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.

Will you stop at Nothing!?

            Ever since we had the chance to read Jonathon Swift’s “The Lady’s Dressing Room” I haven’t been able to get it off my mind. Perhaps taking the chance to get to talk about it more will help me not be too tempted to be quoting this lovely poem when girls around me are taking too long to get ready or doing odd and painful things in the name of beauty.

            Of course, being in true Swift fashion, “The Lady’s Dressing Room” is completely composed of playful couplets. That happens to be one of my guilty pleasures of Swift; with his syntax, style, and couplet form, I find his works to be very sing-songy and easily memorized… and repeated at wonderful opportunities that present themselves.

            After getting your giggles and your gasps of disgust and disgrace (and then some more giggles) in about this poem one major question arises; who is this poem really satirizing? At first glance the answer is clearly women. The things they do are disgusting! All the different bottles and powders, dirty clothes and cloths behind closed doors, clumps of hair and dirt. However, when you really do your close reading you realize that that is not the satire. That is purely the candy coating on the peanut butter M&M.

            The chocolate layer right under that is the satire of the men. In the beginning of the poem Stephon had no qualms with “The Goddess from her Chamber issues,/ Array’d in Lace, Brocades and Tissues.” In Swift’s satire of the men, we see that men love a lady with hair done perfectly, rosy cheeks, red lips, and soft pale skin. However, most men are never really prepared for the reality of what their girls go through to look like that. Even nowadays, the ‘natural’ look so many guys say they love includes cover-up, blush, lip gloss, and either a curling iron or a blow dryer and maybe even a straightener. Not all girls are like that mind you (I don’t even own hairspray or a blow dryer, and I’m usually the one poking at makeup asking what they heck it is and what it does), but that is common. The guys are horrified to see the things girls go through to look like that! The beauty products and dirty clothes alone are horrifying enough for Stephon, but then to top it off, she spits and “Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!”? That’s just too much. Girls are… girls! Beautiful things that never have to try for it, right?

            Last but not least is the peanut butter center which would be the satire of the women. Honestly girls, is there nothing you won’t do for beauty? Hours spent prepping for a date. Head to toe primping and fluffing. It can be time consuming, expensive, and even down right painful. But they don’t care. They have guys to impress and will go to extensive lengths to do it. This has created a ridiculous revolving door of expectations. Women expect this is what she should look like and what he’s expecting, while he is expecting her to be impressing him or at least expecting him to be expecting something.

Attack of the Sheeple!

Though I know that Ross already wrote about the role of the critic in the literary world on his last blog entry, I will be a very sad little ginger girl if I do not get to put my two cents in on the evil critics as well. Now, in all fairness, critics are not completely evil, wretched, conniving people who have nothing better to do with their time than bad mouth and put down other people’s works. Sometimes a critic’s words can really help.

Even still in the year 2012, you can see how a critic’s words can actually help. As one of my favorite examples, who would honestly pick up 50 Shades of Grey just for fun? Honestly, even if they purely wanted it as smut, they could find cheaper things online or on their kindle or smart phone or whatever other awesome technological toy they have that I could never afford. I am sure they could find things that are better written as well. But I digress. The point is that you can see on one hand how the words of a critic can fluff up a literary work to be better than it really is, making the book one of the best sellers and translated into 50 different languages.

Of course, on another side, (which I believe is our favorite side in class) we can see how harsh critiquing can really kill a work before it even has a fair chance. To quote Ross, “Critics had (and often still have) the power of life and death over literary works”. If a critic gives the thumbs up that it is ‘wonderful and anyone with any ability to read should have already read it and own several copies’, what do you think all the sheeple do? What do you think all the sheeple have been doing for hundreds of years?

The sad part though is the amount of faith, trust, and pixie dust that people place in critics. A lot of people tend to throw their own opinions and the ability to make their own opinions to the wind when it comes to literature, but now even movies, video games, music, and even restaurants. I’ve even seen professional critics for vacation spots! “No one should ever go to Venice, it’s so filthy! Try Rome instead.” Even hardcore gamers have been found to listen to critic’s words over their own wants and desires. Borderlands 2 just came out on the 18^th (if you’re not a gamer, then just know it is one of the highest hyped games this year) and some people waited to get it until they knew what rating it received. Some people ordered the game out of loyalty to the first game, much like getting the second book in a series when it comes out. Some people waited until the rating came out before they even attempted to look at the game. And last, but not least, there are those select few who actually rented the game before they decided to love or loathe it. 

When you go to look for a book, new music, a movie, or a game, before you place too much faith in whatever critic tickles your fancy, just remember to take it with a grain of salt. Try new things; make your own opinions. Slowly but surely shed your sheeple skin!

What's in a name?

One thing that truly caught my attention with Moll Flanders so far is the names that are given to the brothers she grows up with, and later gets entangled with some way or another. Though we know the younger brother as Robin or Robert, we are never given a name for the elder brother. He is purely known as the elder brother and nothing more. ‘Betty’ ends up losing her virginity to the eldest brother and holds to the naïve thought that the next patriarch in this family tree will be able to marry this girl that is no more than a lady’s companion. The entire time, Robin is in the background and truly loves this girl. He even finds happiness in the fact that he is not the eldest, because with some persuasion, his family consents to his proposal of marrying Betty because it is rather inconsequential for the family. Where he goes with his life and who he marries does matter to the family a little since they find keeping up appearances so important, but they are much more lax expectations than those placed on his older brother.

I believe that, though Robin is the less consequential of the brothers when it comes the family, he is actually named for several reasons. One reason could be because of his sincerity in his intentions with our main character. The elder brother knows that he would never Betty. He likes her well enough, but he knows that she is not the ‘wife’ type for his family and the appearances they need to keep up. She is simply his flavor of the week. She is fun for now, but he knows it will not be forever, despite what she thinks.

           Another reason could be the fact that his title in the family is the most important part about him. He is the eldest son. He will be the one to take his father’s place when the time comes. His brother’s title is rather unimportant. He will go out in the world and make his own way for the most part (still in need of his family’s approval though). Seeing as how his future is less set in stone than his older brother’s, this could be another reason that Robin is actually referred to by his name.

            

       Names seem to play an important role in this novel, whether a person notices it or not. Moll alone goes through several different name changes. Others are never named, such as the eldest brother, the nurse who takes care of her for most of her younger years, the draper who becomes her second husband, even her mother goes nameless. For those that do not have names it seems that their role in society is set. Those who are named are still trying to figure it out it seems. The right name, such as a title, and money are the things you need most in this world.