In section we were given a passage from Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. There was one line in the piece that obviously stands out, as Marlow quotes Kurtz's postscript on the report he wrote, "Exterminate all the brutes!" What this means and why it was included- like almost everything else in the novella- is not made clear in Marlow's telling of the story. He does not make any attempt to interpret the meaning behind these words for the audience, but he refers to it as "valuable."
This leave us, once again, to make assumptions about what these four words could mean. Is he referring to the savages that surround him? Or is he perhaps making a commentary on the people that sent him there? The "Europe [that] contributed to the making of Kurtz." We don't really find out what team Kurtz is playing for after Marlow discovers him.
I stand by the comment that I made in section about why Marlow calls Kurtz's exclamation valuable. I think that any hint about the makeup of Kurtz's new personality serves as valuable to Marlow. He has become Marlow's subject of study, so the extreme change in the man is nothing if not fascinating to him. What I wish we knew was when the postscript was written. We have no clue as to whether he wrote it at the same time as the rest of the pamphlet, or if it was a new opinion that he had made.
Personally I think that Kurtz is restating bluntly what he likely already said. Marlow says that the report, "was eloquent, vibrating with eloquence, but too high-strung." It is hard to say something like "exterminate all the brutes," in a delicate manner. It is very likely that the high-strung language that Marlow is detecting is the tiptoeing around the truth of the matter. I imagine that people who consider themselves superior to the "savage" land that they have occupied would not want to admit straight out that they are disgusting human beings. Instead they send each other reports that are full of innuendos that paint the picture for the club that knows the code.
So Kurtz has decided to decode the report for the masses. This is what the report is expected to say and what it does say. "Exterminate all the brutes!" This leads me to believe that Conrad is making a point about imperialism and what was actually happening during this time. He wants people to know what isn't being said... by not saying it. He speaks the code and therefore we must too.
We Love Vampires!
I belong to a generation that can only be defined by its lack of definable characteristics. We are Generation Why?: the generation of facebook, texting and general apathy. Current events are hardly a blip on the perpetual computer screen, but there is a bloody war raging between teams Edward and Jacob. So what is it about vamps that has caused such a stir in pop culture in the past few years?
Here is where I introduce this crazy theory I'm working on that I like to call The Vampiric Reverse Mirror Stage. This is the idea that if we, as humans, all go through the mirror stage then there must be a similar process for vampires. I propose that the first time a Vampire looks in the mirror after the transformation, the opposite effect occurs.
According to Lacan, "We have only to understand the mirror stage as an identification, in the full sense that analysis gives to the term: namely, the transformation that takes place in the subject when he assumes an image." So the VR Mirror Stage, is a fragmenting process rather than the identification that Lacan is talking about here. In this case the subject loses its image, rather than assuming one. They are, essentially the others in the world now, and no longer have an other to look at in the mirror. They are a set of limbs flailing about reaching for some semblance of wholeness. They are no longer human and this symbolizes the absolute absence of humanity.
So you might be thinking, "What the heck does this have to do with apathetic youth?" and my answer once again refers back to the concept of identification, but this time we're back to the "real" world. We, as a group, have no identity as shown by the previously discussed lack of defining characteristics. So I think that it becomes easy to identify with these non-existent creatures who have always been somewhat illusive in their lore.
Hence the creation of the misunderstood vampire in the last decade or so. Vampires with souls and the capability to love (yada yada yada.) Young people can relate to these ideas of monsters who are just searching for their identity in the big bad world, because that's how they like to see themselves. They look through the screen and see themselves as the enchanting characters who are simply trying to figure out who the hell they are.
Plus, Vampires are the teenagers of all monsters: They are always hungry, they answer to no one, they go through friends like toilet paper, and they sleep all day. Anyone would feel connected, really.
More textual evidence about my fun little theory to be developed. Stay tuned!
Here is where I introduce this crazy theory I'm working on that I like to call The Vampiric Reverse Mirror Stage. This is the idea that if we, as humans, all go through the mirror stage then there must be a similar process for vampires. I propose that the first time a Vampire looks in the mirror after the transformation, the opposite effect occurs.
According to Lacan, "We have only to understand the mirror stage as an identification, in the full sense that analysis gives to the term: namely, the transformation that takes place in the subject when he assumes an image." So the VR Mirror Stage, is a fragmenting process rather than the identification that Lacan is talking about here. In this case the subject loses its image, rather than assuming one. They are, essentially the others in the world now, and no longer have an other to look at in the mirror. They are a set of limbs flailing about reaching for some semblance of wholeness. They are no longer human and this symbolizes the absolute absence of humanity.
So you might be thinking, "What the heck does this have to do with apathetic youth?" and my answer once again refers back to the concept of identification, but this time we're back to the "real" world. We, as a group, have no identity as shown by the previously discussed lack of defining characteristics. So I think that it becomes easy to identify with these non-existent creatures who have always been somewhat illusive in their lore.
Hence the creation of the misunderstood vampire in the last decade or so. Vampires with souls and the capability to love (yada yada yada.) Young people can relate to these ideas of monsters who are just searching for their identity in the big bad world, because that's how they like to see themselves. They look through the screen and see themselves as the enchanting characters who are simply trying to figure out who the hell they are.
Plus, Vampires are the teenagers of all monsters: They are always hungry, they answer to no one, they go through friends like toilet paper, and they sleep all day. Anyone would feel connected, really.
More textual evidence about my fun little theory to be developed. Stay tuned!
Pot Roast is a Little-Known Aphrodisiac
In class we talked about how during the Victorian Age, a proper woman could fill one of two roles pertaining to her sexuality. If she was unmarried, she could be pure and virginal in hopes of one day gaining a husband. Once she was married she could be seen as a "sexual" being. To be a bit hackneyed, society basically realized that it takes two to tango. The woman had to be involved in sex in order to have children, so only then was it okay. If women couldn't be wrapped into either of these pretty little boxes and tied up with ribbon, then she was a whore. End of story.
There was a similar notion in the 50's when the nuclear family came about and image became just as important as it had been in the 1800's. We can look at the characters in Blue Velvet (1989) as a quick example. Sandy is the ideal that society want's Jeffery to fall in love with. She is pure and wholesome and could easily settle down and pop our 2.5 children. Dorothy is a woman who is married and has a child, so her sexual nature is established. But because she is perceived by society as a sexualized single woman, she is looked at in the role of the whore.
The image of Audrey Hepburn shown above is a depiction of this sexuality in its controlled state. Do we know if this woman is married? No. She fulfills the fantasy that men were trained to have at the time. What makes this picture so erotic, despite being completely pg? A woman, cooking for you in a flattering dress, with a cigarette dangling casually- but sexily- from her lips. If she's someone's wife, you better believe that dinner will be on the table when her husband walks through the door. If she is a girlfriend, she'll be that kind of wife someday.
What makes this photo so sexy? Subservience of course! If that's not a reiteration of Victorian ideals, I don't know what is. Seems like a reoccurring theme don't it?
Vampires. Mirrors. Lacan.
"It amazed me that I had not seen him, since the reflection of the glass covered the whole room behind me... I turned to the glass again to see how I had been mistaken. This time there could be no error, for the man was close to me, and I could see him over my shoulder. But there was no reflection of him in the mirror!" (Stoker 26).
I can imagine that the connection between Lacan and vampires' inability to see themselves in the mirror have been linked to the nth degree, but I suggest that this class doesn't assign The Mirror Stage if you guys are sick of hearing about it. As it stands, I am going to go ahead and take a look at this unmistakable connection. There are several ways to interpret this scene in Bram Stoker's Dracula, all of which I can't really cover in this one post, so I am going to focus on Jonathan Harker's reaction to the missing "man" in the mirror.
Harker, being a grown man, has long ago experienced "The Mirror Stage," in which he gained recognition of his image and, therefore, his identity. In this class we have discussed this experience as a moment of self-othering, in the discovery of one's self as an object. This is why I propose that when Harker notices Dracula's lack of reflection, he is once again appearing to himself as other, as though going through this process all over again.
Despite the fact that Dracula is clearly in the room, he can only see himself in the mirror. So how can he differentiate himself from this vampire who stands before him? He looks back at Dracula and this is the moment where he is face to face with his Gothic other. The other that no longer exists in the mirror, but has found his way into the real world. This, "increase[s] the vague feeling of uneasiness that [he] always [has] whenever the Count is near" (Stoker 26).
This minor description of what has just been unleashed within the text is not lost on me. I think that this further proves my point in that, like a child, Harker has no clue what he has just discovered. He is only confused at the realization that he is facing a man, who he can see is whole, and yet there is no image in the mirror. Harker has yet to realize that he is, in fact, the equivalent of a mirror image to Dracula.
So the idea is that when I look at my Gothic other in the mirror every morning, my other is looking back at me. Harker can see himself in the mirror, because his other is right there beside him, being reflected.
I can imagine that the connection between Lacan and vampires' inability to see themselves in the mirror have been linked to the nth degree, but I suggest that this class doesn't assign The Mirror Stage if you guys are sick of hearing about it. As it stands, I am going to go ahead and take a look at this unmistakable connection. There are several ways to interpret this scene in Bram Stoker's Dracula, all of which I can't really cover in this one post, so I am going to focus on Jonathan Harker's reaction to the missing "man" in the mirror.
Harker, being a grown man, has long ago experienced "The Mirror Stage," in which he gained recognition of his image and, therefore, his identity. In this class we have discussed this experience as a moment of self-othering, in the discovery of one's self as an object. This is why I propose that when Harker notices Dracula's lack of reflection, he is once again appearing to himself as other, as though going through this process all over again.
Despite the fact that Dracula is clearly in the room, he can only see himself in the mirror. So how can he differentiate himself from this vampire who stands before him? He looks back at Dracula and this is the moment where he is face to face with his Gothic other. The other that no longer exists in the mirror, but has found his way into the real world. This, "increase[s] the vague feeling of uneasiness that [he] always [has] whenever the Count is near" (Stoker 26).
This minor description of what has just been unleashed within the text is not lost on me. I think that this further proves my point in that, like a child, Harker has no clue what he has just discovered. He is only confused at the realization that he is facing a man, who he can see is whole, and yet there is no image in the mirror. Harker has yet to realize that he is, in fact, the equivalent of a mirror image to Dracula.
So the idea is that when I look at my Gothic other in the mirror every morning, my other is looking back at me. Harker can see himself in the mirror, because his other is right there beside him, being reflected.
Anorexia Nervosa: The New Female Hysteria
Professor Moglen has placed a lot of attention on Female Hysteria in our study of the Gothic. She compared the impact of this illness on Victorian society to the wave of Anorexia Nervosa that can be seen in my own generation. After stumbling on the story of "The Girl on Page 194" I found myself looking more into the issue of eating disorders. I think that the comparison that Moglen makes is appropriate considering who is being effected by this sickness, and what is causing it.
This image of plus-size model, Lizzi Miller, appeared on page 194 of Glamour Magazine in their September 2009 issue. The response was explosive, as thousands of women wrote in to commend the publication for including a "real woman" in their magazine. Miller has become a staple for the (slow-going) movement to change the types of images displayed in magazines.
Models in fashion shows and advertisements tend to be stick-thin, leading to unrealistic expectations of both women and men. Looking at magazines and seeing the western ideals of beauty has made body image a major issue for women young and old. By being bombarded with these images, we begin to accept this body type as a realistic goal. There is no healthy way of living up to those standards unless you have the very rare genes for it. This is why it has resulted in the occurrence of overwhelming cases of weight loss in young girls who want to live up to these pictures.
This is where Female Hysteria and Anorexia intersect, as both of these illnesses are a result of the surrounding environment of the women who suffer from the diseases. The pressures of society lead to this sort of mental distortion. During the Victorian Age women were also expected to look and act in a way that was incredibly stressful on the psyche. It was outrageous for a woman to act as though they had feelings and personalities outside of the role that they were supposed to inhabit. So like in The Yellow Wallpaper they were further forced into helplessness.
In the case of Anorexia, the illness has reached the point of effecting the people who have already reached a point of "the ideal." After the picture in Glamour made such a stir, Ellen had Lizzi and several other plus sized models on her show to talk about the dark world of modeling.
When the women who's images are evoking this body image dilemma in the masses suffer to a further deterioration of health, it is clear that something needs to change. And that is what these women are trying to do to some degree. My more cynical self says that the women in this interview are using this opportunity to make work for themselves, but I have to ask myself, "Why the hell not?" I think that they are more beautiful than the disgustingly thin models who look like they might snap in half on the runway. So they deserve to be cut out and posted on mirrors everywhere, if they so desire.
I digress, the point that I am trying to make here is that the Gothic literature that we have been reading in this class have been written largely by people who are clearly trying to make a point about othering. Stevenson and Gilman had to be passive aggressive about the way that society was treating them, but this episode of Ellen hits the problem head on. This is the new Gothic. A world in which we can look at the problems within our society and say, "Shove it skinny bitches, we want real examples of how to be healthy on the cover of our magazines."
This image of plus-size model, Lizzi Miller, appeared on page 194 of Glamour Magazine in their September 2009 issue. The response was explosive, as thousands of women wrote in to commend the publication for including a "real woman" in their magazine. Miller has become a staple for the (slow-going) movement to change the types of images displayed in magazines.
Models in fashion shows and advertisements tend to be stick-thin, leading to unrealistic expectations of both women and men. Looking at magazines and seeing the western ideals of beauty has made body image a major issue for women young and old. By being bombarded with these images, we begin to accept this body type as a realistic goal. There is no healthy way of living up to those standards unless you have the very rare genes for it. This is why it has resulted in the occurrence of overwhelming cases of weight loss in young girls who want to live up to these pictures.
This is where Female Hysteria and Anorexia intersect, as both of these illnesses are a result of the surrounding environment of the women who suffer from the diseases. The pressures of society lead to this sort of mental distortion. During the Victorian Age women were also expected to look and act in a way that was incredibly stressful on the psyche. It was outrageous for a woman to act as though they had feelings and personalities outside of the role that they were supposed to inhabit. So like in The Yellow Wallpaper they were further forced into helplessness.
In the case of Anorexia, the illness has reached the point of effecting the people who have already reached a point of "the ideal." After the picture in Glamour made such a stir, Ellen had Lizzi and several other plus sized models on her show to talk about the dark world of modeling.
When the women who's images are evoking this body image dilemma in the masses suffer to a further deterioration of health, it is clear that something needs to change. And that is what these women are trying to do to some degree. My more cynical self says that the women in this interview are using this opportunity to make work for themselves, but I have to ask myself, "Why the hell not?" I think that they are more beautiful than the disgustingly thin models who look like they might snap in half on the runway. So they deserve to be cut out and posted on mirrors everywhere, if they so desire.
I digress, the point that I am trying to make here is that the Gothic literature that we have been reading in this class have been written largely by people who are clearly trying to make a point about othering. Stevenson and Gilman had to be passive aggressive about the way that society was treating them, but this episode of Ellen hits the problem head on. This is the new Gothic. A world in which we can look at the problems within our society and say, "Shove it skinny bitches, we want real examples of how to be healthy on the cover of our magazines."
Sweetie: Why it Sucked
So I may or may not have walked in the the showing of the film Sweetie (1989) with a bit of a bias, and not a good one. I'm not going to name any names (it was you Brian) but I was influenced to dread sitting through this 97 minute adaptation of contemporary. Let's just say I wasn't disappointed. (Don't worry I would have hated it all on my own.)
So per suggestion (Brian again), I gave it about 10 minutes before focusing the remaining 87 on why I hated the film so much. What was so bothersome about it? What about the characters and storyline irked me to such an intense degree? I think I came up with a semblance of an answer: a lack of control.
I have found in the last 20 years of my life that control happens to be a pretty big issue in my life. This is why I find it so surprising that I never noticed this element of the Gothic before viewing Sweetie. It seems that there is a reoccurring theme of lack of control throughout most of the texts that we have read. This starts as early as The Castle of Otranto, in the case of Isabella who is at the mercy of her duty to her family, and then to Manfred as she is living in his castle. Matilda and Hippolita are also controlled in this way, as all women seem to be in early Gothic literature.
We continue to see this idea throughout the earlier literature and on a less general level in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde when Jekyll wakes up in the skin of his alter-ego Hyde, without having taken his potion. By becoming two separate selves, he looses control of the bad within himself. He completely gives up to the evil within him, giving all of the power to Hyde.
On the same small scale- less to do with a greater society and more with the smaller constructions of an individual family- Sweetie (1989) revolves around characters who refuse to deal with their problems, letting them fester until the infection is so deep that it is nearly impossible to cure. Jane Campion successfully creates a family dynamic that is, by anyone's definition, absolutely Gothic. The film deals with very Freudian family issues, as well as self examination of the protagonist and her other, found in her sister who she (not-so-affectionately) refers to as Sweetie.
The title character is absolutely crazy: enter my distaste for the movie. Somehow, like a two-year-old who badly needs a spanking, Sweetie remains in control of her entire family through the use of tantrums. Too bad her father's parenting style is the equivalent of the new-aged, punishment-free households that made babysitting hell for me in high school. He treats his daughter, now a grown woman, as though she can do no wrong. Which is clearly not the case. This breeds the competitive nature of the relationship between his two daughters.
Yes, it was the appearance of Sweetie that stirred up my hatred for the film, but it wasn't actually her character that bothered me so much. It was Kay's reaction to her sister's arrival that made me want to punch the screen. If Sweetie is a two-year-old, Kay is her whiny, tattle-tail five-year-old sister. The day after her sister drops by uninvited Kay tells her, "you're supposed to have gone." I was pulling my hair out at this point. I'm sorry, but are you kidding me? This is an adult woman sharing a home with her lover, if she wants someone out of her home, she ought to just kick her ass out. I love my sister more than anything in the world, but you better believe if I walked into my two-bedroom home to find her having sex with a strange man in my bed she would be on the street.
Then there is an entire section from when they are leaving on their holiday which I've included below:
At that, Sweetie is constantly saying things like, "I'm not going back," which- although not directly stated- is an implication that she has been sent somewhere to deal with her mental state in the past. So my question is, if it is has been determined that she is not of sound mind, why doesn't anyone care enough to send her back where she came from? It is only after she terrorizes Kay, Louis, and the entire family, that they attempt to take admit her to an institution.
I know that there is an implication of resolution at the end of this film, but I was completely dissatisfied. Even as Kay tried to breath life back into her sister, there was no point in which anyone took control of their own life. Professor Moglen claims that Kay came to an acceptance of her other in the way she dealt with Sweetie's death, but in my opinion she made no improvements on herself. Just because she regained her desire to bone does not mean that she grew a backbone.
Two Can Keep a Secret if One of Them is Dead
It's difficult to say whether The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde confirms or defies this point. What is startling about this book is that it seems as though everyone knows the "secret" and yet we, the audience, are really never made privy to it. When we discussed this topic in class I brought up a point about the dream Utterson has about Jekyll's bedroom that I would like to further explore.
This scene is a reflection of the greater story on several levels. First, the way that the dream is describes doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what Utterson is actually seeing. Instead, the passage is filled with innuendos that we are left to interpret on our own. He dreams that Hyde awakens his friend and " there would stand by his side a figure to whom power was given, and even at that dead hour, he must rise and do its bidding" (Stevenson 19). Now, this can clearly be taken as a sexual reference. The blackmailing that Utterson assumes is taking place historically falls in line with the idea of homosexuality as cause for this sort of action. He presumes that Jekyll's debt to Hyde must be the result of "the cancer of some concealed disgrace" (Stevenson 28). So for Stevenson to make the setting of this imagined encounter in the bedroom seems to be a direct implication of sexual "misgivings."
I consider this dream to be the most apparent inference of the "secret" that none of these gentleman are willing to actually talk about. Jekyll's dual-personality can be interpreted this way based on Stevenson's own experiences and the Labouchere Amendment- which we talked about in section. The "blackmailer's charter," as it was referred to, is what seems to have been Stevenson's motivation behind this novella. That being said, Utterson's dream is the most explicit that Stevenson gets in reference to sexuality (homo or hetero), and even so, he really doesn't say all that much.
There is also the idea I brought up in section about how this moment shows the lack of privacy that is conveyed throughout the entire book. We talked about how everyone knows the business of everyone else and that no one can escape the surveillance of their peers. Really, what else do bored old men without wives or families have to talk about? They all gossip about Hyde and everyone has a different opinion about the appearance and manner of the man.
Even though this scene is the figment of Utterson's imagination, it is a particularly extreme invasion of Jekyll's privacy. Utterson is essentially watching a man in his bedroom and the actions taking place in his bed. A person's bed represents one of the most personal sanctuaries that exists. For Utterson to watch- even in his minds eye- Jekyll sleep as well as "do [the] bidding" of another man is to know everything about him (Stevenson 19). Despite the obvious existence of a "secret" throughout the entire story, there is really no way for anything to be secret. Everyone sees everything and nothing escapes the watchful eye of society.
The moment that "the curtains of the bed plucked apart" so is the thin veil that Stevenson has placed over the true nature of this story (Stevenson 19). There is no need for Jekyll's "secret" to be openly revealed to us during his confession, because when it comes down to it, Stevenson told us what it was as early as page 19.
The boys club that these men belong to clearly has less to do with being a gentleman, and more to do with protecting the reputation of a pal so he'll do the same in return. I guess I could amend the title of this post to "two (or more) can keep a secret if both of them have dirt on one another." Or maybe "two can keep a secret if there wasn't a secret to begin with." Then again, Jekyll does die, so maybe the saying is true.
This scene is a reflection of the greater story on several levels. First, the way that the dream is describes doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what Utterson is actually seeing. Instead, the passage is filled with innuendos that we are left to interpret on our own. He dreams that Hyde awakens his friend and " there would stand by his side a figure to whom power was given, and even at that dead hour, he must rise and do its bidding" (Stevenson 19). Now, this can clearly be taken as a sexual reference. The blackmailing that Utterson assumes is taking place historically falls in line with the idea of homosexuality as cause for this sort of action. He presumes that Jekyll's debt to Hyde must be the result of "the cancer of some concealed disgrace" (Stevenson 28). So for Stevenson to make the setting of this imagined encounter in the bedroom seems to be a direct implication of sexual "misgivings."
I consider this dream to be the most apparent inference of the "secret" that none of these gentleman are willing to actually talk about. Jekyll's dual-personality can be interpreted this way based on Stevenson's own experiences and the Labouchere Amendment- which we talked about in section. The "blackmailer's charter," as it was referred to, is what seems to have been Stevenson's motivation behind this novella. That being said, Utterson's dream is the most explicit that Stevenson gets in reference to sexuality (homo or hetero), and even so, he really doesn't say all that much.
There is also the idea I brought up in section about how this moment shows the lack of privacy that is conveyed throughout the entire book. We talked about how everyone knows the business of everyone else and that no one can escape the surveillance of their peers. Really, what else do bored old men without wives or families have to talk about? They all gossip about Hyde and everyone has a different opinion about the appearance and manner of the man.
Even though this scene is the figment of Utterson's imagination, it is a particularly extreme invasion of Jekyll's privacy. Utterson is essentially watching a man in his bedroom and the actions taking place in his bed. A person's bed represents one of the most personal sanctuaries that exists. For Utterson to watch- even in his minds eye- Jekyll sleep as well as "do [the] bidding" of another man is to know everything about him (Stevenson 19). Despite the obvious existence of a "secret" throughout the entire story, there is really no way for anything to be secret. Everyone sees everything and nothing escapes the watchful eye of society.
The moment that "the curtains of the bed plucked apart" so is the thin veil that Stevenson has placed over the true nature of this story (Stevenson 19). There is no need for Jekyll's "secret" to be openly revealed to us during his confession, because when it comes down to it, Stevenson told us what it was as early as page 19.
The boys club that these men belong to clearly has less to do with being a gentleman, and more to do with protecting the reputation of a pal so he'll do the same in return. I guess I could amend the title of this post to "two (or more) can keep a secret if both of them have dirt on one another." Or maybe "two can keep a secret if there wasn't a secret to begin with." Then again, Jekyll does die, so maybe the saying is true.
The Opposite of Homosexuality
"The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality. It's holiness," says Alan Chambers "ex- homosexual" and leader of Exodus International. This is a Christian group that is disillusioned enough to believe that it can cure homosexual tendencies through prayer and "Christian counseling". And yes, this dumb ass actually said that holiness and homosexuality are opposite of one another, but I will move past what an idiot he is for a moment so that I can discuss the article from The Times that discusses this atrocity and its relation to the Gothic. This Fundamentalist Christian movement towards un-gaying people through the use of Jesus boot camps is an undeniable case of "othering" in this day and age.
Maybe we can look at this video and see why people are interested in attending such a conference. The inspirational music, the promise of happiness and support, the idea of freedom: it all sounds so promising. And when you've struggled your entire life with who you are, this might be exactly the type of environment that seems inviting. Maybe, just maybe, you can be "fixed."
But In her article, Lucy Bannerman contradicts the pretty picture painted in the advertisement stating that, "it has been claimed by critics, many of whom have undergone treatment themselves, that some same-sex attraction therapy can exacerbate anxiety and depression, in extreme cases leading to suicidal feelings." Basically the camps bring people in and berate them with the notion that a homosexual lifestyle is unacceptable if they desire to get past the pearly gates. The statement that being gay is actually the opposite of holiness is the perfect example of how this "treatment" can cause greater problems within the self.
Those who have been raised to see Heaven as the ultimate goal of life are bound to depression under this way of thinking. Bannerman spoke to one woman who put these exact feelings into words, " I'd love to be openly gay and have a completely satisfying relationship with God. But I don't know how that can be done." It is through this way of thinking that these Christian programs manage to breed self-loathing. Not only are the heterosexual members of the church placing these pressures on their gay counterparts, but people like Chambers who "suffer from same-sex attraction" are promoting an idea of self-othering.
What is so sickening to me that it's almost laughable is that the clients of this camp are openly acknowledging their Id, and the people who run the program are not even trying to hide that they want them to repress their true selves. Chambers makes the shocking admission, "I live a life of denial and I love it. I didn't choose my same-sex feelings but I do choose how I'm going to steward them. Freedom is possible.”
At least he can acknowledge -what many wackos often deny- that his feelings are innate, but he is telling these people that denying the true self is enjoyable. It is disturbing that he can promote his resistance to homosexuality in this way. He is influencing an entire group of people and saying that hating yourself is really fun if you just pretend like you don't.
I can't help but see this as a direct assault on the writings of Robert Luis Stevenson, who basically had to write an entire novella full of innuendos to make his point about the dangers of sexual repression. These people may not be out trampling little girls or committing murders, but they are suffering greatly: enough to cause self-harm. How can we possibly accept a group of people promoting "a life of denial" as preferable to happiness in self- acceptance? And how can the participants not see the flaws in the cult that they are giving in to?
Films like Saved! (2004) and But I'm a Cheerleader (1999) have brought this boot camp sensation to light in comedic ways. Hilarious as they may be, these movies really have not put enough pressure on our society to make people understand that homosexuality is not something to deny within one's self. I don't understand how we can sit back and let people be forced into seeing themselves as others. But I suppose there is really no way of breaking people free of this way of thinking, if it has been socially constructed by their families and community throughout their entire lives.
Just another example of the power struggle between the Super Ego, Ego, and the Id to gain control of the self.
"You are invited to a conference unlike any other"
But In her article, Lucy Bannerman contradicts the pretty picture painted in the advertisement stating that, "it has been claimed by critics, many of whom have undergone treatment themselves, that some same-sex attraction therapy can exacerbate anxiety and depression, in extreme cases leading to suicidal feelings." Basically the camps bring people in and berate them with the notion that a homosexual lifestyle is unacceptable if they desire to get past the pearly gates. The statement that being gay is actually the opposite of holiness is the perfect example of how this "treatment" can cause greater problems within the self.
Those who have been raised to see Heaven as the ultimate goal of life are bound to depression under this way of thinking. Bannerman spoke to one woman who put these exact feelings into words, " I'd love to be openly gay and have a completely satisfying relationship with God. But I don't know how that can be done." It is through this way of thinking that these Christian programs manage to breed self-loathing. Not only are the heterosexual members of the church placing these pressures on their gay counterparts, but people like Chambers who "suffer from same-sex attraction" are promoting an idea of self-othering.
What is so sickening to me that it's almost laughable is that the clients of this camp are openly acknowledging their Id, and the people who run the program are not even trying to hide that they want them to repress their true selves. Chambers makes the shocking admission, "I live a life of denial and I love it. I didn't choose my same-sex feelings but I do choose how I'm going to steward them. Freedom is possible.”
At least he can acknowledge -what many wackos often deny- that his feelings are innate, but he is telling these people that denying the true self is enjoyable. It is disturbing that he can promote his resistance to homosexuality in this way. He is influencing an entire group of people and saying that hating yourself is really fun if you just pretend like you don't.
I can't help but see this as a direct assault on the writings of Robert Luis Stevenson, who basically had to write an entire novella full of innuendos to make his point about the dangers of sexual repression. These people may not be out trampling little girls or committing murders, but they are suffering greatly: enough to cause self-harm. How can we possibly accept a group of people promoting "a life of denial" as preferable to happiness in self- acceptance? And how can the participants not see the flaws in the cult that they are giving in to?
Just another example of the power struggle between the Super Ego, Ego, and the Id to gain control of the self.
"A Profound Duplicity of Life"
"With every day, and from both sides of my intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to that truth, by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two" (Stevenson 108).
Through the use of this one sentence Stevenson pithily puts into words the sensation that Freud describes in his work The Ego and the Id. So Dr. Jekyll is left to face the multiple aspects of his personality. The book gives the two halves of the Dr. the basic attributes of "good an evil," which simplifies the greater idea that applies in a more general self. We hide or "Hyde" our Id within ourselves in order to contend with the super ego found in the world around us.
The point that Stevenson successfully makes is that the Id isn't necessarily evil so to speak, but is looked at as evil by society and therefore the ego of ourselves. So assuming that Jekyll is the Ego and Hyde is the Id, people like Utterson, who exist in the greater world, can be considered the Super Ego. And if we are to relate the theme of "black mailing" in this novella to illegality of sodomy, then we can say that the Id is likely meant to represent homosexual tendencies in Jekyll- and the other men in his circle.
So it is no wonder that Jekyll wishes to separate the two parts of himself that he has been forced to live with his entire life. Jekyll includes in his confession, "I concealed my pleasures; and that when I reached years of reflection, and began to look round me and take stock of my progress and position in the world, I stood already committed to a profound duplicity of me. Many a man would have even blazoned such irregularities as I was guilty of; but from the high views that I had set before me, I regarded and hid them with an almost morbid sense of shame" (Stevenson 107). His "irregularities" cause him to invent the potion that lead to his ruin. This intense suppression of his Id results in the greater explosion that we see in Hyde.
What I find interesting is that even after Jekyll has allowed Hyde into the world, he still feels incredibly guilty about the actions of his other and "he would even make haste, where it was possible, to undo the evil done by Hyde" (Stevenson 119). After realizing the damage that Hyde is doing, Jekyll continues to release him because of the high he gets from decompressing his Id. The problem is that he does not learn from this separation of self. He cannot get out from under the thumb of the Ego and Super Ego that control his life. There is only extreme, a happy medium cannot be found.
Despite recognizing the duplicity within himself, Jekyll cannot find a way to cleanse away the Id that he so despises. The reason that he moves so towards Hyde is that Hyde is his true self. When Jekyll is Jekyll, Hyde is still within him, when Jekyll is Hyde, Hyde is only Hyde. It is in his self hatred that Jekyll turns to what he supposedly hates within himself, rather than being a person that he can control.
Stevenson clearly realizes that there is a lot of power in not having to hide the "evil" within yourself, because you have no sense of the shame that society forces upon you.
Through the use of this one sentence Stevenson pithily puts into words the sensation that Freud describes in his work The Ego and the Id. So Dr. Jekyll is left to face the multiple aspects of his personality. The book gives the two halves of the Dr. the basic attributes of "good an evil," which simplifies the greater idea that applies in a more general self. We hide or "Hyde" our Id within ourselves in order to contend with the super ego found in the world around us.
The point that Stevenson successfully makes is that the Id isn't necessarily evil so to speak, but is looked at as evil by society and therefore the ego of ourselves. So assuming that Jekyll is the Ego and Hyde is the Id, people like Utterson, who exist in the greater world, can be considered the Super Ego. And if we are to relate the theme of "black mailing" in this novella to illegality of sodomy, then we can say that the Id is likely meant to represent homosexual tendencies in Jekyll- and the other men in his circle.
So it is no wonder that Jekyll wishes to separate the two parts of himself that he has been forced to live with his entire life. Jekyll includes in his confession, "I concealed my pleasures; and that when I reached years of reflection, and began to look round me and take stock of my progress and position in the world, I stood already committed to a profound duplicity of me. Many a man would have even blazoned such irregularities as I was guilty of; but from the high views that I had set before me, I regarded and hid them with an almost morbid sense of shame" (Stevenson 107). His "irregularities" cause him to invent the potion that lead to his ruin. This intense suppression of his Id results in the greater explosion that we see in Hyde.
What I find interesting is that even after Jekyll has allowed Hyde into the world, he still feels incredibly guilty about the actions of his other and "he would even make haste, where it was possible, to undo the evil done by Hyde" (Stevenson 119). After realizing the damage that Hyde is doing, Jekyll continues to release him because of the high he gets from decompressing his Id. The problem is that he does not learn from this separation of self. He cannot get out from under the thumb of the Ego and Super Ego that control his life. There is only extreme, a happy medium cannot be found.
Despite recognizing the duplicity within himself, Jekyll cannot find a way to cleanse away the Id that he so despises. The reason that he moves so towards Hyde is that Hyde is his true self. When Jekyll is Jekyll, Hyde is still within him, when Jekyll is Hyde, Hyde is only Hyde. It is in his self hatred that Jekyll turns to what he supposedly hates within himself, rather than being a person that he can control.
Stevenson clearly realizes that there is a lot of power in not having to hide the "evil" within yourself, because you have no sense of the shame that society forces upon you.
The Walls Are Closing In
"Monsters and vampires, man-made creatures and ghosts, mob cruelty and murderers, these are the stock ingredients of horror... All such terrors, however, are seen from a distance approaching us from outside ourselves... But when the madness and collapse are presented from inside, rather than viewed from without, then the solid ground itself shifts and crumbles, and we do indeed find ourselves looking into a bottomless pit." (Butler 1967: 77).
So far in dealing with the Gothic we have encountered "the stock ingredients of horror" that Butler is discussing in his article. The Yellow Wallpaper is the first introduction we have had to the introspective psychological aspect of the collapse of the self. The room becomes a physical manifestation of the narrator's deteriorating mind. We are trapped with her as she tears away the layers of this interior to free "the women" in the walls.
After reading Gilman's account of this maddening representation, I looked back on a film I watched in my British Horror Film class from last quarter that is without a doubt a modern experience of trapping an audience within a disturbing setting.
Repulsion (1965) is filmed entirely from the introspective point of view of the film’s protagonist, Carole. The audience is trapped with Carole in her flat, which also serves as a physical representation of her rapidly decaying mind, for the majority of the movie. Carole is consistently being objectified as an adult woman in the world outside of her apartment but within the confines of her mind, she has managed to maintain the sexual mentality of a child. Throughout the film she is confronted with issues of sexual repression as well as the devastating results of social pressure. Like The Yellow Wallpaper this film acknowledges the reality in which society creates the “monsters” that it is destined to look down upon.
The way Carole sees her encounters with outside world are reflected when they are redisplayed to us within her flat. There is a moment- in one of the many extended walking scenes of the film- where a construction worker yells something nonsensical at her, which is obviously of a sexual nature. Despite the fact that this seems like nothing but a passing comment in a long day, the man reappears in a serious way throughout the film. There are three rape scenes that take place in the apartment while Carole's sister is away and has left her alone. These rapes are considered to be a figment of her imagination, but what is interesting is that the man assaulting her is the same construction worker from earlier on in the film. This instance is a perfect example of her internalization of these unwelcome sexual advances.
Carole, clearly bothered by the sexualized world of London in the "Swinging Sixties" (of which we see nothing of all I must note) retreats completely into the seclusion of the flat. This is where the extended metaphor of her mind being constantly invaded by the advances of men, who repulse her, begins to really take effect. She imagines the cracks around the room to crack further, as her own mental state begins also to crack. Even as she tries to lock herself away from men by not leaving her place of residence, she cannot escape the impediment on her unconscious, as depicted by the groping hands protruding from the walls of the hallway above.
It is this social pressure that leads Carole to give in completely to her madness, driving her to murder to men who seek her as a sexual object. In the end, she is discovered lying fragile and alone underneath her sister's bed. At this discovery the neighbors we have never seen throughout the film come to see the spectacle, and quite literally look down upon her as they whisper their misgivings: the monster their world has created.
So far in dealing with the Gothic we have encountered "the stock ingredients of horror" that Butler is discussing in his article. The Yellow Wallpaper is the first introduction we have had to the introspective psychological aspect of the collapse of the self. The room becomes a physical manifestation of the narrator's deteriorating mind. We are trapped with her as she tears away the layers of this interior to free "the women" in the walls.
After reading Gilman's account of this maddening representation, I looked back on a film I watched in my British Horror Film class from last quarter that is without a doubt a modern experience of trapping an audience within a disturbing setting.
Repulsion (1965) is filmed entirely from the introspective point of view of the film’s protagonist, Carole. The audience is trapped with Carole in her flat, which also serves as a physical representation of her rapidly decaying mind, for the majority of the movie. Carole is consistently being objectified as an adult woman in the world outside of her apartment but within the confines of her mind, she has managed to maintain the sexual mentality of a child. Throughout the film she is confronted with issues of sexual repression as well as the devastating results of social pressure. Like The Yellow Wallpaper this film acknowledges the reality in which society creates the “monsters” that it is destined to look down upon.
The way Carole sees her encounters with outside world are reflected when they are redisplayed to us within her flat. There is a moment- in one of the many extended walking scenes of the film- where a construction worker yells something nonsensical at her, which is obviously of a sexual nature. Despite the fact that this seems like nothing but a passing comment in a long day, the man reappears in a serious way throughout the film. There are three rape scenes that take place in the apartment while Carole's sister is away and has left her alone. These rapes are considered to be a figment of her imagination, but what is interesting is that the man assaulting her is the same construction worker from earlier on in the film. This instance is a perfect example of her internalization of these unwelcome sexual advances.
Carole, clearly bothered by the sexualized world of London in the "Swinging Sixties" (of which we see nothing of all I must note) retreats completely into the seclusion of the flat. This is where the extended metaphor of her mind being constantly invaded by the advances of men, who repulse her, begins to really take effect. She imagines the cracks around the room to crack further, as her own mental state begins also to crack. Even as she tries to lock herself away from men by not leaving her place of residence, she cannot escape the impediment on her unconscious, as depicted by the groping hands protruding from the walls of the hallway above.
It is this social pressure that leads Carole to give in completely to her madness, driving her to murder to men who seek her as a sexual object. In the end, she is discovered lying fragile and alone underneath her sister's bed. At this discovery the neighbors we have never seen throughout the film come to see the spectacle, and quite literally look down upon her as they whisper their misgivings: the monster their world has created.
Gender Identity in The Yellow Wallpaper
“The problem of identity is... the problem of sexuality. Traditionally the power of sexuality is the power of reproduction... But the root cause of horror in the genre is the protagonist’s inability to control sexuality, to thus define masculine and feminine and create legitimate identity” (Day 1985: 84-5).
Charlotte Perkins Gilman explores this particular aspect of the Gothic in her novella, The Yellow Wallpaper. There is no question that the sexuality of the characters serves as one of the most important themes in the story and is a direct reflection of the author's intention when writing it. The perception of female hysteria and the treatment prescribed in the 19th century was admittedly the motivation behind Gilman's creation.
When asked why she wrote The Yellow Wallpaper, Gilman told a story about having been diagnosed with hysteria herself. She claimed that by following the directions of the doctor, she was almost driven mad. In her statement she expressed: "Being naturally moved to rejoicing by this narrow escape, I wrote The Yellow Wallpaper, with its embellishments and additions to carry out the ideal (I never had hallucinations or objections to my mural decorations) and sent a copy to the physician who so nearly drove me mad. He never acknowledged it."
At the time it was medically suggested to live this sort of lifestyle. Now what I am prone to suggest (although I don't know firsthand) that this would never be expected of a man in that time. Little moments of this gender divide are constantly suggested in the work. There is no question that Gilman hints at the control men have over women in her society, and by making the husband in the novel a physician she is doubly asserting the powerlessness a woman in such a position would have.
Her husband has obviously acknowledged that she is not well in that he has taken her to a house in the country to recover, however he is constantly belittling her feelings. "John laughs at me, of course, but one expects that in marriage" (Gilman 1). Wow. So I guess I can't deny that I hope that if I'm ever married my husband and I can tease one another, but there is more to be said fore this quote. One (a woman) is supposed to expect not to be taken seriously in a marriage.
So it is with this idea of the feminine that we are introduced to our protagonist and narrator. She blindly accepts her husband's diagnosis of her illness and lets him make her believe that he wants what is best for her. From the beginning, she expresses her discomfort in the room that he has picked out for her. Again she bends to his will because they need the "great heavy bed" for both of them to sleep (Gilman 8). What is interesting here is that despite the fact that John does not see her to be fit to move about and act normally, he still expects her to continue her roles as his wife. His command over her sexuality would be astonishing in this day and age, but at the time it was completely average.
In the case of this novel the protagonist has no aspect of Day's "traditional power of sexuality" because even as she has reproduced, she cannot be a mother to her child. Thus we return to the idea that her husband is the one who has control of her sexuality, thus giving him power over her mind. This is why his wife cannot recover to a normal state of being. She has only her husband's definition- and society's definition at that- of "the masculine and the feminine" and no way of grasping a sense of her "legitimate identity".
This is why I think the reader is left without an concrete idea of whether or not we have read the story of a madwoman, or if the happenings in that room were supposed to reflect an actual incident.
Everyday Wonderland
This is Modernism. This is Gothic. Characteristics of Realism blasted away by the magical, sublime, unreal. Isn't it bloody beautiful?
Let us imagine living in this place for a moment. The walls are deteriorating, the concrete floors are filthy. I don't see any heating vents or an air conditioning unit. Not to mention the bathroom appears to be placed in the main living area. And what do we think the view through that window will reveal? Probably another brick wall from another towering building. Don't look down unless you want to see a bum pissing in the alleyway.
Cade Martin manages with one click (probably through the process of thousands of clicks) of a camera to break away from this real place. An apartment who's resident probably dreads coming home at night, turns into a wonderland.
So what makes this image- and the other images from Martin's website- Gothic? Not unlike the paint chipping away to unveil the brick that lies underneath, Martin manages to place an extraordinary moment in an ordinary setting to break us out of what we would usually see.
I guess in my quest to understand the Gothic, I have come to see it as a huge contrast between realism and the mystical. Martin successfully illustrates this contrast in this photograph.
The Object as the Identificatory
I have so much to say in response to Robert Stevenson's, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and I am most certainly not finished with The Yellow Wallpaper, but I'd just like to first respond to a question posed in class.
First though, I want to reinstate the classifications that Professor Moglen gave for Freud's concepts of the love towards parents:
Identifacatory Love- Parent with whom the child identifies and wants to be like.
Object Love- Parent that one can imagine loving in the future.
Someone asked what would happen in the case of an abnormal family atmosphere, such as a single parent or a homosexual parents. Professor Moglen responded that this question is often asked of Freud's theory and remains unanswered.
To a certain degree, I can see Stevenson's novel as a bit of a response to this question. There are hardly any women in the novel and Jekyll lost his mother during his own birth. His father at this point is a single parent, left to fill two roles. As a result Jekyll is likely to love his father as an object as well as identify with him.
Stevenson may be making a commentary on this dual relationship through the homosexual tendencies within the novella, particularly in the case of Jekyll's club of gentlemen located on "queer street." The secrets that they keep for one another suggests an unspoken understanding of this sort of behavior. The lack of women and families in their community questions the ability to find someone to fill the role of object love who is not a man. They definitely don't seem to be looking to find women and family on top of that.
So this is what I propose: Dr. Jekyll feels as though he should repress these implied desires because he is Gentleman, as his father was. As a result Hyde escapes from within him and lives out all of Jekyll's dirtiest desires without shame or remorse. One reading we could make is that he didn't even have a mother to identify with in an effeminate manner, thus making him feel alright about his desires. No, he was left to take on the role of the man that his father was, as well as see men as objects of love. But because of the former, he cannot accept the latter!
Really, that would drive anyone crazy. It's no wonder he developed multiple personality disorder and caused his own downfall. It's a lot to handle.
First though, I want to reinstate the classifications that Professor Moglen gave for Freud's concepts of the love towards parents:
Identifacatory Love- Parent with whom the child identifies and wants to be like.
Object Love- Parent that one can imagine loving in the future.
Someone asked what would happen in the case of an abnormal family atmosphere, such as a single parent or a homosexual parents. Professor Moglen responded that this question is often asked of Freud's theory and remains unanswered.
To a certain degree, I can see Stevenson's novel as a bit of a response to this question. There are hardly any women in the novel and Jekyll lost his mother during his own birth. His father at this point is a single parent, left to fill two roles. As a result Jekyll is likely to love his father as an object as well as identify with him.
Stevenson may be making a commentary on this dual relationship through the homosexual tendencies within the novella, particularly in the case of Jekyll's club of gentlemen located on "queer street." The secrets that they keep for one another suggests an unspoken understanding of this sort of behavior. The lack of women and families in their community questions the ability to find someone to fill the role of object love who is not a man. They definitely don't seem to be looking to find women and family on top of that.
So this is what I propose: Dr. Jekyll feels as though he should repress these implied desires because he is Gentleman, as his father was. As a result Hyde escapes from within him and lives out all of Jekyll's dirtiest desires without shame or remorse. One reading we could make is that he didn't even have a mother to identify with in an effeminate manner, thus making him feel alright about his desires. No, he was left to take on the role of the man that his father was, as well as see men as objects of love. But because of the former, he cannot accept the latter!
Really, that would drive anyone crazy. It's no wonder he developed multiple personality disorder and caused his own downfall. It's a lot to handle.
We Love Monsters!
I found it interesting that in section, when asked who we most identified with in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, almost everyone in the class said the monster. Don't get me wrong, I am one of those people, but I was surprised to see that I was not the only person who felt this way.
We were then given a quote saying, "The poor monster always, for these reasons, touched me to the heart. Frankenstein ought to reflected on the means of giving happiness to the being of his creation, before he did create him. Instead of that he heaps on him all sorts of abuse and contumely for his ugliness, which was directly his work, and for his crimes to which his neglect gave rise." Anonymous from the Knights Quarterly (Aug-Nov 1824)
The quote made me laugh out loud, because it is almost as though the opinion reflects anger towards Frankenstein, as though he is a real person who actually did create a monster. Nevertheless I was lead to explore my own feelings about the monster. There were plenty moments during my reading of this work that I felt a similar anger towards the man. Why did he bother to make the creation if he was not going to attempt to connect with it? And for that matter, how did he not see that the creature was going to be ugly once it was given life? I mean I am certain that he saw every part of it while he was doing this project.
Then there was the lack of compassion that Frankenstein's Monster constantly had to face. People were incredibly unkind to him, even when he saves a little girl from drowning. Any other man would be treated as a hero upon such an occasion, but the vanity of human nature persists. He is left feeling inadequate and alone, every time he interacts with people. I think that if I were ridiculed to such a degree, I would feel equally detached and angry towards the human race.
Of course, if I am going to look at the situation through the eyes of the monster, it is only fair to take on the perspective of the assholes that are so cruel to him. It is hard to say that if there was a disgusting eight-foot-tall man trying to interact with me, I wouldn't be repulsed. That being said, Shelley really does make it easy to sympathize with the monster over the other characters in the book. He is, ironically, the only one she gives a shred of humanity to.
We were then given a quote saying, "The poor monster always, for these reasons, touched me to the heart. Frankenstein ought to reflected on the means of giving happiness to the being of his creation, before he did create him. Instead of that he heaps on him all sorts of abuse and contumely for his ugliness, which was directly his work, and for his crimes to which his neglect gave rise." Anonymous from the Knights Quarterly (Aug-Nov 1824)
The quote made me laugh out loud, because it is almost as though the opinion reflects anger towards Frankenstein, as though he is a real person who actually did create a monster. Nevertheless I was lead to explore my own feelings about the monster. There were plenty moments during my reading of this work that I felt a similar anger towards the man. Why did he bother to make the creation if he was not going to attempt to connect with it? And for that matter, how did he not see that the creature was going to be ugly once it was given life? I mean I am certain that he saw every part of it while he was doing this project.
Then there was the lack of compassion that Frankenstein's Monster constantly had to face. People were incredibly unkind to him, even when he saves a little girl from drowning. Any other man would be treated as a hero upon such an occasion, but the vanity of human nature persists. He is left feeling inadequate and alone, every time he interacts with people. I think that if I were ridiculed to such a degree, I would feel equally detached and angry towards the human race.
Of course, if I am going to look at the situation through the eyes of the monster, it is only fair to take on the perspective of the assholes that are so cruel to him. It is hard to say that if there was a disgusting eight-foot-tall man trying to interact with me, I wouldn't be repulsed. That being said, Shelley really does make it easy to sympathize with the monster over the other characters in the book. He is, ironically, the only one she gives a shred of humanity to.
Seeking the Gothic
Since beginning this class, I have made it a point to look for Gothic themes in every movie I see. I have to admit that I do this partially out of a desire to lengthen this blog, but I also have found it to be an fascinating lens to look through when observing the world around me.
This left me with an interesting read of the French film, Amelie (2001) which I had the pleasure of watching this weekend. I could not help but notice the influences that Freud seemed to have on Jean- Pierre Jeunet in his creation of this particular film. The story plays out as though it was meant to be directly attributed to the analysis of Freud, with the exception of the fact that it follows the life of a young girl rather than a boy, which would have applied to his work more directly.
The story opens with the supremely clinical description of how Amelie came to be, displaying a montage of images: sperm racing towards an egg, the maturity and growth of a pregnant woman, and finally a the head of a child emerging in childbirth. This is very realist beginning for a girl who will later live a life full of purely Gothic moments. There is then a home video- like reel, where we are given a quick overview of Amelie's happy, curious childhood, before her parents are introduced to us.
Freud bases much of his analysis on the relationships within a family, particularly focusing on the interactions between child and parent. The narrator continues Amelie's tale by describing the personalities of her father and mother, while they are displayed on screen (pointed comments are also written out describing certain attributes.)
We are first told about her father, "an ex-army doctor," is presented in his lab coat, standing stiffly in front of the spa where he now works. An arrow pointing at his mouth leads to script explaining: "Tight lips, hard heart." Her mother, a school teacher, also stands in front of her work, she is given the description, "Facial twitch, weak nerves."
This film -as is the case with many Gothic texts, in my opinion- is a comedy. The moments of her childhood that are most important for future character development are equal parts dark and silly. For instance, when she is six years old and "she'd like to be hugged by her daddy" she is overexcited during the only time he touches her, during her monthly checkup (he does, after all, have a "cold heart"). This is the reason he thinks her heart is irregular as well as the reason she is forced into home school. Blubber, her suicidal fish, and only friend is dropped into a stream, due to her mother's previously mentioned "weak nerves." This loneliness only increases when her mother is actually killed by someone else's suicide.
Left only with her distant father, she grows into identificatory love and has no parent with which to direct an object love, so she just doesn't. This, I am lead to believe, accounts for her disinterest in men and relationships for most of her life.
In her quest for the owner of the small treasure box, she begins to interact with her neighbors as well as people who once lived in the building. The first real connection we see her make is with the old man who tells her the name of who she is searching for. "We all need a way to relax," he says. She responds in a whisper, "I skip stones." In this moment she can see some of herself in this old man and whoever "we all" entails. She makes good deeds a part of her daily life and in doing so she continues to make similar little connections, and also discovers that she too has been observed.
Her mission leads to self realization, largely at the hands of her neighbor, Raymond Dufayel, who helps her to connect with the man with whom she most relates. At her first meeting with Nino Quincompoix the narrator tells us that, "When Amelie lacked playmates, Nino had too many. Five miles apart, they both dreamed of having a brother and sister to be with all the time." Despite their different reasons, the two are connected in their need for and lack of companionship. It is in Nino that Amelie finds her other and can finally step out of the cold shadow cast upon her by her father. She is free to make a loving connection with a man who is nothing like her father.
This left me with an interesting read of the French film, Amelie (2001) which I had the pleasure of watching this weekend. I could not help but notice the influences that Freud seemed to have on Jean- Pierre Jeunet in his creation of this particular film. The story plays out as though it was meant to be directly attributed to the analysis of Freud, with the exception of the fact that it follows the life of a young girl rather than a boy, which would have applied to his work more directly.
The story opens with the supremely clinical description of how Amelie came to be, displaying a montage of images: sperm racing towards an egg, the maturity and growth of a pregnant woman, and finally a the head of a child emerging in childbirth. This is very realist beginning for a girl who will later live a life full of purely Gothic moments. There is then a home video- like reel, where we are given a quick overview of Amelie's happy, curious childhood, before her parents are introduced to us.
Freud bases much of his analysis on the relationships within a family, particularly focusing on the interactions between child and parent. The narrator continues Amelie's tale by describing the personalities of her father and mother, while they are displayed on screen (pointed comments are also written out describing certain attributes.)
We are first told about her father, "an ex-army doctor," is presented in his lab coat, standing stiffly in front of the spa where he now works. An arrow pointing at his mouth leads to script explaining: "Tight lips, hard heart." Her mother, a school teacher, also stands in front of her work, she is given the description, "Facial twitch, weak nerves."
This film -as is the case with many Gothic texts, in my opinion- is a comedy. The moments of her childhood that are most important for future character development are equal parts dark and silly. For instance, when she is six years old and "she'd like to be hugged by her daddy" she is overexcited during the only time he touches her, during her monthly checkup (he does, after all, have a "cold heart"). This is the reason he thinks her heart is irregular as well as the reason she is forced into home school. Blubber, her suicidal fish, and only friend is dropped into a stream, due to her mother's previously mentioned "weak nerves." This loneliness only increases when her mother is actually killed by someone else's suicide.
Left only with her distant father, she grows into identificatory love and has no parent with which to direct an object love, so she just doesn't. This, I am lead to believe, accounts for her disinterest in men and relationships for most of her life.
"She tried once or twice, but the results were a letdown"
Instead, like her father, she distances herself from the world around her, content on observing people and avoiding being the object of observation for others. Her trip into her own unconscious begins when she knocks away a loose tile on her bathroom wall to find a hidden box filled with toys. As she opens this passage way into the dark tunnel of her wall, so opens her own mind.
In her quest for the owner of the small treasure box, she begins to interact with her neighbors as well as people who once lived in the building. The first real connection we see her make is with the old man who tells her the name of who she is searching for. "We all need a way to relax," he says. She responds in a whisper, "I skip stones." In this moment she can see some of herself in this old man and whoever "we all" entails. She makes good deeds a part of her daily life and in doing so she continues to make similar little connections, and also discovers that she too has been observed.
Her mission leads to self realization, largely at the hands of her neighbor, Raymond Dufayel, who helps her to connect with the man with whom she most relates. At her first meeting with Nino Quincompoix the narrator tells us that, "When Amelie lacked playmates, Nino had too many. Five miles apart, they both dreamed of having a brother and sister to be with all the time." Despite their different reasons, the two are connected in their need for and lack of companionship. It is in Nino that Amelie finds her other and can finally step out of the cold shadow cast upon her by her father. She is free to make a loving connection with a man who is nothing like her father.
Can't Find an Other? Make Your Own!
It worked for Frankenstein didn't it? Well...worked is relative here, but he certainly did it!
We are introduced to Victor through his letters at the beginning of the novel, in which he tells the reader of his childhood and his family life. It is clear that he has love for his mother, who dies just as he is going away to school, however he does not entirely connect with her on any intellectual level.
He then goes on to talk about his introduction to science and his growing infatuation for the subject. This is where we first see the emergence of M. Waldman as "a true friend." Seeing as how Victor quickly surpasses the masters, it can be said that he is not looking for an equal, but someone who will "express the most heartfelt exultation in [his] progress" (Ch.4) He does not necessarily need him to understand the work that he is actually doing so much as how excellent and important his findings are.
Frankenstein's description of, "one of the phenomena which had peculiarly attracted [his] attention was the structure of the human frame, and, indeed, any animal endued with life," is particularly foreshadowing of the events to come. In the same passage he talks about how the "fine form of man was degraded and wasted," which is another moment that implies how he might feel about the monster he has yet to create (Ch.4).
Frankenstein's reaction to he man he makes later on in the book shows how he is very much Waldman's opposite. He takes no pleasure in the development of the creature, nor does he make any attempt to understand it. He simply flees at the sight of "the wretch -- the miserable monster whom [he] had created.". This is an interesting outcome considering the project was aimed at manipulating the human body, which he found so fascinating and beautiful.
He looks into, "his eyes, if eyes they may be called," and this moment he faces his other, which he never intended, or wants, to see (Ch. 5). This is a pseudo Mirror Stage moment in Shelley's novel that gives the reader their first glimpse into Frankenstein's true nature. Here we have an unreliable account of our protagonist, because he has been the one telling his own story. The ugliness that is seen in the monster acts as a physical manifestation of what he has been holding within himself.
The action of running away from the monster serves as a representation of Frankenstein's repression of his own id. The monster within him has now been unleashed into the world and even after being forced to face the creature, Frankenstein still wishes to pretend as though it does not exist. As Professor Moglen likes to remind us: the greater the repression, the greater the eventual explosion is bound to be. Thus is the case as the monster continues to roam about the world, and eventually seeks its revenge on Frankenstein.
In his vengeance, the monster kills several of Victor's loved ones, but what serves as a concrete action of "otherness" is the murder of his father. Victor, who for all intents and purposes is the monster's father, was never active or present after it was "born." The monster takes from Frankenstein exactly what was deprived of him. Now, they are both orphaned.
Frankenstein continues to repress the monster that he has let out into the world and the matching id still within him rages on as he keeps the secret of his science project to himself. In the end, he reveals this secret and it is not he who works out his own unconscious, but rather it is left to Walton to unravel the story of Frankenstein's id: his monster.
We are introduced to Victor through his letters at the beginning of the novel, in which he tells the reader of his childhood and his family life. It is clear that he has love for his mother, who dies just as he is going away to school, however he does not entirely connect with her on any intellectual level.
He then goes on to talk about his introduction to science and his growing infatuation for the subject. This is where we first see the emergence of M. Waldman as "a true friend." Seeing as how Victor quickly surpasses the masters, it can be said that he is not looking for an equal, but someone who will "express the most heartfelt exultation in [his] progress" (Ch.4) He does not necessarily need him to understand the work that he is actually doing so much as how excellent and important his findings are.
Frankenstein's description of, "one of the phenomena which had peculiarly attracted [his] attention was the structure of the human frame, and, indeed, any animal endued with life," is particularly foreshadowing of the events to come. In the same passage he talks about how the "fine form of man was degraded and wasted," which is another moment that implies how he might feel about the monster he has yet to create (Ch.4).
Frankenstein's reaction to he man he makes later on in the book shows how he is very much Waldman's opposite. He takes no pleasure in the development of the creature, nor does he make any attempt to understand it. He simply flees at the sight of "the wretch -- the miserable monster whom [he] had created.". This is an interesting outcome considering the project was aimed at manipulating the human body, which he found so fascinating and beautiful.
He looks into, "his eyes, if eyes they may be called," and this moment he faces his other, which he never intended, or wants, to see (Ch. 5). This is a pseudo Mirror Stage moment in Shelley's novel that gives the reader their first glimpse into Frankenstein's true nature. Here we have an unreliable account of our protagonist, because he has been the one telling his own story. The ugliness that is seen in the monster acts as a physical manifestation of what he has been holding within himself.
The action of running away from the monster serves as a representation of Frankenstein's repression of his own id. The monster within him has now been unleashed into the world and even after being forced to face the creature, Frankenstein still wishes to pretend as though it does not exist. As Professor Moglen likes to remind us: the greater the repression, the greater the eventual explosion is bound to be. Thus is the case as the monster continues to roam about the world, and eventually seeks its revenge on Frankenstein.
In his vengeance, the monster kills several of Victor's loved ones, but what serves as a concrete action of "otherness" is the murder of his father. Victor, who for all intents and purposes is the monster's father, was never active or present after it was "born." The monster takes from Frankenstein exactly what was deprived of him. Now, they are both orphaned.
Frankenstein continues to repress the monster that he has let out into the world and the matching id still within him rages on as he keeps the secret of his science project to himself. In the end, he reveals this secret and it is not he who works out his own unconscious, but rather it is left to Walton to unravel the story of Frankenstein's id: his monster.
The Moral of the Story
Taking AP Lang in high school, I found myself laughing at the teacher's analysis more often than not. "By describing the sky as misty, the author was clearly trying to convey the ambiguity of the protagonist's feeling toward mornings." Give me a break.
Since beginning my college studies in literature however; I have come to look at this type of interpretation in a new light. It does not necessarily always have to be about what the author absolutely meant to show, but rather what we, as readers, can obtain from studying a piece of writing. So when we are asked in section: "Does Frankenstein have a moral?" I am compelled to say yes. Now, I cannot pretend to know exactly what lesson, if any, Mary Shelley was intending to teach in her story. I can however; say that there are several to be discovered by its readers.
We are presented with the ramifications of "playing God"- a phrase that today's right-winged loonies are fond of using in an attempt to scare us away from stem-cell research. Although I think these people are crazy, there is no denying that this is a theme shown through Frankenstein's messy attempt at playing creator. He makes a man that not even a mother (or in this case a "father") could love. Shelley implements moments of the sublimity and beauty in the novel when Frankenstein visits the mountains to try and relieve his stress. There is also the monster's peaceful reaction to the arrival of Spring. These things, unlike the science that caused the whole mess in the first place, are natural and pure. Frankenstein tried to take on this role of nature by making a man, and thus inadvertently and indirectly causes the deaths of five "innocent" people.
Which brings me to the next lesson that is touched on in this narrative. There is the perceived innocence of people in general. It is fair to say that almost every human in this novel can be construed, to some degree, as a monster him/herself. Victor, of course, has his vanity, which is the catalyst for the disasters that take place. Then there are the people that Frankenstien's monster interacts with, who are certainly no gems. They are incredibly uncivil to him based solely on his outer appearance, despite his efforts to be a helpful and kind creature. He is never received with kindness by anyone, so why should he act as such. They strip him of any humanity that he had within him. Murder is a pretty extreme turn to take; however it makes for a powerful argument. After all, it was teasing and cruelty in school that incited the tragedy that was Columbine.
Then there is always the concept of human connection. Victor continuously isolates himself throughout his life. He does have relationships with a friend, his family, and his future wife, but he thinks so highly of himself that he cannot truly connect with anyone on a real and intellectual level. This is his own fault as well, seeing as how he refuses to interact with his fellow scientists. His lonely lifestyle continues to grow, particularly at the loss of his family and friends at the hands of his own failed creation. He allows his life to be taken over by vengeance and exists in solitude. The secret of the monster that eventually drives him to madness. He only reveals this to Walton directly before his death. Shelley may have been hinting at the basic need for human connection. Because he has no one to talk to about his mistakes, Victor is left to deal with his guilt on his own, which essentially is his own ruin.
There is plenty more to gain from this novel and I like to think I only reached a portion of it in my reading. That being said, these are a few clear-cut and important morals that can be obtained from this story. I think that it is one of those novels that does not lose meaning with time, but perhaps takes on more. As the world changes, the story takes on new relevance that Shelley did not even have a chance to intend. Not to mention the several different publications and changes made.
So I guess the moral of my own entry is that the moral of the story is whatever the hell you take away from what you've read.
Talk About Infantilization:
... But really, I want to talk about it. This seems to be a common theme in the Gothic, no? A man takes control of a woman's life and forces her into the role of the child no matter the age, forming a somewhat incestuous bond.
We see it in Charlotte Gilman's, The Yellow Wallpaper, where the unnamed narrator is trapped in a nursery by her husband. We are brought along as her mind deteriorates into the childish nature she's being forced to inhabit. In this case she is a grown woman who's husband treats her as both his child and his wife, creating a more symbolic concept of incest.
Last night (early this morning) I watched Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994). In this contemporary Gothic we see a physical representation of an infantilized woman. Claudia is turned into a vampire by Lestat when she is only a young girl. She is forced to grow older in years as her body remains in its prepubescent form. Lestat "dresses [her] like a doll," even after she has been a vampire for thirty years. As an adult, Claudia serves as a companion to Louis, however he calls her his daughter. The line between familial and romantic love is blurred when she kisses him on the mouth in their last scene together.
These two stories represent the infantalized women in opposite ways. One, a woman who's mind deteriorates to a childlike state, the other a child who has the mind of an adult. Both are forced into these roles by the oppression of the men in their lives, and their need to feel superior and masculine in comparison.
That Fresh Country Air Must Make for Mighty Pure Blood
Just awoke to a thought: Why do vampires always live in small towns?
Answer: They don't, those are just the stories that get told. Vampire killings in New York City are simply swept into the massive category of the unresolved, kinky, fucked-up everyday murders. Small towns notice when the population rises from 600 to 601 and then suddenly drops to 590. Seems a bit fishy don't it?
Plus their cops have nothing better to do...
Answer: They don't, those are just the stories that get told. Vampire killings in New York City are simply swept into the massive category of the unresolved, kinky, fucked-up everyday murders. Small towns notice when the population rises from 600 to 601 and then suddenly drops to 590. Seems a bit fishy don't it?
Plus their cops have nothing better to do...
Rebirth: The Return to the Womb
You might have thought I'd exhausted the subject of Alien (1979), but you were wrong. I have so much more to say! Get excited.
I would like to go into part of one of the prompts for the first essay: "While Frankenstein and Alien both attempt to deconstruct gender difference, both texts ultimately reinstate the male/female opposition and give precedence to the values of the feminine. Discuss, with reference to the film and the fiction." I think that there are some really interesting parallels between these two texts, but I really just want to cover the circular formation of Alien (1979), and how it serves to both deconstruct and then reinstate the gender roles of its characters.
The conflict is created when Kane, the ship's (male) second-in-command, disturbs an egg on a foreign planet. The alien attaches itself to his face and he becomes the surrogate for this life form until it rips through his stomach in a twisted version of childbirth.
It is in this reversal the biological roles of man that confirms the deconstruction of gender roles previously hinted at within the film.
Ripley has the more traditionally masculine characteristics of logic and levelheadedness, while Dallas is more inclined to take risks based on his emotions. He is the one who insists that Kane is let back into the ship, despite the danger this presents to the rest of the crew members. He violates protocol once again by trying to cut the alien off of his friend's face in an attempt to save his life.
As they are terrorized by the monster on their ship, Ripley remains cool and collected, fulfilling the kick ass quota necessary to all films of this genre, although generally played by a man. It is not until she is the last one standing that we are reintroduced to her womanhood. She strips down to her undies, in what we might consider a predictable fashion for a horror film, however it is so random here because of how unfeminine our protagonist has been throughout.
This reminder of feminine sexuality serves to prepare us for a return to social constructs. We are completely thrown out of the norm, forced to accept a man giving birth and a woman succeeding in the Darwinian game of survival of the fittest. Now we must return to reality.
In order to reinstate "the male/female opposition and give precedence to the values of the feminine," the alien must be reborn in a way that can be considered normal. Then, naturally, it must be destroyed. We are given this imagery when Ripley propels the alien from the pod, not unlike the way it originally hatched at the beginning of the film. The alien hangs from the ship from a pseudo umbilical cord which is eventually cut by explosive flames from the engine.
The alien's rebirth is initiated by a woman and it comes from what is identified as the feminine "mother" ship. This is a final representation of a return to the accepted gender roles. Ripley is re-feminized, and the alien is at last born of a woman. Everything is "right" in the world.
I would like to go into part of one of the prompts for the first essay: "While Frankenstein and Alien both attempt to deconstruct gender difference, both texts ultimately reinstate the male/female opposition and give precedence to the values of the feminine. Discuss, with reference to the film and the fiction." I think that there are some really interesting parallels between these two texts, but I really just want to cover the circular formation of Alien (1979), and how it serves to both deconstruct and then reinstate the gender roles of its characters.
The conflict is created when Kane, the ship's (male) second-in-command, disturbs an egg on a foreign planet. The alien attaches itself to his face and he becomes the surrogate for this life form until it rips through his stomach in a twisted version of childbirth.
Ripley has the more traditionally masculine characteristics of logic and levelheadedness, while Dallas is more inclined to take risks based on his emotions. He is the one who insists that Kane is let back into the ship, despite the danger this presents to the rest of the crew members. He violates protocol once again by trying to cut the alien off of his friend's face in an attempt to save his life.
As they are terrorized by the monster on their ship, Ripley remains cool and collected, fulfilling the kick ass quota necessary to all films of this genre, although generally played by a man. It is not until she is the last one standing that we are reintroduced to her womanhood. She strips down to her undies, in what we might consider a predictable fashion for a horror film, however it is so random here because of how unfeminine our protagonist has been throughout.
In order to reinstate "the male/female opposition and give precedence to the values of the feminine," the alien must be reborn in a way that can be considered normal. Then, naturally, it must be destroyed. We are given this imagery when Ripley propels the alien from the pod, not unlike the way it originally hatched at the beginning of the film. The alien hangs from the ship from a pseudo umbilical cord which is eventually cut by explosive flames from the engine.
The alien's rebirth is initiated by a woman and it comes from what is identified as the feminine "mother" ship. This is a final representation of a return to the accepted gender roles. Ripley is re-feminized, and the alien is at last born of a woman. Everything is "right" in the world.
Paraphilia
Sorry Folks,
I'm a bit under the weather. (a lot under it considering how nice it is outside!) Anyway I am alive, barely, but I will be refraining from sharing my feverish thoughts with you for the time being. Perhaps if something stands out to me I'll record it. Until then please feel free to continue to not read my blog.
Love from the infirmary (my dorm room),
ACS
Ps. Who knew a bowl of oatmeal could satisfy me so very much? Maybe I should marry it.
Pps... Sounds like something out of a Beckett play, eh?
I'm a bit under the weather. (a lot under it considering how nice it is outside!) Anyway I am alive, barely, but I will be refraining from sharing my feverish thoughts with you for the time being. Perhaps if something stands out to me I'll record it. Until then please feel free to continue to not read my blog.
Love from the infirmary (my dorm room),
ACS
Ps. Who knew a bowl of oatmeal could satisfy me so very much? Maybe I should marry it.
Pps... Sounds like something out of a Beckett play, eh?
Fearing Fragmentation
Today in section we discussed the monster in the film, Alien (1979), and how hiding the monster effected our viewing experience. It is apparent to me that the entire industry of horror (and its sub-genres such as science fiction) was built largely on the inducement of suspense. If a movie refrains from showing what we are meant to be afraid of for its entirety, waiting until the very end to reveal it, this can create greater fear for the audience.
That being said, I don't think such was the case in Alien. We were never given the opportunity to really see the monster in full until it is hanging from the shuttle at the very end of the film. The "big reveal" is fairly anti-climactic in my opinion. In this particular film, I think it can be said that we are meant to fear what is unknown. As the monster continues to grow and change, adapting to its new environment, we are never given a clear image of our other.
The alien is presented to us in bits and pieces as it travels about the ship in search of its next meal. The film takes us, shot by shot, throughout the ship, making it seem as though we too are in danger of being eaten at every turn. But we are only told, never shown, how frightening the monster truly is, as the camera closes up on the terrified face of whoever is encountering the beast.
So if the glimpses we receive do not successfully effect suspense, why do we watch the film? How does it scare us?
My answer to this question is that it is the lack of wholeness itself that induces fright. We watch and flail about seeking some sense of unity in our other. We want something to look at in order to gain an understanding of that which we fear, but we are never allowed this by the film. As the creature develops it never "extends from a fragmented body-image to a form of its totality," as the human does according to Jacques Lacan's Mirror Stage. Thus we are left to stare at the images mirroring our own world, destined to forever lack a sense of self-identification for we cannot see the monster is the same, nor how it differs from us. Our fear then lies in being trapped in a primitive state of fragmentation.
That being said, I don't think such was the case in Alien. We were never given the opportunity to really see the monster in full until it is hanging from the shuttle at the very end of the film. The "big reveal" is fairly anti-climactic in my opinion. In this particular film, I think it can be said that we are meant to fear what is unknown. As the monster continues to grow and change, adapting to its new environment, we are never given a clear image of our other.
The alien is presented to us in bits and pieces as it travels about the ship in search of its next meal. The film takes us, shot by shot, throughout the ship, making it seem as though we too are in danger of being eaten at every turn. But we are only told, never shown, how frightening the monster truly is, as the camera closes up on the terrified face of whoever is encountering the beast.
So if the glimpses we receive do not successfully effect suspense, why do we watch the film? How does it scare us?
My answer to this question is that it is the lack of wholeness itself that induces fright. We watch and flail about seeking some sense of unity in our other. We want something to look at in order to gain an understanding of that which we fear, but we are never allowed this by the film. As the creature develops it never "extends from a fragmented body-image to a form of its totality," as the human does according to Jacques Lacan's Mirror Stage. Thus we are left to stare at the images mirroring our own world, destined to forever lack a sense of self-identification for we cannot see the monster is the same, nor how it differs from us. Our fear then lies in being trapped in a primitive state of fragmentation.
The Gothic: Defining and Identifying
First things first, I think it is important that I take the time to look into how Gothic is traditionally defined and the elements that are generally associated with the genre as it pertains to literature. Thank goodness for the wonderful world of the internet!
According to Lilia Melani's class website, The Gothic Experience, "the Gothic creates feelings of gloom, mystery, and suspense and tends to the dramatic and the sensational, like incest, diabolism, and nameless terrors." The conflict of the story is generally an abnormal event that happens as a direct result of the actions of (a) character(s).
Professor Moglen defines the Gothic by its other, the Real. The idea is that the Gothic discusses things that are often avoided in realist literature such as the psychological reasoning behind certain events. In section we discussed the supernatural characteristics of the Gothic, and how it mirrored the real in certain ways.
Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto, started the Gothic movement and basically set the standards for what is expected of the Gothic novel. Robert Harris created a list of these elements, which almost all Gothic stories will adhere to, to some degree.
According to Lilia Melani's class website, The Gothic Experience, "the Gothic creates feelings of gloom, mystery, and suspense and tends to the dramatic and the sensational, like incest, diabolism, and nameless terrors." The conflict of the story is generally an abnormal event that happens as a direct result of the actions of (a) character(s).
Professor Moglen defines the Gothic by its other, the Real. The idea is that the Gothic discusses things that are often avoided in realist literature such as the psychological reasoning behind certain events. In section we discussed the supernatural characteristics of the Gothic, and how it mirrored the real in certain ways.
Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto, started the Gothic movement and basically set the standards for what is expected of the Gothic novel. Robert Harris created a list of these elements, which almost all Gothic stories will adhere to, to some degree.
The Purpose of This Blog
Why hello there non-existent readers!
The reason for the birth of this blog is to fulfill an assignment for my Gothic Imagination class. We have been given the option of composing a Gothic journal in place of writing out second paper. It is neat a way in which we can apply the things we are learning in class to our everyday lives.
Personally, I will be using my Gothic journal to contrast the readings, films, and lectures assigned in this class with the readings and films I will be watching of my accord. I am particularly interested in how the Victorian Gothic has translated to contemporary examples of the dark and twisted.
So wish me luck as I tumble through the looking glass!
ACS
The reason for the birth of this blog is to fulfill an assignment for my Gothic Imagination class. We have been given the option of composing a Gothic journal in place of writing out second paper. It is neat a way in which we can apply the things we are learning in class to our everyday lives.
Personally, I will be using my Gothic journal to contrast the readings, films, and lectures assigned in this class with the readings and films I will be watching of my accord. I am particularly interested in how the Victorian Gothic has translated to contemporary examples of the dark and twisted.
So wish me luck as I tumble through the looking glass!
ACS
I'm a Bit of a Facial Hair Enthusiast
While my personal policy pertaining to beards is go big or go home, I can't really refute this.
An Apple a Day... Doesn't Make the World a Better Place
I can begin to understand a certain genre of theft. There are little children who's protruding bellies are filled with nothing but air, their flesh tinged with a grayish hint of malnutrition. Men and women with skin sagging off their feeble bones, lines etched into their faces telling stories of a heartbreaking existence. So they take. Little hands slip easily into the pockets of strangers in hopes that they might gain even a sliver of sustenance. And plastic bottles of vodka go missing from grocery stores, their contents pass through lips, slide down throats, and eventually feed blackened livers. And is it right? No. Fair? Of course not, but this is reality.
What I cannot accept or ever condone, is stealing for sport. Taking what you want from other people, simply because they have and you don't. The problem is that this kind of behavior will always exist because greed is part of human nature. Self interest is the downfall of man.
Pretend with me for a moment: Adam and Eve. Let us assume a common reading of this text: that people are overcome by greed. Adam and Eve were given the Garden of Eden, containing everything they could ever need, but they still wanted more. So they break the one rule God set out for them and eat from tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now, I don't believe this story to be true, but I do think it is one of the earliest commentaries of human inadequacy. It is a basic explanation of why nothing works in this world.
Sir Winston Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." And it is so. Democracy has lost all of its meaning as the people we elect fuck us over on a daily basis so that they can serve themselves. A free market is a beautiful idea, but because of dishonesty and greed, capitalism has become a blemish on society.
Why not advocate communism, socialism? You might ask. How are they any different? The problems may vary but the reason is the same, people are motivated by helping themselves. Without this incentive the world doesn't rotate. I can't see a way that we can change this.
I wish it weren't so, but it is. I am a realist, which often makes me a cynic. I truly believe it doesn't matter what sort of economy or government we have, this universal flaw will continue darken our world until it is black. I'm just left to hope that I'm not around to see it.
What I cannot accept or ever condone, is stealing for sport. Taking what you want from other people, simply because they have and you don't. The problem is that this kind of behavior will always exist because greed is part of human nature. Self interest is the downfall of man.
Pretend with me for a moment: Adam and Eve. Let us assume a common reading of this text: that people are overcome by greed. Adam and Eve were given the Garden of Eden, containing everything they could ever need, but they still wanted more. So they break the one rule God set out for them and eat from tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now, I don't believe this story to be true, but I do think it is one of the earliest commentaries of human inadequacy. It is a basic explanation of why nothing works in this world.
Sir Winston Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." And it is so. Democracy has lost all of its meaning as the people we elect fuck us over on a daily basis so that they can serve themselves. A free market is a beautiful idea, but because of dishonesty and greed, capitalism has become a blemish on society.
Why not advocate communism, socialism? You might ask. How are they any different? The problems may vary but the reason is the same, people are motivated by helping themselves. Without this incentive the world doesn't rotate. I can't see a way that we can change this.
I wish it weren't so, but it is. I am a realist, which often makes me a cynic. I truly believe it doesn't matter what sort of economy or government we have, this universal flaw will continue darken our world until it is black. I'm just left to hope that I'm not around to see it.
"Salutations!"- a spider called Charlotte
Hello there and welcome!- Essentially, I am talking to myself here, because of two facts: 1. I have just now started this, my first ever blog, and certainly deserve to be welcomed. And 2. I am currently the only person to visit this site (see item one), therefore I have taken on the roles of both the addresser and addressee. I shan't fret about it though, since this isn't the first conversation I've had with myself, nor will it be the last.
The initial intention for my first post was to send the response I had to the news of my friend's bike being stolen out into the world. Then I discovered the template design option. Needless to say, four hours and millions of color-combinations later, no deep, mind-bending analysis of the ordinary has been composed. As sleep deprivation has begun to take its toll on my mind an body, no such post will be born tonight. But worry not, non-existent worrier! There is always tomorrow.
So if anyone has happened upon my humble beginnings, please do not give up on me yet! Tune in tomorrow to read a commentary on the flaws of humanity. Perhaps you wont be disappointed.
**** Spoiler Alert ****
Literary biblical analysis in connection to the failures of man will ensue!
Goodnight moon,
ACS
The initial intention for my first post was to send the response I had to the news of my friend's bike being stolen out into the world. Then I discovered the template design option. Needless to say, four hours and millions of color-combinations later, no deep, mind-bending analysis of the ordinary has been composed. As sleep deprivation has begun to take its toll on my mind an body, no such post will be born tonight. But worry not, non-existent worrier! There is always tomorrow.
So if anyone has happened upon my humble beginnings, please do not give up on me yet! Tune in tomorrow to read a commentary on the flaws of humanity. Perhaps you wont be disappointed.
**** Spoiler Alert ****
Literary biblical analysis in connection to the failures of man will ensue!
Goodnight moon,
ACS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)