the moral implications of these poems, I think. As a side note, the notes' font is larger than that of the poems... take that as you will). This note states: "The occasion of these verses and their real intent are variously related: but the opinion generally received is that they were composed by Abou Beor as an elegy, on the death of a friend who owed his ruin to the rash gratification of a headstrong passion." Really ruins the poem for me with that heady moral attached. In the poem, the narrator has a very jovial, humorous tone, sad about his loss of a cat, but accepting that she had to die because of her behavior. That is really scary, actually. Especially if we imagine the poem is symbolic of other particular life errors or sins. The idea that we just have to accept death as the punishment for falling for temptation seems a bit heavy for poetry. But what does this mean about the religious doctrine of the Christian Spectator?
More questions:
What was the goal of the Christian Spectator in presenting this alternative view of Arabic culture which is so closely aligned with Christian values? Why are they called specimens? Is this a reaction against the erotic nature of other examples? Is the Christian Spectator capitalizing on the fascination with the exotic Arabian in order to present Christain values and refute immoral insinuations of other texts?
Reading in a Haze
When I was a freshman in high school, I got mono (who didn't, right?) and was locked in my room for about three months with a high fever. All I could do was read-- TV hurt my head, and this was before high school students had their own computers (I'm old). So I read A LOT. And for some reason, I read things that are weird and upsetting even if your fever doesn't cause you to imagine you are a character in the story. Because of this, I remember Wuthering Heights in a very real, physical way and I went through a very strange depression while reading the book. It was like it took over my life-- like a waking dream or a haunting. I still love the book, but I think my parents were unaware of how my reading was effecting me and how Gothic literature can seem to a feverish fourteen year old. Lets just say I can sympathize with the "brain fever" that so often plays a role in eighteenth and nineteenth century plots.
I had a bit of a fever again recently, when we were choosing our articles on Barbary pirates, and this may have been why I was drawn to a poem entitled "Old and Young.: REUBEN JAMES" By William W. Gay. This poem appears in The Independent ... Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, His... Jan 29, 1880. This poem chronicles a battle between Barbary pirates off the coast of "Afric" (it even calls the pirates "Moslem"), and a famed seaman. Though it is out of our date range, I chose it to get a later perspective on the Barbary Pirates, some "seventy years ago and more/ in our nation's early life," and because the imagery stayed with me in a very Wuthering Heights fever sort of way. For one thing, the main character, Reuben James, seems to be completely crippled; in fact, his injuries seem to cover every part of his body mentioned. I imagined him with an eye patch and two peg legs and two peg arms like the pirate on Family Guy. Also, I don't know if it the rhyme scheme or the fever, but the text seems much more graphic than I expected. Maybe the rhyme makes the violent imagery seem jovial and thus shocking, or maybe this poem really is shockingly violent and gory, even to my modern, desensitized ears/eyes/imagination. Either way, it is the type of poem that makes you feel as if you are standing on the deck of a ship, being splashed by blood, hearing the screams of the men fighting around you. What I am curious about is how this poem has changed or reinterpreted the facts after seventy years or more, about the racial implications of the "Moslem" pirates, and about the focus on Reuben's crippled body and ability to fight. Is he a martyr in a way? And if so, what is he a martyr for? Is he the ideal man? Disability criticism may have a field day with this one as well.
I had a bit of a fever again recently, when we were choosing our articles on Barbary pirates, and this may have been why I was drawn to a poem entitled "Old and Young.: REUBEN JAMES" By William W. Gay. This poem appears in The Independent ... Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, His... Jan 29, 1880. This poem chronicles a battle between Barbary pirates off the coast of "Afric" (it even calls the pirates "Moslem"), and a famed seaman. Though it is out of our date range, I chose it to get a later perspective on the Barbary Pirates, some "seventy years ago and more/ in our nation's early life," and because the imagery stayed with me in a very Wuthering Heights fever sort of way. For one thing, the main character, Reuben James, seems to be completely crippled; in fact, his injuries seem to cover every part of his body mentioned. I imagined him with an eye patch and two peg legs and two peg arms like the pirate on Family Guy. Also, I don't know if it the rhyme scheme or the fever, but the text seems much more graphic than I expected. Maybe the rhyme makes the violent imagery seem jovial and thus shocking, or maybe this poem really is shockingly violent and gory, even to my modern, desensitized ears/eyes/imagination. Either way, it is the type of poem that makes you feel as if you are standing on the deck of a ship, being splashed by blood, hearing the screams of the men fighting around you. What I am curious about is how this poem has changed or reinterpreted the facts after seventy years or more, about the racial implications of the "Moslem" pirates, and about the focus on Reuben's crippled body and ability to fight. Is he a martyr in a way? And if so, what is he a martyr for? Is he the ideal man? Disability criticism may have a field day with this one as well.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Searching Vague British Pejoratives in American Periodicals
You will hear enough from me about Davidson today I am sure, so...
We all have gaps in our knowledge, and some appear more gaping than others. Only a semester ago, I realized that I had mis-defined a term I had heard in my early life. You may recall the chimney sweep scene in the Disney movie Mary Poppins? In this scene, the children and Mary are one the roof with Burt who calls out to the other chimney sweeps in town. They pop out of various and sundry chimneys for an exciting dance number. In the scene, hundreds of chimney sweeps are singing and dancing on the roof, covered in soot. The captain, known for firing his cannon twice a day precisely on time, notices the dancing men and exclaims "Its the Hottentots!" before firing several shots at the chimney sweeps. As a child, I somehow determined that Hottentots were Germans. It seemed logical to me since several other children's movies mentioned British wars with Germany and invasions. I never associated the "black-face" costumes of the chimney sweeps as being significant markers of racial difference, or misleading to the Captain. I simply picked a villain that made most sense to me in the cultural context of England between world wars.
I discovered in my feminist theories class that Hottentot was a term applied to Africans as we read British descriptions of the physical differences between the British and Africans. I still think it sounds more like a term for Nazis or something. Anyway, I decided to search for this term along with American terms like "negroes" and "slaves" to see what different articles would use this term. I also searched for "Quakers" in conjunction with these terms. I found several missionary accounts of African travels and conversions, but the one I settled on was the description of a meeting between Dutch speaking, converted "Hottentots" and a young, African slave in the U.S. The converted "Hottentots" were visiting a church, and a young African boy came in to observe them. The women swooped down on him with warm embraced and a translator questioned him about his religion. They were surprised that he was not religious, even though he has had the opportunities provided by living in this country. This seems to be a statement on the missionary work which had been more successful abroad than at home, but it may also be an attempt to point out the value of religion to slaves and slave owners in the community.
With these search terms, I also found a review of a book written about travels in Virginia. While the review is negative overall, it copies letters which the author collected for his book, and these letters discuss slavery and racial and religious assumptions from different people in Virginia and surrounding areas. Since I am interested in letters which appear in periodicals, these letters may appear in later blogs in more detail. I also found a long (39 page) article discussing the reason Africans and Americans had different skin tones and the reasons for the variety of skin tones amongst Africans. This article responds to another article which outlines the main reasons to be heat or climate, but also mentions religious or social beliefs and behavior as other causes of difference. If you are interested in the body and othering through physical differences, this article could be helpful. It is, of course, disturbing as well.
We all have gaps in our knowledge, and some appear more gaping than others. Only a semester ago, I realized that I had mis-defined a term I had heard in my early life. You may recall the chimney sweep scene in the Disney movie Mary Poppins? In this scene, the children and Mary are one the roof with Burt who calls out to the other chimney sweeps in town. They pop out of various and sundry chimneys for an exciting dance number. In the scene, hundreds of chimney sweeps are singing and dancing on the roof, covered in soot. The captain, known for firing his cannon twice a day precisely on time, notices the dancing men and exclaims "Its the Hottentots!" before firing several shots at the chimney sweeps. As a child, I somehow determined that Hottentots were Germans. It seemed logical to me since several other children's movies mentioned British wars with Germany and invasions. I never associated the "black-face" costumes of the chimney sweeps as being significant markers of racial difference, or misleading to the Captain. I simply picked a villain that made most sense to me in the cultural context of England between world wars.
I discovered in my feminist theories class that Hottentot was a term applied to Africans as we read British descriptions of the physical differences between the British and Africans. I still think it sounds more like a term for Nazis or something. Anyway, I decided to search for this term along with American terms like "negroes" and "slaves" to see what different articles would use this term. I also searched for "Quakers" in conjunction with these terms. I found several missionary accounts of African travels and conversions, but the one I settled on was the description of a meeting between Dutch speaking, converted "Hottentots" and a young, African slave in the U.S. The converted "Hottentots" were visiting a church, and a young African boy came in to observe them. The women swooped down on him with warm embraced and a translator questioned him about his religion. They were surprised that he was not religious, even though he has had the opportunities provided by living in this country. This seems to be a statement on the missionary work which had been more successful abroad than at home, but it may also be an attempt to point out the value of religion to slaves and slave owners in the community.
With these search terms, I also found a review of a book written about travels in Virginia. While the review is negative overall, it copies letters which the author collected for his book, and these letters discuss slavery and racial and religious assumptions from different people in Virginia and surrounding areas. Since I am interested in letters which appear in periodicals, these letters may appear in later blogs in more detail. I also found a long (39 page) article discussing the reason Africans and Americans had different skin tones and the reasons for the variety of skin tones amongst Africans. This article responds to another article which outlines the main reasons to be heat or climate, but also mentions religious or social beliefs and behavior as other causes of difference. If you are interested in the body and othering through physical differences, this article could be helpful. It is, of course, disturbing as well.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Seduction and Transatlantic Perceptions
Dr. Robbins recently referred me to Revolution and the Word for my exam list and dissertation interest, and after reading the introduction, I am terribly excited to read on! The subject is helping me expand my thoughts on the ways novels present marriage and seduction tales in eighteenth century American (and British, and transatlantic texts)!
I love it when a plan comes together!
So far, I have found myself reading with excitement, then getting bored, and then excited again when novels are mentioned (single focused much? I know). I was particularly interested in Davidson's discussion of the choice writers made to even use the genre of the novel as their platform, and I wonder how the reality which novels perform in their fiction changed the ways readers thought about American culture. Did British readers read these novels and believe that America similar or different in their views about seduction, for example? What did they perceive or misconstrue about women's rights and slavery from reading these novels? Since we know Charlotte Temple was read on both sides of the pond, in what ways did the cultural identity of America and Britain differ, and how did it change British perception?
I am thinking specifically of two examples dealing with seduction that seem to respond to American identity:
Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders: Moll is seduced early in the novel, "ruined" and forced to marry for security. In the end of the novel, she finds redemption and wealth in America. Was Defoe using the American dream to promote an escape for fallen women? Or did he believe that the new country still had the opportunity to form itself as different (and better) than Britain when it came to opportunities for women?
A periodical article I discovered in a British ladies magazine in which a widowed American ex-patriot in Britain sues a gentleman for seducing her daughter with promises of marriage... and she wins 1000 lbs. The fact that she is an American and her husband was an American soldier is emphasized in the article. In what ways does the American identity of the victims and the unexpected outcome of seduction (trial and award of money vs. death of victim and mother) respond to the ways female seduction was presented in early American novels? What does it say about British perception of American cultural identity? If seduction in novels stands for the dissonance in the new republic, what does it stand for in British literature influenced by these works?
Just some thought I am playing with for now!
Shoot. I got distracted and forgot to talk about the "red man." Maybe in another post....
***************************
So I tried to post this as a reply to Emilee, but for some reason I couldn't get it to post:
I must admit two things:
I highlighted a lot on page 18 as well.
And, I admit to calling someone un-American once. My ex requested a burger with no cheese, and because I think there is something terribly wrong with avoiding cheese on a burger without the excuse of lactose sensitivity, and because I personally love cheese on a burger, I took him not wanting cheese personally (or patriotically).
Oh the shame!
Anyway, Davidson has also made me think about the ways "our" flippant or pat responses to disagreements (or people with different or new ideas) as "un-American" has made me think about ways cultural identity is established in other countries as well. For those of you in the Victorian periodicals class, I'm thinking of Franklin Blake's competing cultural identities and the privileging of the British identity. So I suppose Americans aren't exceptional in this behavior either!
Sorry if their are typos in this response... I can't see the computer screen well from atop this soap box..
I love it when a plan comes together!
So far, I have found myself reading with excitement, then getting bored, and then excited again when novels are mentioned (single focused much? I know). I was particularly interested in Davidson's discussion of the choice writers made to even use the genre of the novel as their platform, and I wonder how the reality which novels perform in their fiction changed the ways readers thought about American culture. Did British readers read these novels and believe that America similar or different in their views about seduction, for example? What did they perceive or misconstrue about women's rights and slavery from reading these novels? Since we know Charlotte Temple was read on both sides of the pond, in what ways did the cultural identity of America and Britain differ, and how did it change British perception?
I am thinking specifically of two examples dealing with seduction that seem to respond to American identity:
Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders: Moll is seduced early in the novel, "ruined" and forced to marry for security. In the end of the novel, she finds redemption and wealth in America. Was Defoe using the American dream to promote an escape for fallen women? Or did he believe that the new country still had the opportunity to form itself as different (and better) than Britain when it came to opportunities for women?
A periodical article I discovered in a British ladies magazine in which a widowed American ex-patriot in Britain sues a gentleman for seducing her daughter with promises of marriage... and she wins 1000 lbs. The fact that she is an American and her husband was an American soldier is emphasized in the article. In what ways does the American identity of the victims and the unexpected outcome of seduction (trial and award of money vs. death of victim and mother) respond to the ways female seduction was presented in early American novels? What does it say about British perception of American cultural identity? If seduction in novels stands for the dissonance in the new republic, what does it stand for in British literature influenced by these works?
Just some thought I am playing with for now!
Shoot. I got distracted and forgot to talk about the "red man." Maybe in another post....
***************************
So I tried to post this as a reply to Emilee, but for some reason I couldn't get it to post:
I must admit two things:
I highlighted a lot on page 18 as well.
And, I admit to calling someone un-American once. My ex requested a burger with no cheese, and because I think there is something terribly wrong with avoiding cheese on a burger without the excuse of lactose sensitivity, and because I personally love cheese on a burger, I took him not wanting cheese personally (or patriotically).
Oh the shame!
Anyway, Davidson has also made me think about the ways "our" flippant or pat responses to disagreements (or people with different or new ideas) as "un-American" has made me think about ways cultural identity is established in other countries as well. For those of you in the Victorian periodicals class, I'm thinking of Franklin Blake's competing cultural identities and the privileging of the British identity. So I suppose Americans aren't exceptional in this behavior either!
Sorry if their are typos in this response... I can't see the computer screen well from atop this soap box..
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Phase 3 of My Relationship With Starr, and Pro Celibacy Propaganda, a Bachelor's Take
You know when you meet a new person for the first time, but realize that it isn't actually the first time? When you realize that you met her before, but she looked totally different to you then (before you knew her well)? There is a moment when your perception of someone changes and you suddenly "really" see them for the first time, and though you remember the other person you knew, this new person will never look like her again. People can become more or less attractive after these moments of knowing, or simply become one of "your people" who you accept without need for further evaluation. It is a strange feeling when someone you found unattractive or peripheral becomes adorable and significant, and then again when adorable becomes comfortable (and thus more significant, in a way).
This is where Paul Starr and I are in our relationship. At first I found his introduction dull and overly stylized; when I noticed his humor and became interested in his subject, he became witty and fascinating; when we became good friends, I barely noticed him at all, simply counted on him to continue as himself. At this point, I don't even feel as if I am reading in the same way-- its more of a gleaning or absorbing-- and have trouble evaluating the presentation of information, or even differentiating between what I knew before and what I learned from Starr (though I thought I knew very little before...). So I am glad to have the opportunity to write about my subject search in the periodicals (though this has been my favorite section of The Creation of the Media so far). I have little to say other than I am fascinated by what Americans were reading and in what format at what price, and want to know more about the specific new stories and fiction Starr alludes to.
On that note, this is my week when it comes to primary research! My interest lies in the presentation of marriage in eighteenth century literature, and I know little about the American take other than the treatment of the old maid stereotype for a conference presentation I did last year. This time, I found something about "unmarried men" (search terms) entitled "Arguments in Favor of Celibacy" printed in The American Universal Magazine in 1797 by a man named "Misogamos" (punny!). Good old Misogamos posits the reasons to avoid marriage: because it is expensive, women bring misery (misery is repeated frequently) and only helpful for women who find marriage beneficial. He quotes "wise" ancients (ironically, "wise" looks a lot like "wife" in the old fashioned print!). He argues that women are devils, have no souls, are focused on fashion and spending, obstinate, deaf to "rational argument," and blames their lack of education on their lack of interest and mental capacity. He even goes so far as to say "if there was anything to marry but women" it might be a less miserable situation.
However, Misogamos also points out that the nature of man requires change and argues that though women may be pleasing at first, men soon tire of the same old coat, horse, or even wife-- his only example that doesn't heap the blame on women. Children, which he sees as the natural outcome of marriage, multiply the misery by ten for each child-- so nine children plus a wife equals one hundred and ten miseries.... not sure about his math abilities... But in case that hurts his ethos, Misogamos compares liberty to celibacy, announces "Liberty or Death!" and links marriage to slavery. He argues that marriage, like slavery, "sinks [man] into lethargy, ignorance and apathy" and reminds us of slaves in America "possessing capacities equally good" who are far behind in knowledge because of slavery.
I would like to imagine this essay is a satire, for how can a man see the ways oppression in slavery dulls the minds of the enslaved, but not see how women were similarly oppressed by the institution of marriage and by societal expectations? How does he overlook the fact that women were also not educated, for instance? If it is a satire, it is too subtle to be obvious; even though I find it difficult to imagine a true misogynist would sign his name "Misogamos." Unfortunately, the name and my wounded feelings are the only arguments I have in favor of calling this a satire.
On a cheerful note, the old maid stereotype was not as pronounced at the time Misogamos published his arguments, and the term "spinster" still meant someone who spins. This would all change in a few years and the old maid would become a common joke in periodical poems and images, helping to remind women of the importance of marriage (or their un-importance without marriage, really). Perhaps it would be interesting to compare the increase in pro-bachelor literature and increase in anti-old maid literature? Was there a correlation? Or is it a conversation in periodical print?
This is where Paul Starr and I are in our relationship. At first I found his introduction dull and overly stylized; when I noticed his humor and became interested in his subject, he became witty and fascinating; when we became good friends, I barely noticed him at all, simply counted on him to continue as himself. At this point, I don't even feel as if I am reading in the same way-- its more of a gleaning or absorbing-- and have trouble evaluating the presentation of information, or even differentiating between what I knew before and what I learned from Starr (though I thought I knew very little before...). So I am glad to have the opportunity to write about my subject search in the periodicals (though this has been my favorite section of The Creation of the Media so far). I have little to say other than I am fascinated by what Americans were reading and in what format at what price, and want to know more about the specific new stories and fiction Starr alludes to.
On that note, this is my week when it comes to primary research! My interest lies in the presentation of marriage in eighteenth century literature, and I know little about the American take other than the treatment of the old maid stereotype for a conference presentation I did last year. This time, I found something about "unmarried men" (search terms) entitled "Arguments in Favor of Celibacy" printed in The American Universal Magazine in 1797 by a man named "Misogamos" (punny!). Good old Misogamos posits the reasons to avoid marriage: because it is expensive, women bring misery (misery is repeated frequently) and only helpful for women who find marriage beneficial. He quotes "wise" ancients (ironically, "wise" looks a lot like "wife" in the old fashioned print!). He argues that women are devils, have no souls, are focused on fashion and spending, obstinate, deaf to "rational argument," and blames their lack of education on their lack of interest and mental capacity. He even goes so far as to say "if there was anything to marry but women" it might be a less miserable situation.
However, Misogamos also points out that the nature of man requires change and argues that though women may be pleasing at first, men soon tire of the same old coat, horse, or even wife-- his only example that doesn't heap the blame on women. Children, which he sees as the natural outcome of marriage, multiply the misery by ten for each child-- so nine children plus a wife equals one hundred and ten miseries.... not sure about his math abilities... But in case that hurts his ethos, Misogamos compares liberty to celibacy, announces "Liberty or Death!" and links marriage to slavery. He argues that marriage, like slavery, "sinks [man] into lethargy, ignorance and apathy" and reminds us of slaves in America "possessing capacities equally good" who are far behind in knowledge because of slavery.
I would like to imagine this essay is a satire, for how can a man see the ways oppression in slavery dulls the minds of the enslaved, but not see how women were similarly oppressed by the institution of marriage and by societal expectations? How does he overlook the fact that women were also not educated, for instance? If it is a satire, it is too subtle to be obvious; even though I find it difficult to imagine a true misogynist would sign his name "Misogamos." Unfortunately, the name and my wounded feelings are the only arguments I have in favor of calling this a satire.
On a cheerful note, the old maid stereotype was not as pronounced at the time Misogamos published his arguments, and the term "spinster" still meant someone who spins. This would all change in a few years and the old maid would become a common joke in periodical poems and images, helping to remind women of the importance of marriage (or their un-importance without marriage, really). Perhaps it would be interesting to compare the increase in pro-bachelor literature and increase in anti-old maid literature? Was there a correlation? Or is it a conversation in periodical print?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Mary says I'm turning Americanist....
A difference in reading...
Is it just me, or did Starr really hit his stride in chapters two and three? I feel terrible for judging him as "dry" after reading the introduction. I found myself enjoying and chapter two immensely-- annotating the text, thinking of future paper topics, turning pages without realizing the distance covered-- all the markers for genuine interest and discovery in reading. I even found myself getting huffy about the continual distractions from the reading instead of delighting in them (who knew that a man shaving in the next room could be so irritating? Is it necessary to turn the water on and off so many times? And full blast at that?). I tried to blame Starr, thinking his humor wasn't as strong in the intro and Chapter One, or that his way of giving me an overview was dull, but really, I was hooked on these chapters because of what I already knew about American history coupled with new information. Learning more about Benjamin Franklin in a setting I can relate to as a writer and reader of articles interested me, as did reading about the Quakers role in literature suppression, and the side notes about Pennsylvania German papers (my family is Pennsylvania Dutch and Mennonites) because I have some basis for situating the new information in relation to my personal experience. Ta Da! So I have determined I am no more evolved than the basic readers-- if it interests me, I will read it more carefully, and the things that interest me somehow have to do with me. But I'm not crossing over from British to American focus-- I simply am American and that is enough of a connection to raise Starr in my estimation.
What connecting to readings can do for us:
Chapter Two "New Foundations" discusses the various filters through which American colonists heard about the world. It begins with the English filter as books and news came from London. Later, we get the filters of interest as the postmaster (Franklin!) chose to mail papers he liked (or published) rather than others. The filter I find most interesting is the filter of accessibility for the anti-federalists (and others). The idea that "free press" was limited by accessibility from the very beginning and that it was an issue for discussion in the same way we still battle with the privileged groups having more accessibility to press and education, surprised me. On one hand, of course this occurred! But on the other, I had never thought of it in this way, or that our country may have been shaped by those privileged enough to get their views out just as much as our current elections are shaped by candidates who have the wealth and power to advertise on their own behalves. I wonder what would have been different with a more balanced "free press" or if accessibility had been sanctioned and provided in more than lip service. And what would have happened if the reading populace had been more aware of the series of changing filters that surrounded them and altered what was available. Since I always saw the American Revolution as a moment for the underdog to shine, I never considered the further underdog, a group which may have saved us a lot of trouble in more modern times had they been given a voice in the making of the constitution.
On a side note, my Pennsylvania Dutch family prided themselves on education- almost to a level that seemed extreme for the times, so it has been interesting to read about different group's efforts to squelch literacy and free speech. And I will admit that a bit of my interest in this chapter stems from the excitement of watching Britain slowly lose control of the colonists, and considering what lead to this loss of control in the U.S., but not in Canada. Very interesting thoughts!
Is it just me, or did Starr really hit his stride in chapters two and three? I feel terrible for judging him as "dry" after reading the introduction. I found myself enjoying and chapter two immensely-- annotating the text, thinking of future paper topics, turning pages without realizing the distance covered-- all the markers for genuine interest and discovery in reading. I even found myself getting huffy about the continual distractions from the reading instead of delighting in them (who knew that a man shaving in the next room could be so irritating? Is it necessary to turn the water on and off so many times? And full blast at that?). I tried to blame Starr, thinking his humor wasn't as strong in the intro and Chapter One, or that his way of giving me an overview was dull, but really, I was hooked on these chapters because of what I already knew about American history coupled with new information. Learning more about Benjamin Franklin in a setting I can relate to as a writer and reader of articles interested me, as did reading about the Quakers role in literature suppression, and the side notes about Pennsylvania German papers (my family is Pennsylvania Dutch and Mennonites) because I have some basis for situating the new information in relation to my personal experience. Ta Da! So I have determined I am no more evolved than the basic readers-- if it interests me, I will read it more carefully, and the things that interest me somehow have to do with me. But I'm not crossing over from British to American focus-- I simply am American and that is enough of a connection to raise Starr in my estimation.
What connecting to readings can do for us:
Chapter Two "New Foundations" discusses the various filters through which American colonists heard about the world. It begins with the English filter as books and news came from London. Later, we get the filters of interest as the postmaster (Franklin!) chose to mail papers he liked (or published) rather than others. The filter I find most interesting is the filter of accessibility for the anti-federalists (and others). The idea that "free press" was limited by accessibility from the very beginning and that it was an issue for discussion in the same way we still battle with the privileged groups having more accessibility to press and education, surprised me. On one hand, of course this occurred! But on the other, I had never thought of it in this way, or that our country may have been shaped by those privileged enough to get their views out just as much as our current elections are shaped by candidates who have the wealth and power to advertise on their own behalves. I wonder what would have been different with a more balanced "free press" or if accessibility had been sanctioned and provided in more than lip service. And what would have happened if the reading populace had been more aware of the series of changing filters that surrounded them and altered what was available. Since I always saw the American Revolution as a moment for the underdog to shine, I never considered the further underdog, a group which may have saved us a lot of trouble in more modern times had they been given a voice in the making of the constitution.
On a side note, my Pennsylvania Dutch family prided themselves on education- almost to a level that seemed extreme for the times, so it has been interesting to read about different group's efforts to squelch literacy and free speech. And I will admit that a bit of my interest in this chapter stems from the excitement of watching Britain slowly lose control of the colonists, and considering what lead to this loss of control in the U.S., but not in Canada. Very interesting thoughts!
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
The Creation of the Media: Conspiracy for Sophomore Composition
The Creation of the Media: Conspiracy for Sophomore Composition.
Part of my composition class this semester is focused on recognizing conspiracy in the media- a fun way to raise awareness about our American assumptions of a truthful and unbiased media. I am not sure where these assumptions come from-- unless it is the impression of total disclosure we get from "free speech" propaganda, availability of images of horrors from across the globe, and/or a comparison to other countries which are better known for using the media to push political and social agendas. I am reminded of my friend, Melody, who moved to my small, Texas town our senior year of high school. After we had begun to understand each other enough to discuss global issues, she told me about witnessing the famous Tienanmen square uprising from her family's apartment, and how she was so very surprised at things printed in newspapers and depicted on the news in the U.S.-- things she had never seen discussed openly by the media in China. She was thrilled by the freedom of speech, and I was proud of my country, until it became evident to me that what seems to be openness and honesty can be a tool for deflection, and that money, literally, buys a pass for "free speech" in the media.
I worked as a disc jockey and production assistant for a radio station for several years during and after high school. As a small town radio station, it appeared we had "purchased" fewer of the FCC's free speech permits, and were thus more limited in what we could say, or even which songs we could play (rhymes!). Part of this censorship was the local population, but my boss intimated that FCC regulations were tighter on us than on George Carlin who was only restricted on a certain seven "bad" words. We also had to watch out for alcohol references and some of those other "less-bad" words, and be more careful of what we played before ten p.m. I realize this was eons ago in media years, and "times they are a'changing," but this experience began a healthy line of questioning about media control which for some reason is still often overlooked. What is really embarrassing is that we believe the media hype that it is unbiased, at least to some extent. My students seem to be a bit more savvy about the bias of media than I was at their age, but I am not sure they are aware of the history of media control that has helped form this bias.
Reading Paul Starr's The Creation of the Media is already helping me adjust the framework for discussions of media in my sophomore composition class. I think the history of the media in the U.S. and other countries could help establish some of the concerns of the class-- who really decides what is acceptable, who regulates media, and how it is regulated. However, I am not sure my students would enjoy reading the text. Something about Starr's rhythm in his introduction, probably attributed to strings of three and four syllable words, lulls me into a comfortable daze when I should be roused at the very least to annotate my lesson plans. I found myself re-reading passages, and then later reading with instant clarity and a communion with the text, only to drift off into mental sidebars again later. Starr's sentences are lovely, but in the interest of, well, interest, perhaps occasionally dismissing a well-crafted and smooth sentence for the "quick and dirty" method would stir readers to more excitement. Though they do nothing to expand our vocabulary, occasional monosyllabic words at least have a bombastic quality that supports action (or wakefulness). But perhaps that is my own aculturation as a "21st Century Digital Boy" (or girl), who needs bright flashes and variety to kep my focus. I don't think that's it, because many of my mental digressions form the text were about how nicely Starr's sentences flowed. His correctness and faultless logic and language was distracting to me. At least give me the stimulation of finding a better way to say the same thing!
Regardless of the soothing, rolling rhythm of the text, Starr keeps me reading with his subject matter (what a bland transition!). Chapter1, "Early Modern Origins," hits directly on some of my personal interests with media and publishing, like books/print becoming a tradable commodity, and how this association with money and profit changed books/print for better and for worse. Starr sets up the scene for an early example of "sellouts" (punk rockers weren't the first to see it, either) in which truth and art negotiate between what people want to hear/read and what controlling entities think they ought to hear/read. I think studying the emergence of accessible print culture gives us the opportunity to trace differences in modern media through the ways different cultures, regulated, edited, and altered the subjects of literature. For example, last year I did a project which compared an excerpt of a text by Harriet Martineau printed in both an American and a British periodical. While the British periodical abridged the text, leaving only the sections which seemed hyper-feminine, the American text left it unabridged, a clue about the editors, audiences, and cultures. But if we read to learn, and all we have to read is what is selected to be printed and distributed, what do we learn? And if we in the U.S. feel proud of a history of open media, separate from "those countries" which censor (gasp!) media, what elements of the system of printing and distributing are we neglecting to analyze? Is it acceptable to say our media is more honest or more accurate and therefore good enough? Or as good as we can expect?
On a final note, my sister-in-law, (a TCU alumna) is involved in communications in the Airforce. A few years ago, it was her job to "spin" stories about military happenings in Afghanistan and present them to the public. The stories went through several people before they got to her, and though she knew the "truth" behind the events (insofar as we may know truth) careful consideration had to be paid to the mission, top secret details, and the soldiers and families involved (etc. etc. etc.) before distributing the story to the public. I think today in my composition class, we will make a list of Starr-inspired media filters. Perhaps looking at these different filters will also help me in understanding eighteenth century print culture as well.
Part of my composition class this semester is focused on recognizing conspiracy in the media- a fun way to raise awareness about our American assumptions of a truthful and unbiased media. I am not sure where these assumptions come from-- unless it is the impression of total disclosure we get from "free speech" propaganda, availability of images of horrors from across the globe, and/or a comparison to other countries which are better known for using the media to push political and social agendas. I am reminded of my friend, Melody, who moved to my small, Texas town our senior year of high school. After we had begun to understand each other enough to discuss global issues, she told me about witnessing the famous Tienanmen square uprising from her family's apartment, and how she was so very surprised at things printed in newspapers and depicted on the news in the U.S.-- things she had never seen discussed openly by the media in China. She was thrilled by the freedom of speech, and I was proud of my country, until it became evident to me that what seems to be openness and honesty can be a tool for deflection, and that money, literally, buys a pass for "free speech" in the media.
I worked as a disc jockey and production assistant for a radio station for several years during and after high school. As a small town radio station, it appeared we had "purchased" fewer of the FCC's free speech permits, and were thus more limited in what we could say, or even which songs we could play (rhymes!). Part of this censorship was the local population, but my boss intimated that FCC regulations were tighter on us than on George Carlin who was only restricted on a certain seven "bad" words. We also had to watch out for alcohol references and some of those other "less-bad" words, and be more careful of what we played before ten p.m. I realize this was eons ago in media years, and "times they are a'changing," but this experience began a healthy line of questioning about media control which for some reason is still often overlooked. What is really embarrassing is that we believe the media hype that it is unbiased, at least to some extent. My students seem to be a bit more savvy about the bias of media than I was at their age, but I am not sure they are aware of the history of media control that has helped form this bias.
Reading Paul Starr's The Creation of the Media is already helping me adjust the framework for discussions of media in my sophomore composition class. I think the history of the media in the U.S. and other countries could help establish some of the concerns of the class-- who really decides what is acceptable, who regulates media, and how it is regulated. However, I am not sure my students would enjoy reading the text. Something about Starr's rhythm in his introduction, probably attributed to strings of three and four syllable words, lulls me into a comfortable daze when I should be roused at the very least to annotate my lesson plans. I found myself re-reading passages, and then later reading with instant clarity and a communion with the text, only to drift off into mental sidebars again later. Starr's sentences are lovely, but in the interest of, well, interest, perhaps occasionally dismissing a well-crafted and smooth sentence for the "quick and dirty" method would stir readers to more excitement. Though they do nothing to expand our vocabulary, occasional monosyllabic words at least have a bombastic quality that supports action (or wakefulness). But perhaps that is my own aculturation as a "21st Century Digital Boy" (or girl), who needs bright flashes and variety to kep my focus. I don't think that's it, because many of my mental digressions form the text were about how nicely Starr's sentences flowed. His correctness and faultless logic and language was distracting to me. At least give me the stimulation of finding a better way to say the same thing!
Regardless of the soothing, rolling rhythm of the text, Starr keeps me reading with his subject matter (what a bland transition!). Chapter1, "Early Modern Origins," hits directly on some of my personal interests with media and publishing, like books/print becoming a tradable commodity, and how this association with money and profit changed books/print for better and for worse. Starr sets up the scene for an early example of "sellouts" (punk rockers weren't the first to see it, either) in which truth and art negotiate between what people want to hear/read and what controlling entities think they ought to hear/read. I think studying the emergence of accessible print culture gives us the opportunity to trace differences in modern media through the ways different cultures, regulated, edited, and altered the subjects of literature. For example, last year I did a project which compared an excerpt of a text by Harriet Martineau printed in both an American and a British periodical. While the British periodical abridged the text, leaving only the sections which seemed hyper-feminine, the American text left it unabridged, a clue about the editors, audiences, and cultures. But if we read to learn, and all we have to read is what is selected to be printed and distributed, what do we learn? And if we in the U.S. feel proud of a history of open media, separate from "those countries" which censor (gasp!) media, what elements of the system of printing and distributing are we neglecting to analyze? Is it acceptable to say our media is more honest or more accurate and therefore good enough? Or as good as we can expect?
On a final note, my sister-in-law, (a TCU alumna) is involved in communications in the Airforce. A few years ago, it was her job to "spin" stories about military happenings in Afghanistan and present them to the public. The stories went through several people before they got to her, and though she knew the "truth" behind the events (insofar as we may know truth) careful consideration had to be paid to the mission, top secret details, and the soldiers and families involved (etc. etc. etc.) before distributing the story to the public. I think today in my composition class, we will make a list of Starr-inspired media filters. Perhaps looking at these different filters will also help me in understanding eighteenth century print culture as well.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Introduction For Early American Literature
Hello!
My name is Rachel Johnston and I am in my second year of the PhD at TCU (Go Frogs!) I have a masters from TWU in Denton and BA's in English and Theatre from Berry College, Rome, GA. Though I moved back to Texas from Hawaii, I was born and raised in a small, dusty, agricultural town-- Vernon, Texas. It's a place that cultivates a quiet relationship to nature and an almost spiritual dependence on wide open spaces-- spaces which make you feel truly and delightfully alone, separate from the exhausting observation of others. That may be why Milan Kundara's Immortality is such a moving book for me- the main character, Agnes, also feels that solitude is rejuvenating, however this book does not encourage repeat readings. I read The Other Side of the Sun by Madeline L'Engle every year-- the humanity and sacrifice for others of Aunt Olivia makes me feel hopeful and challenged. I also read The Blue Castle by L.M. Montgomery each year. It's like mac-n-cheese: a sustaining comfort and reminder to live like you're dying. I do read "junk" too, like Calvin and Hobbes anthologies, but the worst teacher (and class--- Junior year American Lit.) I ever had made us read a modern, mainstream murder mystery by Mary Higgins Clark and it almost killed me. That or mono. . .
I enjoy reading classical literature, Shakespeare, Swift, Pope, and Defoe. . . that may explain how I am as a reader. I enjoy puzzles and irony and humor-- even couched in outdated language. And I can read for hours non-stop with pretty good understanding (usually). Writing is harder. I write to learn-- and to think sometimes. It seems to take a full semester for an idea to form into a paper, and then it may be a few months of ignoring it before I really know the best way to form (or even understand) my own idea. Its frustrating and exciting at the same time, as if I know there is something fascinating right around the corner but I can't quite put it into words yet. This semester I want to write papers which get to the heart of whatever fascinating idea I come up with (and it will be fascinating, I'm sure!) instead of touching the surface, I want to re-learn French, and I want to make transatlantic connections between my British eighteenth century authors, and American print culture (interesting copyright things emerging in both areas at the time could be a nice lead for me).
I know very little about the U.S. 1770-1830 outside of types and styles of clothing left over from costume design classes. I have some vague ideas of witch trials (from The Crucible) and memories of reading sermons (Sinners in the Hands...) as well as your basic political, war, frontier, transportation of English criminals to the U.S. (Moll Flanders!), and slavery information, but I'm afraid it has all become somewhat garbled.
"12) Tell me three things that I ought to know about you." 1). I like that you skipped from 7 to 12 in numbering these questions and hope there is a "good" (i.e. fun) reason (allergies to 8,9,10,and 11? Are they bad luck like the 13th floor in buildings?) 2.) I commute from Denton. 3). I have a good (but odd) sense of humor and usually have some pretty silly jokes and puns hanging around that no one laughs at (except when they laugh at me laughing for at them. *sigh*).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)