Blog Wrap up and Reflection

Overall, we enjoyed working together on this blog project. From the beginning we were very organized and decided that we would alternate weeks for writing the blog post--this made it a fair distribution of the work load. A few times we would ask to switch with another group member because they were really busy that particular week or were really interested in a certain book or short story we read. Unanimously, we agreed that we enjoyed the aspect of our blog. It gave us the opportunity to expand on ideas or themes that we liked or wanted to explore further. Initially, our blog theme was to look at how gender and identity was portrayed through literature in the 19th Century. Looking back at our posts (we had to switch a few blogs in from Tumblr to Blogger because the comment issue was too complicated!) we started off sticking to this theme of gender and identity in our readings, but as the semester goes on we veer off from this idea and start writing about whatever interested us. We actually think that this made our blog stronger because by not sticking to the original theme of the blog it allowed us to freely write and explore various topics that the "gender and identity" theme would have restricted us from pursuing that.

This semester long blog project was definitely one of our favorite aspects of the class because it allowed us to express our opinions each week on our readings and, most importantly, to ask questions. Using the blog as a medium allowed us to ask questions regarding the text in a "safe" way. We really appreciated that Dr. Campbell took the  time to read and comment each week on our posts--she generated some real thought to her questions and helped us further our understanding and critical thinking into our readings each week. Also, by having to comment on another group's blog it allowed us to read what other groups had to say--this aspect of the blog assignment was fun and interesting. One blog in particular that I (Hayley) enjoyed commenting on was "Bower Tree"--Floricel Gonzales, Holly Matteson, and Corinna Thornton--because they were always on top of things and had their post up early rather than waiting until 8:55pm to hit the "submit" button. On a deeper level, I felt that they really  took the time and effort into their posts each week, which made it interesting to read and comment on!

British Lit For The Win was a success and we learned a lot about 19th Century British Literature.

The Awakening, and modern contexts

Conveniently enough, this blog manifesto spoke of how we would be using the relationship of the texts we are reading for class and the conversations had in class with gender and society and how it is all interrelated. This specific text, The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, has many, many more reflections of gender, specifically women, and how they were cast in society of the time period, the nineteenth century. It was said to be a “landmark work of early feminism” (wikipedia). It has also been compared to a modern day novel, Fifty Shades of Grey in its sexuality and promiscuity. But why is this book important? We see a woman, Edna Pontellier, who is trying to figure out who she is. She very mistakenly chose a life for herself that she wasn’t prepared for, a life that society wanted for her, that her parents (for the most part) wanted for her, and that perhaps even she had at one point wanted for herself. A life that required her to devote herself to her family, namely her husband and children. And as branded by the title, Edna wasn’t fully “awakened” until she was already so deep in her life that there were very little ways for her to escape her then current living situation, without ruining her life. Edna was awakened to this sexual being and independence that she had never discovered before or even realized was inside of her. It really was unfortunate for her how late she realized this part of her being. But through her eyes, we as readers got to see multiple different roles that women played during the nineteenth century in the American south. We see Edna’s friend Adele living this “ideal” life as a mother-woman who devotes her entire life and time to her husband and children. And we see the opposite, her friend Mademoiselle Reisz, as the spinster character who lived life as a single woman without children. Edna is stuck somewhere in between. She is stuck in this life as someone who is “supposed” to be a mother-woman, yet she now wants the freedom to live her individual life. And she is literally trapped in this situation because her reputation would be soiled for good if she ever took herself out of it. The sad part of her story is that she is just one of many women who were born or thrust into lives that they didn’t particularly like or want to live, but had no other options. Edna’s only option to be free from her life, in her eyes, was to, what we presume as readers, commit suicide. It really makes me wonder what the suicide rate looked like for women in America during the nineteenth century. I actually tried to look up some statistics but couldn’t find anything useful. My guess is that, women have always been strong, and I imagine that most women in these situations, whose lives were put together for them in a way that they didn’t want, just sucked it up and did what they had to do. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case for Edna Pontellier. However, even though women’s rights have been significantly increased in a positive way to this day, I still think about the amount of trouble both women and men have to go through these days in regards to marriage and family. The divorce rate is significantly higher today than even ten years ago, but divorce hasn’t always been acceptable in society, so of course it is hard to compare divorce rates now to those of even 20 to 30 years ago. That being said, it seems to be more common nowadays for couples to get married because of having children than it is the opposite. Casual sex for men and women is more acceptable in society which leads to higher percentages of children being born out of wedlock, and many people still have the mindset of if they have a child with someone then they have to get married to that person. What I’m essentially saying is that, although women have more rights, I don’t think happiness in marriage has changed a lot since the book was written or the time period it was placed in, which is very saddening. It only makes this novel more relevant than ever in our society today. 

Discrepancies in Pudd'nhead Wilson

I'd like to discuss some of the attributes of Pudd'nhead Wilson that were talked about in class today. One of particular interest to me that was mentioned in the discussion was the idea of having any relation of African descent, associates you as such, as it should, but of course that was a negative thing during that time period, or could be considered to many. This, known as "one drop", it seemed that Mark Twain intended on making some fun of it with nutlike of the characters. Roxy, who was one sixteenth African American, yet looked like she was white physically but still was a slave because of her heritage. And then her son, who was one thirty second African American and her slave owner's son who was white, looked so much alike that the only person who could tell them apart was Roxy because she took care of them both. So the irony that they could both be considered white if no one knew of Chambers' (Roxy's son) background, he could pass as any other white child and eventually man. Which is exactly why Roxy switched Chambers and her owner, Percy Driscoll's son, Tom, in hopes that her son wouldn't end up sold down the river. To me, it appears that Mark Twain is making fun of the idea of "one drop". And along with that idea, there was a notion as well that the "whiter" someone was, the smarter they were. But Twain contradicts his making fun of "one drop" with the idea that the whiter you were the smarter you were and somewhat agreeing with that, at least in his writing. Because he made the real Tom an actually good person with lots of potential, and also being fully white. And the fake Tom, aka Chambers, stupid and mean and a bad person, and also of African descent. So with that it seems like Twain does agree that whiter equals smarter. Does Twain believe some of the racial stereotypes that go along with African Americans and white people or is he trying to make fun of those stereotypes? This book kind of shows him doing both. But then if you think about where he is coming from, the time period, both could be possible. It is just tough to read, the whole book, because it is full of controversial and contradicting ideas. And the ending almost makes it feel like the whole book was pointless because it screws over the real Tom, and even though it gives Chambers a chance at not being disadvantaged, in turn it completely disadvantages Tom and Chambers gets "sent down the river" anyways. I just feel like, why even read this? I mwan we get to have these discussions but with no answers. Which is how a lot of things are, I know. It is just frustrating.

Let's talk about Sherlock Holmes!

Arthur Conan Doyle's famous story of Sherlock Holmes is so entertaining. Before this class I have never read or watched any Sherlock Holmes stories or movies and after watching the BBC adaption of "The Scandal In Bohemia" (or as they call it "A Scandal in Belgravia") I want to continue to watch the series! I really enjoyed the episode and liked the actual story just as much. For the most part BBC followed the story line of the story really well. However, they changed a few things (like most tv and movie adaptions do), but I actually thought the changes made the story better. First change that I liked was the fact that Irene Adler was a more complex character. By this I mean, she seemed to have a lot more speaking lines in the story--which helped us get a better sense of her as a character. She completely upstages Holmes and it is so great because Holmes definitely holds himself at a higher standard than everyone else. Adler is the one person he cannot look down upon and cannot for the life of him figure her out--the tv series does a fantastic job of showing her intelligence and how she challenges Holmes. This relates to the theme of masculinity in this story. Holmes--as I mentioned before--puts himself on a very high pedestal and he hates the fact of someone "beating" him or outsmarting him. This story knocks him down a few pegs because not only does he get beat--but he gets beat by a woman (which makes it all the better if you ask me). Society has always thought of men as the "smarter" sex--unfortunate, but true. It wasn't up until the late 19th century that we see woman in the workforce. Holmes, like many men (not all men!) view woman as being less smart than them. One of the reasons why I love this story is because Doyle writes a story where this societal idea is completely contradicted…and it's great! Irene Adler's character shows that woman are smart, witty, and intelligent just like men. 

Another aspect of the tv show that I liked and picked up on was that they used the same lines from the story--not all of them were verbatim but they used the "famous" lines and incorporated them into the show. For example, in the story when Irene Adler is disguised as a an and says "Goodnight Mr. Holmes" is said a few times in the tv show as well. In the show, Adler texts Holmes  the same line--and I immediately recognized that that was one of the lines they used in the story! I really like when the movie and tv adaptions of stories uses lines from the actual text because to me it makes it more credible and usually represents that they are following the original story well (which is always a good thing). 

Overall, I really enjoyed reading this particular story of Sherlock Holmes. I know that there are many more stories of his and I can't wait to read them--or watch them! My question to  you is: What other themes besides masculinity did you see present in this particular story? What changes did the tv show make that you liked? Were there any differences in the tv show that you didn't care for?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

British Imperialism

In class we briefly touched on the idea of what Rudyard Kipling was exactly trying to portray with his works that we read. Both the "The White Man's Burden" and "The Man Who Would Be King" have a seriously imperialistic message on the surface level, and it is highly debated if this was Kipling’s way of criticizing this aspect of British culture or it was really how he felt. I personally do not have a straight answer. But in many ways, it is not important what Kipling actually meant, what matters is most is people reading his works since they were first published have interpreted them as a part of this imperialistic rhetoric that plagued Britain in the 19th century. To provide some historical context to the world that Kipling was writing in, the British Empire was massive at the time, claiming ownership over India, Canada, Australia, various areas of Africa and more. Because as the famous saying goes “The sun never sets on the British Empire”. This is illustrated in a political cartoon from the time below, with the caption describing England as the "devilfish".

One of the motivating factors behind imperialism was this “white savior complex” which is evident in the language Kipling uses in the "The White Man's Burden" with lines such as, "Take up the White Man's burden, Have done with childish days—" (25), and by calling the people native to the areas that England colonized “Half-devil and half-child” (4). Specifically associating these people with the devil and children speaks volumes of the attitudes of the British. The half devil part clearly means that they view them as evil, and the half child part means that they see them, as people who need to be taken care of, which is were the British Empire comes in, they saw the act of colonizing as saving these people from themselves. This language Kipling uses is what the people of the British empire were using at the time to justify going in and taking over societies that had been functioning just fine for thousands of years. But the colonizers from England did not care about any of this- they just saw cultures different from their own that needed to be “fixed”, so they imposed their western standards onto these people, and created systems of oppression that many countries are struggling to recover from to this day. So regardless of the true meaning behind Kipling's words, in the end it does not matter, because society saw them as backing up the imperialistic views of England at the time, so that is what they have come to be synonymous with. 

Women's Rights and Women's Suffrage in the 19th and early 20th centuries

This week in English 372, we looked at some pieces from the 19^th century and early 20^th century that related to women’s suffrage and women’s rights. What we found was both interesting and shocking. I hadn’t realized before, but it took almost a century for activists for women’s rights to win the battle that led to the 19^th Amendment of the Constitution to be put in place. And on Election Day in 1920, when millions of women voted for the first time ever, it changed the world. But it was a long time coming.

Some of the most disturbing things I have seen and read were the political cartoons that were used during the 19^th century to dissuade people from allowing women to vote. One, shown below, was a picture of a woman’s head and depicting what is inside it, merely included things like clothing, chocolate, children, men, and very little of anything that would prove women have any intellectual abilities outside of being a housewife. As a woman, it is degrading to see. And the very saddest part of all is that some people still feel that way today. Just like many people are still racist, and anti-homosexual, and biased towards their own religions. Even though we have made large strides in equality, we are still fairly far from it.

In one article written by a female member of the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage in the late 1800s wrote of reasons why women should not have the rights that they desire and one of them included, “Because the woman suffrage movement is a backward step in the progress of civilization, in that it seeks to efface natural differentiation of function, and to produce identity, instead of division of labor.” And she also said, “Because it is our fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons who represent us at the ballot box. Our fathers and our brothers love us; our husbands are our choice, and one with us; our sons are what WE MAKE THEM. We are content that they represent US in the corn-field, on the battle-field, and at the ballet-box”. And all of this and more was written by a woman. It was common for some women to believe this side of it, to listen to their husbands and agree with them, and to look down upon other women for wanting to have rights. And it still happens today. It seems more often today that you see men banding together and if not banding together, at the very least not trying to sabotage each other. Where we see women are all about cat-fights and slut-shaming each other for trying to be independent of the norm. You see it made fun of in social media all the time today. Women shame each other for wanting to be only friends with men because other women are mean to them. But it is so true. And so sad. Women should be all banding together and helping one another but so much of the time pettiness and jealousy gets in the way of that.

But it wasn’t all bad back in the 19^th century and early 20^th century. Not only were wealthy white women supporters of women’s rights, men like Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a leader of an abolition movement, was on board with women’s right to vote. And not just white women, but black women as well actively supported the movement, like Ida B. Wells-Barnett (known for her leading against lynching). Susan B. Anthony was a huge leader in getting women the right to vote. When she registered to vote in 1872 she was fined by the Congress of the United States a hundred dollars. And we know it has gotten better. Rights have been given. It has taken a lot of time, but women finally were justly given the right to vote in 1920, although it wasn’t until the 1960s when everyone, including black women, was given the rights to vote. It is still an ongoing battle of equality for women and men as it is with race and sex and religion among so many other things but we are slowly progressing forward.

 

http://www.radford.edu/rbarris/Women%20and%20art/amerwom05/suffrageart.html

http://memory.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe13/rbpe132/13200400/001dr.jpg

(From New York, 1912)

http://memory.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe13/rbpe130/1300130c/001dr.jpg

​(New York, 1894)

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/douglass-petition.html

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/anthony-petition.html 

Field Trip to MASC

Up until Tuesday, I had not heard of MASC. Come to find out it is on our campus and accessible to students here at WSU. The MASC—which stands for Manuscripts, Archives, and Special Collections—is located at the bottom of the Rotunda in Holland/Terrell Libraries. Coming into this, I had no idea what to expect…maybe some ancient books locked up in see through cases that we can admire without touching…or maybe just books labeled with a huge “DO NOT TOUCH SIGN.” Surprisingly, neither of these were the case. I was (and still am) amazed at how we could touch and look through these old books; there were no plastic cases or “do not touch” signs strongly pointing us away from them. I think it is so great that we can actually touch, flip through, smell, and read these classic, old books. One book that stood out to me was Uncle Tom’s Cabin. This particular book had survived a flood back in the late 1800’s and here it is today—you can tell that it is old and worn out, but that fact that I got to touch and feel a book that old was incredible. The fact that WSU Libraries has a place like MASC that allows students to come in and view such documents and artifacts is pretty amazing—it shows that they really are here for the students and that they want us to feel comfortable and welcome in coming to view such items. After class, I was a still curious as to what MASC was all about and wanted to know more, after finding their website I was able to understand more about them and what they offered. They were founded by WSU Libraries in 1977 and contains many types of material such as: personal and family documents (diaries, letters, etc.), collections based on the Northwest region, WSU papers, etc. They also have rotating exhibits in the main part of the MASC. Currently, it is World War I and the Palouse. In the past they have featured: Nez Perce Indians, Early Days of WSU Football, Washington Territory, and First Women in Graduate Education at WSU. These are just a few of the exhibits that have been featured at the MASC. I like how they typically display things related to Washington State—such as the Palouse, Washington State University, and tribes or people of this region. It makes it much more relatable and interesting because then we can visualize and learn about our local history. I think that by knowing the history of places around us we will appreciate it a lot more. As I said before I think it is so great that they feature history of our own University because it helps students learn about and appreciate WSU so much more. I am so glad to have had the opportunity to visit the MASC and I definitely plan on visiting again. What stood out to you at the MASC? Were you surprised at anything? Did you think there was something else they needed to have and display there? I am curious to know your thoughts and opinions about our class visit to the MASC!

Femininity in "Hard Times"

Hard Times is about facts, and how the emphasis that Victorian society placed on them can be detrimental to overall happiness, which is why as I read the novel I focused on the two main female characters; Sissy and Louisa and how their gender affected various aspects of the novel. In the age when Dickens was writing (just as they still are today) woman were put into little boxes and expected to display only feminine traits. This meant they were compassionate, pure, sensitive, docile, and more.  But just to be clear: it is not a bad thing if a woman has these characteristics, the problem comes from men assuming and forcing that all women to fit into their fatly preconception of what a woman “should” be.

These characteristics are all in stark contrast to what the main male characters of the novel stand for, which is what makes Hard Times interesting. In the beginning of the novel when Gradgrind is lecturing the students on facts and fancy, it is not just the boys he is trying to make accept his narrow vision of the world, but the girls as well. In the second chapter when discussing “proper” ways to paper walls and carpet a house Sissy sands up for what she likes, and tells Gradgrind “It wouldn't hurt them, Sit. They wouldn't crush and wither, if you please Sir. They would be pictures of what was very pretty and pleasant, and I would fancy—“ (5). Here Sissy is not just speaking her mind and declaring her love for something, but the object that she fancies (flowers) are something that are associated with femininity. In response to this Gradgrind says “Ay, ay, ay! But you mustn’t fancy…That’s it! You are never to fancy” (5). By placing this exchange at the beginning of the novel, Dickens is both setting up the theme of the opposition between fact and fancy and firmly rooting these two characters on either side, but he is also really setting up Sissy as an interesting character, who brings in that stereotypical female side into a novel whose main characters are utterly devoid of emotion.  

Because this novel is critiquing society I saw that Sissy’s ability to feel emotions is meant to be seen as a positive trait. The message Dickens is trying to send through this novel is that a sole reliance on facts will lead to a miserable life. This is demonstrated through Stephen Blackpool and Rachael, Stephen is tired and worn down with the monotony of his life as a mill worker, and it is not facts that help him with this, it is the gentle way Rachael’s treats him. Additionally it is Sissy that brings love into the Gradgrind house, and is the one who, through the love of her children and the family she makes for herself, teaches Louisa how to feel sympathy and to recognize the emotions her father tried so hard to suppress in her. So despite the negativity that society has always placed on woman and the characteristics associated with them, is femininity, not facts, that saves (some of) the characters of Hard Times.

Superhero "Blog Carnival"

The topic of the Byronic and Romantic heroes really interested me and caught my attention this week. Heroes are a big part of our entertainment. People go crazy over the new Batman, Spiderman, and Iron Man films—it is just the way we are as a society.  We are captivated by the heroism, the strength, talent, intelligence, and the pure uniqueness of these super heroes. But the real question is why? What about them draws us in? Is it the fact that they go against society’s rules and the government? Is it how arrogant/confident they are; yet they possess this charismatic quality about themselves? I think it helps people be someone they are not, but at the same time they are relatable in many ways. How many of you as little kids dressed up as these characters for Halloween? I’m guessing many of you! It’s cause superheroes draw us in…we all want to have that mysterious and awesome superpower.

Check out this link on more insight as to why we are obsessed with superheroes:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/06/why-are-we-obsessed-with-superheroes

I like this link because it shows how we can relate to these superheroes. They can be flawed like us; we are not perfect and neither are they. It also is interesting that this article talks about how these superheroes fight and conquer all who are most currently trending in the world. For example, Batman has fought the Nazi’s and has attacked Pearl Harbor. In one of his most recent films, he has fought Bane, the villain, who has a ton of new technical gadgets (in today’s technical society we are so intrigued by this).  This goes for many of the other superheroes too. Adam West, a start in the ‘60’s version of the Batman movie, said it best: “superheroes never grow old. They just change with the times.”

I chose this link for you guys to check out because it touches on the universality of the popularity of superheroes (a unique trait that makes them universal):

http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/9147.29335.143.0/world/why-the-fascination-with-superheroes?preview

One of my favorite points that this link makes is the biblical references. Who knew that the origin of these superheroes could be traced back biblically? Do you guys believe the point that this author is making? Do you see connections between superheroes and religion? If so, what?

For the last link, I want to direct you to the last section labeled “examples”:

 http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/byronic-hero-definition-characteristics-examples.html#lesson

I liked this section because it shows a bunch of different types of heroes—specifically Byronic heroes (heroes that are arrogant, charismatic, and self-destructive—“mad, bad, and dangerous to know”). It shows that all [Byronic] heroes come in different shapes and sizes. However, all these characters are well known, linking back to out obsession of the superhero theme in our society’s entertainment.