Poster Child Battles

As we are still working on the Female Quixote, and we were recently talking about John Locke's and Samuel Johnson's theories involving books and reason, I thought I would head down the same path. I recall thinking on Friday what a perfect poster child our seemingly naïve Arabella would be for Johnson. The one argument that keeps sticking out to me from Johnson is that villains and heroes should be black and white. There should be no confusion whatsoever; no 'sympathy for the devil'. Nowadays, we do not really seem to go for the black and white villains. We like complex characters; the bad guy has a soft spot, or he has a tragic reason for being the way he is. The good guy has a dark side or a tragic flaw, or even has to fight inner demons. We like the duplicity; we expect it, otherwise it does not seem real enough for us. In Supernatural (I've been on a Supernatural kick lately, if you can't tell from my other blog) they even have an episode called 'sympathy for the devil'. I have been to panels with one of my favorite authors about writing likeable villains. These are not villains you love to hate, but rather, you could see how they became the way they are, or the reason they do the things they do. For example, one guy wants to take over the world, and that's pretty bad. But once you see that he is going towards chaos rather than order. For this character, chaos represents chance, opportunity, and creativity. Order represents prison, mental and physical.

Johnson argues that people can be naïve, or simply blindly follow and believe the things they read. However, he also argues that if we listen to people who can read critically, such as himself and start to learn, that we can become better as well. We will be able to see the flaws in books and their characters, and we will be able to think critically and know that a book doesn't necessarily equate to real life. For these reasons I thought Arabella was the perfect poster child. She is naïve in the fact that she takes what she has read at face value and transformed trashy French romance novels into her personal bible. The other fact is the fact that she is too damn stubborn, just like her father, to listen to reason. Johnson's probably right, that if she were to start to listen to how to read the books critically, she probably would not be behaving as she does.

The more we talked in class, the more I realized that she could also be the poster child for Locke's theory as well, but she would be better suited for Johnson's. Locke thinks that what happens in a book should be logical in the book. It might not make sense in real life, but that's the way 'the world' of the book functions. Arabella simply hasn't realized the separation between real life and her book. The next part of his theory that made an impression on me doesn't seem to fit with Arabella very well. He argues that a good foundation in reasoning is what is needed. You can largely get this from getting a good (higher class) education. She has had that education (befitting a girl) and a bit more. And as we see through the book, she can reason very well, and very logically. The only problem is that she can't seem to realize that though the way she acts is the way they act in her books, it is not real, and it is not the way she should be acting.

Simply following her Only Instructions

Just to clarify for further reading of this particular post, I bought my copy of The Female Quixote used. I love getting used books not only because it saves me money, but also because I love getting to read the notes that were put in there by the people who previously owned it. I think it is interesting to get to see what others have seen and things that caught their fancy, and also to see what they are thinking about the book itself and the characters within. This time however, I was a little shocked about the two notes that kept popping up in the first part of the book (and throughout the rest… I checked out of curiosity): ‘arrogant’ and ‘no common sense’.

This insight simply rubbed me the wrong way. Do we really think that Charlotte Lennox intended for us to see Arabella as arrogant and that she has no common sense? I suppose when you look at Arabella’s actions purely on the surface that may seem to be the case, especially in the first book when you see her ‘interactions’ with the handsome young man from church. The previous owner of my copy of The Female Quixote seemed utterly appalled and even ranted when Arabella informed the young man that she did not want him to die but to live, and therefore should feel much better. I cannot see Arabella’s actions as arrogant though. And though she does lack common sense when it comes to social interactions, it has nothing to do with arrogance or a disregard for the things she has learned and/or seen.

I think it is important for a reader to consider these things. Arabella has been raised by her reclusive father all her life. Her governesses, the only older women who could have had any real impact on her, were sent away when she was only 4 years old. Once in a blue moon she has the chance to go to the nearest village and go to church, accompanied by her ‘ladies in waiting’. And her social skills? They have all been gleaned from her mother’s French romances. Since she has never been instructed otherwise, who is to say that is not the appropriate way to behave? There are tons of these books written, all with the lovely heroine behaving in the same manner. Each has become her personal bible of how to present herself, speak, manners, courting, everything. She is doing a fantastic job following her personal bibles to the ‘T’.

Now taking those things into consideration, can you really see Arabella as arrogant? And can you really hold it against her that she has none of what we would consider common sense when it comes to social interactions? Imagine what she would be like if all she read was the bible. Or maybe all she read was science books. What if she never even became interested in devouring the books she would find in her father’s library? She has found her own instruction manual and done her best to uphold what she has learned from them.

The World, Surprisingly, Does Not Revolve Around You

            This week I really had to dig deep for something to focus my blog on. True, Mr. John Pope packed ‘Rape of the Lock’ full of plenty of goodies for us to unpack, but frankly my muse is elsewhere. However, I was rather interested in our conversation that got started during our last class meeting on how this poem could be seen as John Pope’s commentary on the frivolity (and excessive drama) of the upper class. I think one of the most obvious tools that Pope uses to drive this point home (and illuminate it so beautifully) is his consistent use of the epic conventions. In Pope’s poem he uses images of gods, epic battles, mystical creatures, and many, for lack of a better term, ‘epic’ happenings and people to portray such ordinary and mundane instances.

            In canto 3, stanza 2, we see  advent’rous knights, matadors, four kings (in majesty rever’d), and even fair queens. All the while Belinda is thirsting for fame. Peasants and royalty are engaging in battle, this is wonderfully epic… except for the minor detail that this epic battle is just a card game. In stanza 5, ideas of trade get the same epic treatment. “The berries crackle, and the mill turns round;/ on shining altars of Japan they raise… from silver spouts the grateful liquors glide,”. I know some people find coffee in the morning not only wonderful, but more importantly, a key ingredient to creating a well-shaped human being in our modern world, but this is pushing it a bit. Coffee is an epic thing in the upper class of Pope’s world; right up there with Achilles and Aphrodite.

           In this epic world, women even help arm their knights to better assist their knights on their gallant quest… of courting. And if, down the lane, that valiant knight becomes her husband, he will be just as important as her lap dog or even the blessed china! “When husbands, or when lapdogs breathe their last;/ or when rich china vessels fall’n from high,” (158-159). What an honor. At the very least, Pope is most definitely pointing out that, at the very least, the upper class has their priorities rather skewed. The average and ordinary have become epic, and people that you’re supposed to care about are equated to your precious dog or an inanimate object.

         

         I had the opportunity to get to see Rent here on campus this week. Trust me, this is leading somewhere. This was the first time I had seen it, and there was one song that caught my attention, and made me think of ‘Rape of the Lock’, especially in the mindset that people can (and often do) over-dramatize everything in their lives. “Without you/ the ground thaws/ the rain falls/ the grass grows/ without you/ the seeds root/ the flowers bloom/ the children play/ the stars gleam/ the poets dream/ the eagles fly/ without you the earth turns/ the sun burns/ but I die without you”. Life goes on. Hair grows back. People forget. I promise. Now get over yourself, gain some perspective, and suck it up.