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

A Rowdy Runs Through It

Well, as you all can tell, I love my dog. Today, I was longing for my beloved San Marcos river; I think Rowdy misses it too. I thought this picture might be a fun one to share in case anyone hasn't had enough of Rowdy yet. ; )

No, this is not his Halloween costume. 

This is River Ready Rowdy in his floatation device. 

It's Almost Howl-O-Weenie!

The Revolution's Legacy: Consumerism?

Hooray! I was excited to read this week! Richard D. Brown offers an excellent article and really got me thinking. Although the beginning of the article felt like the Wikipedia version of what we've been talking about all semester, there were some interesting (new) points. I loved his inclusion of the John Adams, "the people...have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefensible divine right to that most dreaded, and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers" (59). I could not agree more with Johnny boy. It's so difficult to separate fact from fiction these days, but over the last couple of weeks--with all of the Occupy movement talk--I really feel like this quote resonated with me, mainly because of his Adams' choice to use the word rulers. I asked myself, "Who is ruling us today?" Government? Media? Corporations? All of the above?

Last class, I think it was Tom who asked, "Was there ever a time in America when things weren't commodified?" My immediate answer (in my head) was "Not in America." And, I was right! Well...maybe not right, but I loved Brown's discussion of consumer culture on page 65:

Beginning in the late colonial period, a broad movement for social advancement was manifest in the goods Americans bought for their persons and homes. Men whose social aspirations had been blocked in the colonial era now sought to earn prestige and power by acquiring the accoutrements of gentility in their dwellings, furnishings, and dress and by displaying the proper appearance, manners, and reading tastes" (65). 

And today, I feel like knowledge has also become a commodity. The sociological study of 'cultural capital' relates to Brown's earlier assertion on pages 64-5 "In the new republic, good Christians were also called on to be active citizens. To perform their social duties properly, they needed to be informed about politics and history." If you didn't possess the correct knowledge, you would find yourself seen as less-than. On page 73, he also discusses how the Republican vision promoted cultural hierarchy that was based on "the refined cultural values of the well born endured in the matters of architecture and furnishings, in modes of dress and manners, and in reading." Has much changed? Also, did much really change from being born into aristocracy in England? If you didn't have the $$$ in America, you wouldn't be able to afford fancy living room chairs and beautifully crafted books! I couldn't help but think of the first few minutes of Fight Club when reading about this (why is it IMPOSSIBLE to find the original scene on the internet? All I can find is fanboy recreations, meh.). For me, the mimetic nature of wanting to appear cultured/wealthy is so much more prominent in Fort Worth than it was in San Marcos. Cookie cutter homes with Thomas Kinkade's in the living room and matching BMWs in the driveway is a bit too much for me sometimes when I drive around TCU. Maybe I'm just being a cynical **** (yes, that was going to be an alliterative phrase), but it's quite the change from my small town with a river running through it.

I would love to write a paper on Consumer Culture & Commodification from Colonial to Contemporary (how's that for C-word alliteration? Ha!). Perhaps, I'll do so for my end of the course paper?

I'm going to rip off Klay and end on a comic (sorry dude, mimesis is ingrained in me). Thought all of my fellow Theory classmates would appreciate seeing this little blip before our Publish And Flourish workshop in Neil's class tomorrow:

A History of the Book in America Introduction

Gross and Kelley were spot on when titling this book A History because even the Introduction is chalk-full of facts. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I started to miss Mr. Starr. The tone of the writing in this book made me fall asleep on the couch with my beloved beagle. I feel like starting, rather than ending with this book might have been a good idea, even though it's the later part of the time period we're talking about in this class. I felt like much of the information was a refresher, and maybe I won't feel so when we get into the actual chapters of the volume. I did find a few things interesting, though. The problems of geography and the amount of time it took for news to travel isn't something we have discussed very much in class (p.6). I also liked his straight-forward layout of the 1-3 areas of themes that will be discussed in the volume. All three seem pertinent and like there will be much overlap between the three throughout the volume.

There were two comments about the rise of print culture and the novel that I found particularly interesting. The first, is his discussion of book agents as people that were suspicious and perhaps, untrustworthy. There seemed to be no system of checks and balances and no way to really know if you were going to actually be published and or paid. Yikes!

Secondly, one of my areas of interest is Children's Literature; I find it fascinating that it took longer for American children's literature to develop. I took a course entitled The Golden Age of Children's Literature in which we read the following Children's books: Little Women (1868-9), Little Lord Fauntleroy (1885), The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), The Jungle Book (1894), The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900), Alice in Wonderland (1865), Peter and Wendy (1911), The Wind in the Willows (1908), A Little Princess (1905), Tarzan of the Apes (1914), The Voyages of Dr. Dolittle (1920), The House at Pooh Corner (1928). I find it interesting that of the 13 'classics' we read for class only 4 were American (even in the late 1800s- early 1900s)! I found the discussion on pages 30-32 fascinating and think I might want to do some more research on popular children's texts during the time period listed for our course. Most of the books discussed I've never even heard of an certainly never read. I also found the rise in children's fiction chart of particular interest, since there is a rise and fall, but overall a steady increase (much like there has been the last 10 years).

3&4

Since I am presenting on these two chapters, I found myself reading like Klay. Carefully picking what topics I thought were relevant for my presentation. Overall, I felt like there was a plethora of interesting information within these 2 chapters (which you all will see because my handout is longer than it should be, whoops!).

I found the Ideology and Genre chapter more philosophical and critical, whereas the Literacy, Education, and the Reader chapter contained tons of interesting facts and information about literacy, education and readership during early America. Because I presented on Adorno and Horkheimer in Neil's Theory course yesterday, I found myself thinking deeply about our notions and definitions of Ideology throughout my reading. I was also fascinated by Davidson's discussion of the threat to authority and order novel reading posed, and how the production of the novel for the masses could be seen as a revolutionary tool. This is much more Benjaminian, but I began to think about all of the revolutions we've seen occur in the United States. Because Banned Books week was last week, I found myself considering what Banned Texts I considered revolutionary. "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg (one of my favorite pieces of American Poetry) came instantly to mind.  Davidson claims that literature can be Revolutionary and help the community recognize prejudices (racism, sexism, classism) and hopefully, help us to overcome unjust authoritative forces. I think that literature has this function, but I also think other forms of pop & mass culture help us to recognize and think critically about the prejudices permeating our culture. For instance,  I think it is important that we recognize that education and gender stereotypes still occur. I remember Teen Talk Barbie being pulled off the shelves in when I was younger (1992) because she said "Math class is tough" and my cousin desperately wanting one:
I'm an English Major...You Do The Math Barbie


Also, while perusing YouTube for Math-Makes-My-Brain-Hurt-Barbie, I found this ad for some creepy dolls! YIKES!
What To Show On Your TV During Your Halloween Party

Margaret Atwood & Drunk History!

Yesterday, I mentioned Atwood's innovative new book signing machine. Below is a link discussing the Longpen. This machine is different from the description I gave it in class. The e-signature technology I was thinking of has been developed by someone else; however, this is still pretty cool: 

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/06/margaret_atwood_signs_autograp.html

Also, as I've expressed numerous times, I don't have a great grasp on the history of this time period. My favorite way to learn about our Founding Fathers. Drunk History!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/68f23e244b/drunk-history-vol-1-featuring-michael-cera-from-drunk-history-michael-cera-derekwaters-and-jeremykonner

There is a slew of these videos that include cameos from comedians like Jack Black, Michael Cera, Danny McBride, Zooey Deschanel, Will Ferrell, John C. Reily & others. If you like this video, there's lots of others that are just as entertaining =) So view them in your "copious free time" (as Neil likes to call it), and remember that these are hilarious, not accurate.

A Not So On Topic Response to Revolution and the Word & Larisa's Blog!

After reading Larisa's blog, I felt prompted the consider my own experience of Reading as Revolutionary.

I'm so glad that Larisa linked her Graduate School experience and personal identity to what she read as a child. Unlike Larisa and Callie, I did not grow up with Little Women (I didn't read until graduate school), Pride and Prejudice (embarrassingly, still haven't read) or Little House on the Prarie (I've never read). I was the 'weird girl' who loved to read stories about anthropomorphized animals (Hank the Cowdog, Bunnicula, Howliday Inn, The Wind in the Willows, The Secret Rats of Nimh, The Mouse and the Motorcycle, Stuart Little, Abel's Island--apparently I had a thing for books with mice) and Science Fiction (Ender's Game, The Cat from Outerspace, Star Wars books, and comic books).


To the women in our class: Do you feel that reading positive (specifically) female protagonists had a profound effect on the woman you became? Men, do you feel like reading male protagonists was important to you in the same regard? I often see SF & Fantasy critics from the last 10 years arguing that there aren't enough female  narrators to entice young girls to read science fiction/fantasy. Other than Lyra in Pullman's His Dark Materials & the women of the Narnia series, I can't think of many children's/YA SF & Fantasy novels I've read that have female protagonists from before the 2000s. Now, young girls who like SF/Fantasy have Katniss (The Hunger Games), Hermione (not the protagonist, but close enough in the Harry Potter series) and Tolly (Uglies series); I didn't grow up with these girls! I grew up with boys and masculine animals (much like children are with Pixar characters today).

I remember the first paper I wrote in college. It was for my sociology class and it was about the toys we played with as children and how they gendered us. From the books I read to the toys I played with, I was very much gendered 'male.' My mom still makes the joke that she's never had a daughter (I have 2 younger brothers) because I was the child that liked to play with Ghostbusters, Batman, Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, and Mighty Max; I think the most feminine toys I had were Littlest Pet Shop & GloWorms (moreso unisex), which again was because of my love for animals. I just wasn't into the American Girl dolls and books or playing house, so I always had trouble making girl friends (and, admittedly, still do... I like classic cars and comic books, camping and drinkin' beer--not that girls can't or don't like these things, I think they are still coded as more masculine than feminine). I still have never owned a Barbie, but have a pretty rad collection of stuffed animals--E.T. and Gizmo beings my childhood favorites.

Me as Peter from the Ghostbusters

This is not a Halloween picture, but a part of my everyday adventuring

I also view the novel as a revolutionary tool, but I wonder if I see it in a different light. I feel like I thought I could do anything that a mouse or a boy or a Ninja Turtle could do (I used to get on fights with this boy named Stephen in Pre-K because he always wanted me to be April and stay behind, but I wanted to be Michealangelo!) COWABUNGA!

I suppose I'm still sorting out what all of my childhood reading and playtime means. One of my areas of interest is Children's Literature and media/toys/advertising. The confidence Larisa has in her relationship with books and the women she bonded with from reading is incredible. Larisa's sentiment that she  knows America because of encountering such women is something that I have never felt (I think my closest moments have been with Dickinson, Morrison, Wharton,a nd Atowood who is Canadian), but I feel much more American and connected to male voices (Whitman, Ginsberg, Vonnegut, Bukowski, Steinbeck, Stegnar).

Steinbeck & I

To quote Larisa, "But what lesson I learned best of all was that girls and women could do anything they want, no matter the obstacles in their way (thanks to Caddie Woodlawn, Anne Shirley, and the Pevensie sisters)."

I have no idea who any of these girls are, but you are lucky to have known them! My list would include names of rodents and dogs, boys and men, and I feel lucky to have known them deeply too! Different strokes for different folks! However, I completely agree that novels are a blessing because they contain narratives that empower us, and I think Davidson and even Mr. Starr would too.

Revolution and the Word - Introduction!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the introductory chapter to Davidson's updated edition. I feel that she is very reflective and a dedicated scholar, since she took the time to update her analysis of the rise of the early American novel. I loved that she discussed how various theories and fields of criticism have changed her perspective and caused her to analyze her own analysis. 

Davidson's use of comparing and contrasting binary structures, then criticizing the problematic nature of such binaries was particularly interesting to me (and probably to many of us in the literary theory course after Easterbrook's lecture on Derrida yesterday). In recognizing the complicated nature of such systems, Davidson provides a deeper philosophical analysis of the early American lifestyle, than David Starr's account, which for me was quite refreshing. For instance the bifurcations of male/political/public v. female/sentimental/domestic sphere in relation to the complexities of gender. Her ability to highlight and unpack some of the tensions that arose in the late eighteenth century was of particular interest to me: "Every woman's movement from the late eighteenth century to the present has had to face the same contradiction between demanding equal legal or legislative treatment an advocating special consideration. Insisting that laws be changed, for example, to grant women the right to vote presumes that women are equal to men and that equal opportunity will rectify the past discrimination. However the argument for special consideration implies that a long history of unequal opportunity...necessarily means that women are less prepared than men for these equal opportunities" (32). Whew, that's some powerful stuff! During her discussion of gender and race, I started thinking about being a woman with a time machine. What would it actually be like to live during this time? Davidson's discussion of the idea of "nationalism" and "freedom" during a time when a number of citizens were excluded from the community has been explored more by postcolonial and postmodern theorists; however, class, race, and gender differences still permeate our ideological beliefs about who can/cannot succeed in America. Like we discussed a few weeks ago, the American dream is a false ideology (with it's own binary tension, who can/who can't or who has/who hasn't achieved it). I've always thought comedy is one of the best ways to observe and examine such problems (while making fun of them), so here's a good example of how being a white male is still seen as a superior position in our society. Warning, contains expletives! Louie CK Loves Being a White Male! Davidson calls the idea of America being unified after the American Revolution a myth; I agree. How unified could we be when we have categorical distinctions like high and low culture? (All of you probably thought, stand-up comedy, how low brow to post in an academic blog, right?) 

Finally, I also loved Davidson's inclusion of questions every few paragraphs. Again, this harkens back to a more philosophical exploration of the time period. I especially liked the question, "Is reading the same book sharing a culture?" Initially, I thought, "why, yes, yes it is;" however, I feel like I need to consider this question more deeply, especially in relation to the various definitions of culture. The complexity of definitions is another problem Davidson highlights, and I enjoyed her discussions of gender, race, equality, and subversion; each of these ideas is defined differently by different people and especially different periods of time. Although I do not consider myself a relativist, I felt that Davidson's discussion of cultural construction of terms was relevant to her argument, and pertinent to the reflection she is doing in the introduction. 

Overall, I am (now) excited to be working with this book for my presentation in a couple of weeks! 

Capitalism and Democracy in Print

My reading experience of Chapter 4 was much better than the previous sections. It could be because this Chapter interested me more than the others (except the end of Chapter 3 on Education). Overall, I found the evolution of the printing industry and it's relationship to the postal service fascinating. To think about the creation of governmental policies like copyrights as such an organic process--Do they have rights for 14 years? until they die? After they die? Do they have rights over the characters they create?--to be refreshing after the last chapter. I also liked that Starr pointed out America's fascination with cheap things on page 126: 

    The rise of cheap books and other forms of cheap print in the United States also reflected distinctive patterns for the nineteenth-centure American consumer markets..."Americans readily accepted products which had been deliberately desgined for low cost, mass production methods"  at a time when handmade goods persisted in Britain. Books fit this pattern.

I feel like I can relate to those Americans, as I haven't bought a Kindle/Nook/I-Pad, since I can't buy used books on them for $2.00. And, electronics are expensive! 

Unlike the last couple of readings, I devored this chapter and highlighted/annotated like a mad woman. There are lots of notes saying "Fun!" and "w00t!" on page 133. I like the idea of publishers wanting to have a bit of fun with their readers by "publishing outright hoaxes, such as...a British astronomer's supposed discovery of strange forms of life on the moon" (133). I also found the discussion of writers fictionalizing and spicing up murder cases to make them more alluring to readers of particular interest. I kept thinking about the musical Chicago (particularly the "We Both Reached for the Gun" scence/song) in relation to the Jewett murder case (even though Chicago is supposed to take place during the prohibition-era in the 1920's). I was also surprised to learn that as early as the 1830's material was published about murders that invovled sexual relationships.

Finally, there were two names that popped out at me while reading. First, Mathew Carey (p.122) sounded familiar. However, I realized that the only reason why was because I was thinking of Matthew Carey from Old School (whoops!). I wish that I'd known about the 'real' Mathew Carey sooner; after some googling I found out that he was 15 when he decided to become a bookseller and publisher--talk about a motivated dude--and that he was actually an immigrant from Ireland. He's known for publishing an encyclopedia, the Bible, and a German dictionary, but he also published some interesting pamphlets--one that criticized dueling (according to wikipedia)! I also read about his periodical called The American Museum which is notable because it was possibly the first to treat American culture as one that was rich and valuable in-and-of-itself, instead of comparing it to Great Britain.

The other name that jumped out at me was David S. Reynolds (p. 136), and it was familiar for the right reasons. He wrote my favorite Whitman biography, Walt Whitman's America, which I highly recommend!!! I was also happy to see Whitman's name mentioned on page 137 because it meant that Reynolds was getting closer to a period of time I am familiar with (1870-1970 is more of my kind-of century). I guess the first publication of Leaves of Grass was 1855, but Whitman was alive and furiously editing for a while (until 1892).


Last week, I thought I would be happy to put Starr back on the shelf, but now I have the desire to read/skim through the rest of the book and see what he has to offer!

Starr's America

Currently, I'm in Austin contemplating driving back to Fort Worth down a 1-35, which is surrounding by sporadic wildfires and gusts of black smoke. Fortunately, I have FaceBook, Twitter, Wundermap, news websites, etc. to tell me "Hey, you might want to wait until tomorrow morning."

My how things have changed since the 1700's.

Never in fifty pages have I learned so much information I did not know previously. That being said, I had a difficult time deciding what to focus on for my blog post. I found Starr's writing to be a little bit too -"Team America" - for me at times, but overall I think he makes some very valid points. I rather enjoyed his assertion that the creation of a free(er) press became the central vehicle for public discussion in America.

"They [newspapers] have become the vehicles of discussion in which the principles of government, the interests of nations, the spirit and tendency of public measure, and the public and private characters of individuals are all arranged, tried, and decided. Instead, therefore, of being considered now, as they once were, of small moment in society, they have become immense moral and political engines, closely connected with the welfare of the state, and deeply involving both its peace and prosperity" (70).

If the newspaper allowed for the sparking of such debates, then we can relate the flow of information to our own age and consider the importance of the information technologies we discussed in class on Tuesday. Do we value the free speech that we have on such forums? And, do these types of informational news sources (blogs, facebook, twitter, cnn.com, etc) facilitate the same types of values as Samuel Miller said the newspaper did in 1808 in the above quotation? Also, I became more involved in Starr's discussion of the newspapers as "the central venue of public discussion independent of government" upon reflection (after I finished all of the reading).

The publication and availability of the Constitution and heavy inclusion of federalist materials in newspapers was particularly of interest. Does the media not become one-sided when it is only publishing and producing pieces that are pro-government? I think Starr a bit of a positive spin on the way anti-federalists handled their lack of voice. Starr says:

"Federalist domination of the debate seemed to the anti-federalists to validate the threat to the public sphere that they saw in the Constitution's failure to guarantee freedom of the press. But though their views may have been under-represented in print, the anti-federalists' participation in the debate may have helped them reconcile them to the result: The political outcome of ratification was not only that the Constitution was adopted, but that the opponents did not contest its legitimacy afterward--indeed, they quickly disappeared as a distinct force and became part of a loyal opposition seeking to modify the new government rather than overturn it" (72).

Clearly, for Starr, the anti-federalists desire for modifying, rather that overthrowing, this new government paved the way for a more democratic society (even though, as he points out a few sentences after this quote, that the federalists continued to have the power for some time). I'm also curious how the anti-federalists participated in the debate when their views weren't represented. Anyone have any good examples other than the publication of the Anti-Federalist Papers? Nice Chart! I did some wikipedia perusing and found that the anti-federalists were offended for being called so because they felt that they were in fact the 'true federalists' and possessed the correct values, which I thought was pretty interesting considering how particular people today are about the labels they assign to themselves and that others assign to them.

Back to my argument though, Starr's description of events where the powerful and the less-powerful were in opposition, almost always contains a positive tone and almost an "everyone wins!" message. For instance, his discussion of the Stamp Act (65) as an act that politicized, rather than stifled the press is an interesting example. The evidence and facts he selects to illustrate how productive a nation becomes when there is a struggle between the powerful and less powerful is a little unsettling (for me). I almost felt at times that Starr was arguing that these tensions lead to revolution (which is often in the form of war) and result in positive political change. In some ways, I felt like he downplayed the struggle that Americans experienced because he depicts early Americans as such revolutionaries that it almost seems like America organically and naturally occurred with little strife. Superheroes who invent their own superpowers like Iron Man and Batman often seem more heroic (because of their choice to become superheroes) than ones who just supposedly had powers within them since birth, for instance, Superman (who is assuming it is his destiny). In Chapter 2, I feel like Starr depicts early Americans as more like Superman. Although, he does illustrate some struggles, he gives examples where one event somehow "solved" an ongoing problem. For instance, his discussion of seditious libel on pages 58-9. He seems to attribute this change specifically to the Zenger case, and claims that "[b]etween 1735 and the American Revolution, the risk of being tried for seditious libel by British colonial authorities effectively disappeared" (59). Is this the only case that factored into the change? What was going on in Britain at the time? Were the courts handling lots of other cases? Was it too expensive to fight all of these cases? I don't know...

Maybe I'm just being overly critical, but I feel like the whole 'political decisions made by America were always right or > European methods' is a little thin. I suppose I just want more from Starr, which could be the result of me knowing very little about this time period, so I want to question the evidence he is giving me. Perhaps it's the years of philosophical training I have in me too; always question what you're told, which is a problem when reading a historical account of the creation of the media in America. Overall, I felt very enlightened by these chapters while reading them and feel that I truly learned a great deal. However, once the wheels started turning and I sat down to digest and think about all I'd read, I become frustrated with all the "yey!" "wow!" star and :) notes I'd made in the margins.

Of Starr, Science Fiction, Socrates, & Swift

Paul Starr, The Creation of the Media (Introduction & Chapter 1)

My initial dive into Starr’s book was a bit like nails-on-a-chalkboard. It’s been quite some time since I’ve read non-fiction, especially a political/historical text. That being said, I found myself reading in ten page chunks, which actually turned out to be a valuable reading experience because I had more time to digest the text. I found myself constantly thinking about how some of the material not only relates to the time period Starr is discussing, but also our own culture and how rapidly technology and the media have changed since I’ve been on this earth. (26 years and counting…)

I enjoyed Starr’s emphasis on the “information revolution” as a series of events that are interesting to examine in-and-of-themselves, as well as in relation to other socio-political movements occurring. I am often frustrated by writers to who claim that ONE MOVEMENT in history or literature or music or art dramatically changed the rest of the world/time. So, I rather enjoyed Starr’s style of examining, not only the particular, but also the techno-socio-political gestalt and global as well.

Honestly, Starr’s Introduction did not make me want to read the first chapter. I felt like it was quite rushed, filled with jargon and definitions, and it felt rather ‘textbooky’ to me. However, after going back and looking over my notes, Starr did make some assertions I found useful upon reading Chapter 1. I rather enjoyed his assertion that “A new technology may have particular consequences because of its architecture, not because that is the only way it could be. Architectural choices are often politics by other means, under the cover of technical necessity” (Starr 6). I think ideas of governmental control in relation to the flow (or lack of) information provided to citizens is what interested me most while reading Starr. As an avid reader of Science Fiction, often a government or agency’s ability to withhold, alter, or program (not just computers, sometimes people) the information a population receives is what makes societies become utopian or dystopian within a text—Big Brother is watching! or Believe in The Books of Bokonon!—right?  All of the discussion of sneaky governmental methods for controlling the flow of information (stamp taxes, “Printed by Authority”, licenses, etc.) fascinated me!

Also, I found the history of the commodification of printing and bookselling fascinating. Starr’s discussion (25-6) illuminated how publishing is the penultimate example of capitalism. The changes in technology (handwritten—printing press—typewriters—computers—to now, the internet! Oh, and I-pads-pods-phones) that cultures experience, not only greatly affect their ability to access information, but also their ability to think critically and examine the culture/spirit/historical place in which they exist(ed). Socrates is famous for saying, “The unexamined life is not worth living” during his trial where he was being charged for corrupting the youth and undermining religion and the government (basically, he pissed off the wrong people). The depiction of Socrates in Plato’s Apology, is an excellent example of a government controlling the information a group of people had access to. Not only were they putting Socrates to death for spreading “false ideals;” the government was threatened by the message of free thought Socrates spread.

Socrates’s death is somewhat analogous to the Starr’s discussion of the danger associated with newspapers in the 1500’s: “Newspapers could be especially dangers to authority because of the immediacy and potential political sensitivity of news; they also seemed an affront and a vulgarity to some guardians of custom and social prerogative who upheld the traditional norms of privilege in political communication” (33). To link my earlier point about political dystopian Science Fiction to Socrates and Starr, the government’s ability to limit a populations’ access to information—whether it be by intergalactic warfare, biological weaponry, microchip brain implants, computer-hacking, sentencing one of the greatest philosophers of all time to death, or creating licensing and stamp laws to limit and shut down newspapers—access to information (whether it be free or something we pay for) is necessary to our existence. I can’t help but believe that it’s difficult to examine one’s own place it the world if one is not provided with information about the state of the world. That being said, I’m glad newspapers fought the good fight for us! And way to go Harley for getting Swift and Defoe to write propaganda! Where would this world be without Gulliver’s Travels?

“I could perhaps like others have astonished you with strange improbable tales; but I rather chose to relate plain matter of fact in the simplest manner and style; because my principal design was to inform you, and not to amuse you.” –Swift, Gulliver’s Travels

 Finally, I rather enjoyed perusing the APS and Wikipedia-ed myself (you know, when you click on link after link and end up on a page that has nothing to do with what you're actually supposed to be researching?) Maybe I should changed that to wikied (it's a technical term). So, I now have a nice little article for class from The New York Observer about Drunkards! since I typed in "pernicious children" after reading about pernicious children's books for a bit. 

Rowdy Dog!

Since everyone else posted pics of their adorable pups, I felt I was neglecting my little Rowdy Roo. He's pretty darn cute, right?

About Me!

KANDACE LYTLE

1) Where are you from?  How would you describe your hometown?

I am originally from Sugar Land, TX, but after spending 8 years in Austin, I now consider myself a Houstonian-Austinite. Growing up in (what is now called Old) Sugar Land in the 90's was an interesting existence. I grew up in a historic home, rode my bike everywhere, and was very fond of my neighbors and their pets. My family was very much your typical 'white middle-class cul-de-sac family'; interestingly though, Fort Bend County is the most multiculturally diverse county in America. I was exposed to lots of different cultures and learned lessons of difference and acceptance quickly through my interactions with people of other cultures/nationalities. I feel blessed to have been exposed to such an interesting collection of culture, food, music, religion, etc. at such a young age.

2) Describe yourself as a reader.

I'm an avid reader of many different types of literature. As an undergraduate, I explored my passion for American Literature and Poetry. Now,  I read Whitman at least once a week (if not once a day) and typically find myself gravitating toward The Beatniks, The Lost Generation, and American novels written in the last 10-20 years. I love classic Golden Age Children's Literature and more recent Young Adult Literature (particularly Science Fiction and Fantasy). I have recently re-established my love for Comic Books, and the now more popular form, Graphic Novels. I also read quite a bit of Science Fiction, the occasional fantasy novel, and anything that could possibly be considered Magical Realism. I'm the type of reader that wants to read the book before I see the movie, especially 'popular' fiction (for example, something like The Lovely Bones or The Help). I'm also addicted to cooking blogs and magazines, travel blogs, and blogs about everything geeky or film related (I love The Mary Sue, Screen Rant, Dark Horizons, etc). I also have subscriptions to a number of literary journals that pertain to my field and try to read them in my free time (PCA, ChLAQ, ChLA, IAFA, MLA). Finally, give me anything about music and I'll read it cover to cover. Some of my favorite books are by witty writers who love pop culture (Chuck Klosterman being my favorite) or music historians (Led Zeppelin is my favorite band, and of all of the books I've read about them Hammer of the Gods is my favorite) or by the artist's themselves (currently getting into Jay-Z's Decoded). Finally, I'll pretty much anything with talking animals; anthropomorphism is fun! (right?)

3) Describe yourself as a writer.

As an academic writer, I feel like I'm on a never ending quest for confidence. I do not think there is such a thing as a perfect paper, but I'd like to feel like I've accomplished the art of writing a polish paper. I also write creatively (poetry, children's literature, comedic screenplays, and stand-up comedy) in my spare time. 

4) What are your goals for this semester?

I want to learn as much as I can and practice the art of time management. I'd like to do well in my coursework (which doesn't necessarily mean 'get an A'), rather, I'd like to form good relationships with my professors and peers. Outside of the classroom, I'd like to get back in shape and explore Fort Worth as much as possible. 

5) Describe the worst class or the worst teacher you have ever had.

This is a very bizarre example, but the worst teacher I ever had was actually my high school dance teacher/dance team coach. She squandered my love of dance as an art form and wanted to teach it like mathematics (shudders, lots of 'worst class' examples from High School algebra courses as well). I think a good teacher excites his/her students. They should be invested in strengthening their student's love for the subject or at least encouraging their students to develop a relationship with the subject. The dance teacher I had did neither; instead, she made well-trained dancers feel inadequate and people who were not well-trained think that dance was a grueling sport, not an art. 

6) List three books that have deeply touched your life.

Walt Whitman - Leaves of Grass

Margaret Atwood - Oryx and Crake

Mikhail Bulgakov - The Master and Margarita

Richard Yates - Revolutionary Road (sorry, I cheated, but I couldn't eliminate one of them)

7) List three things that you know about the US during the years 1770-1830.

American Revolution

1819 Walt Whitman was born!

1780s-1820s (I think) was the big Maritime Fur Trade, which almost caused my favorite animal (Sea Otters) to go extinct :(

12) Tell me three things that I ought to know about you.

I went to Southwestern University in Georgetown for my Undergrad (BA in English, BA in Philosophy, Dance minor and Texas State for my graduate degrees (MA in Literature, MA in Applied Philosophy & Ethics).

I feel the most alive when I go to a really good concert (and I can't play a musical instrument).

I have a list of 30 things to do before I'm 30. Learning to play a musical instrument is on it.