Exploring the Internetz: 3 Diamonds in the Rough

ASYLUM FOR DRUNKARDS:

I rather enjoyed this little gem in the Western Recorder. The small excerpt was taken from the New York Observer. The main reasons why I found this of interest first, has to do with our conversation in class, and second has to do with gender and age roles. In class, I found it rather funny that we tried to come up with so many words for alcohol consumption that might have been colloquial during Early America. Drunkard. Libation-Lover. Boiled-As-An-Owl. Intoxicated. Inebriated. Three-Sheets-To-The-Wind. Dr. Williams had another interesting word…I think it had to do with Angels for some reason. I suppose “boozehound” wasn’t commonly used yet, which is generally my favorite when it comes to someone who loves the libations. Aside from the fun we can have coming up with other words for drunk, I thought the fact that an Asylum was created specifically for women and children who were “suffering by their sin and folly.” The short piece talks specifically about hoping they will learn to praise the Lord, rather than embarrass their family and themselves by drinking habitually. If we can’t leave them to themselves to change, Lock ‘em up says the article. It offers a short proposal for asylums to be erected in every state of the Union. They must be “a cheap, yet substantial builindg, in a central and convenient place, capable of accommodating 50 to 150 persons, who shall be under the superintendence of a suitable person…” Not sure if I’d want to be the suitable person in charge, since it would be my duty to keep them away from “intoxicating liquors” and decide what job they will take based not only on their age, but also their sex. Apparently, public drunkenness was a big enough problem for such a proposal to appear in the papers. When watching films about the Early Republic (often Westerns), there’s always a drunk causing a ruckus, like Lee Marvin and his wasted horse in Cat Ballou!

HUSBANDS AND WIVES:

I think this one is my favorite of the three. This article was taken from the U.S. Gazette and re-published in the Ohio State Journal (where I found it).  It outlines various maxims for husbands and wives to follow in a marriage by first pointing out the problematic stereotypes/depictions of women and men during this time:

Ladies:

“In nearly all the sage sayings…the wife is regarded as a sort of domestic utensil, a kind of dependent, who has nothing to do but comb children’s heads (taking care not to comb her husband’s) cook the dinner to a turn for his surly lordship, receive him with smiles, though he is ever so crabbed and make a low courtesy and a “thank you sir,” if he condescends to give her a look that would sour more cream than a thunder gust”   (LOVE IT!)

& Gentlemen:

“The gentleman has nothing to do but fold his arms, and suffer his wife to busy herself in pleasing him. He is to kick over the mop pail when he pleases, upset the tea table when it suits his humor, keep his wife up all night to receive him with smiles when he comes staggering home from his clubs and the poor lady is to take all the blame of his being disagreeable, discontented, mulish fellow if after all her patience she cannot succeed in making anything of him”

I wonder if the author of this was male or female? Not! Clearly this article is written by a woman. It first outlines the rules for Husbands. My favorite of which is#3 “He will always keep her liberally supplied with money for furnishing his table in a style proportioned to his means and for the purchase of dress suitable to her station in life.” The other rules include treating the wife with respect & as an equal, listening, not interfering in the domestic realm, cheerfully welcoming her reasonable requests, never losing his temper (especially over lousy meals), consulting her operations (even financial ones), and to communicate honestly even if he is embarrassed. Whew! That’s a lot to ask of a man, even today. Wives have similar duties, but hers are much more about adjusting to keep the man happy. Wives have to receive their husbands with smiles, discover means to gratify his inclinations (food, dress, manners), be reasonable, avoid all arguments and ill-humor (especially if other people are around), and not interfere in business.  My favorite of the Wife’s duties is that “She will never attempt to rule, or appear to rule her husband. Such conduct degrades husbands—and wives always partake largely of the degradation of their husbands.” Wives only have 6 rules, whereas the men have 7. What I find most interesting about these rules is what I find interesting about the ridiculous claims that magazines like Cosmo make in the ‘How To Keep Your Man Happy’ section—lie, lie, lie! It’s not about actually exhibiting how you feel or being honest; these rules promote inauthentic interactions between lovers simply to appease and uphold communal norms. Even though a woman wrote this and seems to be trying to offer some sort of “progressive view” about the gender roles, the requests she makes are rather pitiful. Keeping up with the Jones’s was obviously a problem during these times, much like it is now. Don’t tell Julie that Mark is on Prozac; the whole neighborhood will find out!

BILLY TAYLOR:

I chose to discuss this article because it was the one that helped me find the magazine I am writing on for my final paper: The Mirror of Taste and Dramatic Censor, which ran for 6 months in 1810. I think this article is incredibly interesting because it is an early form of literary criticism. It’s mostly reader-response, but also takes a historical approach by relating the form and content of the song “Billy Taylor” to other works, like the Aenid and Aenis and works of Homer, Euripides, Pindar, Lucan (not sure who he is) and The Bible.  Overall, I like the attempt to analyze characters in relation to other fables and stories that traditionally read. This magazine is very much one created for the intellectual elite and does not seem American at all.  I also love the twist at the end, when the woman shoots Billy Taylor for being an unfaithful jerk. 

Novels: Elisabeth Barnes

I found pages 444 and 445 of Barnes’ article most interesting. Although we’ve talked quite a bit about seduction being a key element in the early American novels, I’m not sure how much we’ve actually discussed the novels as seducers themselves. Barnes asserts, “To see the early novel as itself a kind of seducer is to recognize its attempts to encode all readers, not just women, as sensitive, sympathetic, and seducible” (445). Perhaps this is why novel-reading has become seen as more of a “feminine” thing to do in society. Of course there are exceptions, especially with genres like comic books and science fiction, but overall, I think that if I told most women I’m attracted to a guy because he reads fiction, it might make their heads tilt to the side a little bit.

Them: Huh? He reads? Like, Sports books?

Me: No, like Toni Morrison.

Them: Ugh, I don’t even know who that is. OR Oh, Oprah loves her.

How’s that for being sexist against my own sex? Whoops.

Anyhow…

I think what is most seductive about novels is a point we haven’t discussed much that Barnes points to is the idea that individuals had to ability in the Enlightenment to “invent new social worlds” (444). Isn’t that invention what we love so much about literature? About film? About Art in general? I think about the stories that I am most attached tos; people didn’t read Harry Potter because it was eloquently written, they kept reading because they wanted to enter into a world full of magic. If you’ve ever tried to read any of thousands of the Star Wars novels, they all have the same plot and similar actions, but it’s the world that the fans crave. Universe-building has become an obsession in science fiction and fantasy. Experiencing a world that sometimes reminds us of our own, but that overall seems more exciting and new than our own often keeps me turning the pages. Some people are so excited about these worlds that they participate in Cosplay, attend conferences where they can be Jack Sparrow for the weekend, or visit themeparks that offer them a chance to encounter the fictional worlds they so love, like the Harry Potter section of Islands of Adventure or the upcoming Avatar experience at Disney’s Animal Kingdom. The invention of new worlds continues to extend with our dependence on technology: video games, on-line games, on-line dating, social networking, interactive reading guides, blogs, the list goes on--all create new social worlds and are new mediums for communication. One in which we can (re)create ourselves or perhaps be a sexless Orc or a male adventurer when we’re actually a female. I remember a couple that I went to college with that played the Sims. They had all of their friends as Sims characters and had basically re-created their life on-line. But they would seriously fight (in real life) about the fact that one of them got in the hot tub with someone they knew. In another world. A world in which they had no authority or autonomy, a world that programmed their characters to wink at other people.  (Chuck Klosterman has a great chapter about this called “Billy Sim” in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs). As a culture, we are obsessed with creating and participating in narratives, whether we enter them as a reader, a gamer, a creator, or an avatar. I think most of us would rather be deep in the Hundred Acre Woods than in Fort Worth. But, maybe that’s just me.

Shifting Gears (oh wait...only men know how to drive standards) : Women Writing in the Early Republic

Again, I felt like this chapter started out by going over many of the ideas we've discussed in class, but as it progressed, I felt like Dobson & Zagarell offered up some interesting information. I hadn't thought too much about the idea of some forms of literature being feminine or masculine until last week when we discussed it briefly in class (novel/poetry). Often when I tell people I study Science Fiction & Graphic Novels, I get a surprised look because it's thought of more of a 'dude thing;' whereas, my involvement with children's literature is somehow more expected. While studying at Texas State, I had a male professor tell me he would not work with me on a thesis about male beatniks. He looked at me and asked, "But, wouldn't you rather like to write about the female beats?" as he handed me Diane di Prima's Memoirs of a Beatnik. Unfortunately, the masculine and feminine divide still exists--even in higher education-- and I think it is interesting that it traces back to this time period. I rather enjoyed Dobsno and Zagarell's discussion of Huntley:

"So impressed was the reviewer with Huntley's talent that he tried to dissuade her from adehering to 'female' forms of writing at all, speaking dismissively of the educational materials in the volume. Rather, he sought to enlist her talents in the creation of a national literature, which he defined in public and broadly political terms...[H]e urged Huntley to contemplate 'some more considerable undertaking' and itemized the 'early history of Virginia, New England, and Canada,' the 'maginificence' of America's scenery, and the military conflicts and geographic expansion of the colonial era. This unqualified assumption that a woman poet could contribute to the emergingin national literature is notable not only for paying virtually no attention to her gender but also for tis encouragement of her treatment of politics and war, public matters later assigned almost exclusively to the realm of the masculine" (373).

The fact that female writers had different methods (having a male pen name, offering introductions and/or characters that acknowledge the divide, becoming a generalist instead of a specialist) of combatting the feminine/masculine divide. By facing these limitations in clever ways, I think the women of this decade showed that they possessed something every writer hopes her or she has - SPUNK!

Kids These Days...

This pic made me think of our discussions about younger generations & technology:

Masculine Performance: David Leverenz's "Men Writing in the Early Republic"

The relationship between the American male and masculinity has been of great interest to me since an undergraduate, so naturally, I thoroughly enjoyed this chapter. Leverenz's exploration of gender as performance and a socially constructed phenomenon in relation to marriage and having children was of particular interest to me. I also thoroughly enjoyed reading about authors I'm actually familiar with like Poe and Hawthorne. However, I want to frame my conversation today around my own interest in what it means to be masculine today and how masculinity is still a performative act and expectation today.

Some of my favorite novels--Revolutionary Road (Yates), Kavalier & Clay (Chabon), The Corrections (Franzen), Angle of Repose (Stegnar), The Age of Innocence (Wharton)--are so because of the male protagonist's/character's struggle to be a good father, husband, worker (especially if he ends up in the same profession or position as his father like Frank in RR), and/or gay male in a society that feminizes men who love other men. Over the last 40 years, the focus on feminist studies and equal opportunites and rights has (I think) caused many of us to forget something incredibly important: men suffer too. Men are human. Men can be objectified, even white ones (just look at the Twilight series and the lack of clothing on the actors who play Edward and Jacob). And, being a "manly man" is still an expectation and performance that we consistently see asked of men today. An easy example, advertisements; one that sticks out in my mind is the Dockers "Men Wear The Pants" advertisements. Below is an ad on their website and that still pops up in a number of magazines:

The above ad is an adequate example of what Leverenz is discussing when he asserts that men feel the pressure to behave a certain way to be considered a man: "Irving...felt a lifelong lack of manliness because he had not marreid and established a family" (354) and how the struggle between a life as an author vs. life as father/husband was one that carried a heavy burden: "The trope of failed paternity continued to frame some American male writers' negative sense of manliness even if they had begotten children" (354).

 I'm not sure if this was just a problem for American writers; the most apt example I can give off the top of my head is that of J.M. Barrie. The film Finding Neverland illustrates the tension he feels to produce plays and how it causes him to neglect his wife and never have children; yet, it is through his interaction with the father-less Davies children that Barrie found success, since they inspired him to write Peter Pan. The community criticized Barrie for playing with children, neglecting his wife and made accusations that he was either/both in love with the widow and pedaphile.

Overall, I think masculinist studies is currently on the rise with the publication of books like Robert Bly's 2004 Iron John: A Book About Men (I highly recommend). I hope that the Humanities continues to explore the pscyhosociological role of gender performance and authors' exploration of such tensions within works of literature. I agree with Docker's statement that the world still needs Men; however, unlike the Dockers ad, I recognize that men can and do struggle with the social pressures of moving from boy to man and what it means to be androgenous. But these are phenomena that need to be understood, not criticized. If a dude wants to do the disco, let him. Afterall, John Travolta looked pretty good doing it in Saturday Night Fever!

An Extensive Republic: Andie Tucher

"By the end of the Revolution, Americans had become accustomed to thinking of the press as a preserver of liberties and a guarantor of republicanism, the essential source of the information citizens needed to understand thier government, participate in it, and hold it accountable" (390)

Sounds great right? Yet, Tucher correctly follows this statement with two poignant questions:

"Which information? Whose truth?" (309)

I found this chapter very relatable to today's society. I don't have a basic cable in my house; the small tv that I have is used for DVDs only, so I miss much of the 'news.' My parents were never ones to have CNN on (unfortunately, if they were watching the news it was Fox); I never cultivated an interest in politics and government. I've always had the feeling that I couldn't make much of a difference--especially after reading lots of philosophy of technology. In the 1960s, Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase "The medium is the message." He was interested in looking at how technology affected populations and propopsed that we should start to study the mediums we use to convey messages, rather than looking at the content (which is  obviously destructive). I've been thinking McLuhan's theory is one that might aid me in my understanding of why Americans during this time were so reliant on the press--it was their ONLY medium. McLuhan made this claim before we even had the internet, smart phones, tablets, etc., and I believe that MchLuhan was correct. If we focus only on the content we receive from such devices as harmful, we're still missing something. We miss the societal structural changes and how such mediums influence our lives. We've talked quite bit in class about the mediums we use to convey our place in society (displaying books, reading Kindles on planes and feeling like a snob), but I think something worth noting is that the medium, whether it be book, tablet, I-phone, laptop, carries a message itself and that there are social implications when we begin to rely on such mediums.

Perhaps this is just the paranoid luddite on my left shoulder (WARNING: reading too much dystopian science fiction will cause one to pop up), but what are the mediums we're using doing to our culture? our understanding of "self"? our constructions of "self"? And how has it changed our conception of culture in general when we we can communicate with people on the other side of the world with a click?

Scary Stories!

If anyone is in the mood to read something spooky for Halloween, one of my favorite Blogs has compiled an excellent list:

http://www.themarysue.com/30-spooky-story-recommendations-for-all-hallows-read/?pid=459

I must add Edith Wharton to the list of "classic" authors. She writes some creepy short stories!  I think "All Souls" is my favorite!

Oh, and BUNNICULA made the list. Love those books, especially Howl-iday Inn <3