My part of The Gothic Presentation

The rise of the gothic style at the end of the eighteenth century shows the shift to a more modern form of writing

It has been characterized as a dark change from classical to modern

The gothic * * extends from around 1764 to 1820

An important point between medieval and enlightened worlds

Early writings characteristically use medieval and renaissance epochs

Some argue that this is a case of distancing the works from the eighteenth century itself

Thus would mean that the work is self aware, ad thus modern

Foucault said that the difference the difference between episteme and modernity is that the modern distinguishes itself through historical awareness

It has been argued that this was time when the reader was becoming truly aware of the historical accuracy of a piece, thus creating a lot of the criticism of the genre itself.

A review of Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho:

The manners do not sufficiently correspond with the aera the author has chosen; which is the latter end of the sixteenth century. There is, perhaps no direct anachronism, but the style of accomplishments given to the heroine, a country young lady, brought up on the banks of the Garonne; the mention of botany; of little circles of infidelity. &c. give so much the air of modern manners, as is not counterbalanced by the gothic arches and antique furniture.

An obvious slight at her assumed disregard for historical accuracy

The point of the novel, among other things, was to satirize and speak on social, political, and philosophical concerns

Their settings did little to hide this fact

Foucault also speaks on how the gothic served to highlight the enlightened and humanitarian hate for barbarism and acts violence and torture in the eighteenth century

This hate can be seen in how the gothic is fascinated and yet horrified by these kinds of acts as well a the interest in: madness delinquency, criminal behavior, perverse acts, sexuality, and violent acts like torture

Gothic architecture

A style of architecture the that saw wide use during the medieval period of history

It took a lot of the architecture of the Romans, and was in a lot of ways the next step.

The term Gothic appeared in the later Renaissance period as a stylistic insult.

Gothic architecture is most commonly associated with the religious sites: Cathedrals, abbeys , churches, and castles of Europe.

The gothic revival was occurring during the same period where the Gothic trend in literature was occurring. It’s hard to imagine this as a mere coincidence.

The Architecture is important because of it’s association with the subject matter.

Dark foreboding castles, left over’s of a harsher time. Possibly run by tyrants who torture and kill any who oppose them.

These images coupled with the setting create a powerful dread and give the work it’s intended tone

The other side of the architecture, the mystery of it, allows for the gothic writers to incorporate supernatural aspects like ghosts

From that point other supernatural creatures like vampires and werewolves come into frame and become associated with the gothic in general

Other serotypes of the gothic, such as the persecution and sexualization of women can easily be attributed to the burgeoning enlightenment of the time and the rise of numerous female authors

 

Rasselas

I’m going to try and avoid the topic of setting vs reality or historical consciousness in this post. I discuss it briefly in my presentation on Tuesday and would save it for then. What sparks this particular blog-post, other then the fact that one is due, is the idea of false impressions. It was argued in class that we were tricked into the reading on Rasselas because we thought we were getting an “oriental” fantasy/adventure. Then we receive what is mostly, conversations on various philosophies.

Perhaps it was the Orientalist presentation in class and then the discussion that spark my train of thought, but I thought almost immediate of the movie entitles “The Kingdom”. It is a vastly underrated movie about hostilities in the middle east. It’s more complex then that but I’m narrowing it down for the sake length. My point is, the movie was pitched as an action movie, and yes it had action. But the majority of the movie was discussion and it encouraged the viewer to make up there own mind as too who is really the villain in a conflict of that sort.

What I’m getting at is simple, if they had pitched the movie any other way it wouldn’t have made as much money or reached as many people. Even pitching it as a “smart action movie” would have made it loose sales. The book does the same thing, and even if it is deceiving or panders to it’s audience at points, it does so to get it’s message heard. And in a way that is almost commendable.

Shamala

I know this one is a long time coming but I feel I must address it anyway before I move on. Shamela isn’t too bad. I actually preferred it over Antipamela, and I will elaborate on why. Shamela is self contained. Without reading Pamela one can still find a competent and engaging story.

This is where I may begin to split hairs, I’m not trying to define certain words or there means so just roll with me. Antipamela is what I would concider a spoof. Somthing I regard as the lowest form of satire. It completely requires the original peice to be apreciated or even understood. More so, without the original peice one could gather it would never exist atall, it almost steals form the original subject matter and is, in my oppion, lazy. Shamala could potencial stand on it’s own and satirizes notions that are common in fiction and though it does open satirize Pamela, see it’s title, one could argue with another name it could stand on it’s own seperate from Pamela.

These are my opinions only, and just describe my feelings for the work.

Antipamela

I found this one surprisingly interesting. In comparison to Pamela that is. It feels more honest, more fleshy. Believable, I suppose is the best word to describe it. Not because I think all women are deceitful, *wink wink*, but because this situation feels more believable then the entirely pure one found in Pamela. Women are sexual creatures too, and they know this. They also know men are aswell. I find the idea of using ones sexuality to an advantageous affect more interesting than denying it. Even if it is used for immoral gain. It simply makes for a more interesting character and a more realistic portrayal of human kind. Though I can’t agree with the methods on a moral level, I respect the idea of her taking power into her own hands.

So in short, I liked it. I like “unlikable characters” if you know me that makes sense. the bad guys are always more interesting then the virtuous heros. This reminds me of the figure of Hedda Gabler in a sense, and I loved Hedda Gabler so kudos indeed to Antipamela for even making me reference Hedda Gabler. So no complains about this one, looking forward to finishing Shamela and writing on it.

Eh, it’s not bad

I didn’t mind Pamela. Toward the end it got interesting, what with the social drama going on between Pamela and Mr.B’s sister. I’m not much of a drama fan, least not this type, but it had a charm to it given the format. As I mentioned before, i love journal/letter style fiction. So the style got me through and i enjoyed it in spite of myself. I’m not sure whether that’s a win or not. I was wrong, sort of, but at the same time i didn’t completely loath life while reading it. Guess i’ll chalk this up to a draw. Atleast it didn’t beat me like RC on mars did.

Note this is a bit late. I was really stacked with work the last two weeks and was unable to keep up with this blog properly. No worries though! I’ll be writing on Anti-Pamela tomorrow, and responding to the class discussion on Tuesday. So I will be all caught up! Huzzah!

It’s that time again…

For a sarcasm ridden rant! I’m not one to repeat myself, so I won’t.  I have basically the same complains for Pamela as I had for  Fantomina. However. It at least shows the rise of a common person to “nobility”. I  respect that. But I still find it to be fluff. It just lacks in everything I come to expect of a work of high art and falls into the popular literature category and not among the all time greats.

I love the style. But form hardly breeds substance, and that is what I starve for. It can be a good way to look at the way people lived at that time, sure. But it doesn’t speak to me.  I just don’t find it deep. And I’m never moved by it. I’ll give an example. I’m reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court in another one of my classes. Not only is it a good read, the early humor and sarcastic wit make it quite a page turner, but it also has depth. The social commentary is biting, and there are scenes that rock to the core. There was one chapter in particular that choked me up and I’m throughly hallow as a human being. I suppose what I’m getting at is that I’m not entirely sold on Pamela as a classic work to rival the greats. But it is interesting enough none the less and easy to read. So my complaints are done for the day.

Fantomina and RC on Mars (don’t get excited)

We spoke a lot in class on th subject of freedom. And interesting thought to be sure, but as I listened to the back and forth debate one argument spoke out to me; the idea that Fantomina wasn’t free because she was under the authority of her mother. This falls in line with my thoughts on the matter, she was never free. The social structure would never alow it. She would always have her place as a woman, even small instances of rebellion were only delaying the enviable, she would eventually be a part of the system. Now, this is hardly a revolutionary thought. But one fact no looked at was whether or not Beauplaisir was in fact free. Before I’m burned at the stake for this thought hear me out. Both belong to a system where their live are set on a straight path from the time of their birth. Being a man he has more rights, but is  in fact marred by the same system. And I now hear the out cry, saying  that he was allowed to be a scoundrel so why pity him, and you are right, I’m not defending his character. But if  we are to pull that card we should also look at what n empty life that is. He received sex, but never companionship. He was following the social order, which never allowed him another path. He gained nothing but momentary pleasure from the reationship. Now lets look at both parties. Fantomina obviously get’s the worst of the punishment , this was never something I was going to deny. But men of that time were cemented in set roles aswell. And for all we know he went on to live a miserable and lonely life.  Also looking at freedom, Fantomina was never really showing much liberty when you consider the fact that she was spending someone elses money during this whole debacle. I see little liberty in this piece, besides sexual.  All I see is waste, leading me to my final thoughts on the piece…I just don’t care.

Now to explain. When I say I don’t care, I mean it doesn’t move me. I grew to hate both characters because although witty the lacked sense. I have the same problem relating to other high society characters in books such as ”Pride and Prejudice”. It boils down to waste. The whole matter seems such a frivolous waste of time and money to me that I’m filled with disdain for the characters when I should feel sympathy. The insipid whining and lack of common sense issued by these people only adds to my disgust, until I no long care what happens to them. I don’t find the rich particularly interesting. If a poor woman had done all this with her own modest income I would have been impressed, and praised her attempts at liberation. The whole, “while mother is away the girl will play” thing, is extremely childish. especially considering the complete sleaze-ball she ends up falling for. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have refrained. But no. Our characters are far too stupid to quit while they’re ahead. Good thing pregnancy was there to put an end to the shenanigans! Might aswell just watch Maury.

Now that my Fantomina rant is done let’s discuss RC on Mars. I never finished it. Yes, I’m well aware how disappointed you are in me. But fear not! I watched enough to talk about it. It’s boring. I know how shocking that must be to read but…my god. Half way through I actually fell asleep. Don’t get me wrong it is ridiculous. But like the novel much time is spent surviving and we just see the man (whose name is not Robinson Crusoe by the way) doing trivial things like walking. Only small parts are narrated, the rest is mostly silent and not exciting in the least.  It also follows little from the book. The big things are there, but it feels like they only read the back cover of the novel. It seems only the editor was stranded on a deserted island here. But hey, it taught me monkeys can breath on mars! The more you know. Anyway, to make up for my lack of a full review I’m going to suggest and alternative. If you’re looking for a terrible movie to laugh at, watch Turkish Star Wars, also known as The Man Who Saved The World. It is available online and is probably the worst movie ever made . Those who aren’t familiar with foreign, rip off or exploitation films, should probably bring booze. This movie is a cinematic nightmare that actually steals music and scenes from other movies to fill in large gaps, and yet still makes no sense. Have fun, but stay safe.

 

Also note: my computer is lagging considerably. I’ll be editing this, but I still may miss some mistakes.

Final Thoughts on Robinson Crusoe

I think I’d like to start by addressing the topics of hypocrisy and slavery. To someone familiar to my style of writing such a blunt opening my seem strange, but fear not; I do have a point. As we discussed in class there is a permeating theme of wavering levels to Crusoe’s religious devotion. Or to put it in slightly more colloquial terms, he is a terrible example of a Christian. This my not be fair given that not many christians can really be considered “Christ-like” (to quote Bill Maher), so to bash Crusoe for wavering faith may be hypocritical in itself, as was pointed out in class. But that isn’t what I’m here to discuss so allow me to move on for now.

Crusoe, on slavery. Well, what can be said that hasn’t? He was a slave, any one would think his would change his opinion on it. Those long hard years of servitude, that would make any man humble and compassionate. No, not really. He sells his fellow escapee off, after promising him freedom no less, then later seeks slaves on his own. Also something not discussed in class was his want to liberate prisoners on the island…to be made his servants. No again, this must be taken in historical context. Slavery was normal at this time and few people would have thought Crusoe wrong for any of this.

Now after long last I can finally get to my point, since the first sentence established those two topics were only the beginning. I just needed to frame my single complain (other than those mentioned in early blogs  of course), Robinson Crusoe. No, that was not a typo. My complaint with the novel after finishing, was Crusoe the character. I love the style, and by that I mean the false autobiography. Two of my favorite pieces of short fiction are,”The Yellow Wallpaper” (Gilman) and “Jerusalem’s Lot” (King). I love reading Journal based fiction because it feels extremly personal…when you can relate to the character. Crusoe may have been the everyman of his day, but in the present he is a wishy-washy, fair weather, clueless, ass. The reason why I do not fully address his hypocrisies is they are inherent to his character.  love th scene where he finds to money on the wrecked ship to show this point. He almost won me over with the idea of the money being worthless so he would leave it…then he takes it! His religious and humane (slave related) ideas are the same. Every time character development begins he then falters a goes back to the status quo. Being a slave never changed his views on it, nor does his faith ever seem to really peak and stay constant (arguments about the lack of religion off the island will be avoided, I want this to stay short). Again, arguments can made, this is just how I feel.

Robinson Crusoe was just not written for me. I appreciate the style, but not the themes. hating the title character never helps the reading, but at th same time it reminds me how much it must have sucked to live in the 1700’s. After all hell is other people, and he is their everyman.

Should be interesting.

I think I will embark on a grand journey of my own this weekend. I’m going to watch Robison Crusoe on Mars. I can’t vouch for what state of mind I will be in during the viewing; or after given the content. But I will probably write a short review of it. I may even go into how faithfully it is to the original story. What fun!

Heres’ hoping they accurately recreate Crusoe’s random capitals by having the actor shout some words randomly for emphasis.

In regards to my progress in said novel, it’s going better. Still not great but I’m trying to let go of my petty gripes and just read. Glad the story has progressed  a bit and is getting more exciting. I was worried it would get monotonous, a major problem since I wasn’t enjoying the first chunk of the novel. So all is well. I’m also glad the capitalization I keep mocking has been somewhat explained. The Germans are of course always easy to blame, but it could be for emphasis aswell I suppose. All things I had guessed at anyway, I just like to be sure. I’m also considering checking out these travel books mentioned in class. and now that my post is properly cyclical I’ll end it here. Good day

EHHH…

This is slow moving. I’m sure my lack of subject may confuse thee, but no worries, your confusion is  irrelivent. It’s all moving slowly. This page, slow. Cryptic functions, navigating feels like driving bricks…well, just driving bricks. They don’t have wheels, thus they don’t move well or fast. It took some time to even figure out how to fix my title. I spelled defenestration wrong, teaches me for being pretentious (and up at 2am). The text, well. Let’s just say I’ve started it. How far I am I will not say. But early signs are not good. Small punctuation and capitalization errors fill me with disgust as I trudge through the thoughts of a boring man, whom I’m growing to hate. I say errors knowing full well that they were not thus at the time it was written. And I say boring in that he himself is, not the situation he finds himself. The fact that I felt the need to explain this means I’ve either lost faith in my peers, or I’m too tired to just write without the worry of backing up my points…on my own blog.

It’s time for bed.