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