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.