A Victorian War?

"The Crimean is today less compelling, and the generic conventions Fenton used to naturalize the scenes of war seem contrived or empty. The very conventions that make these photographs difficult for us to read, were, however, what made them appealing to a Victorian audience that desired to possess history." The Crimean photograph above is a perfect example of what Natalie Houston was talking about in her article, as if definitely appears to be staged in some way. I mean, the gentleman pictured in Fenton's "The Artist's Van" is sitting perfectly stoic on a wagon that is being led my nothing. So he's just sittin' there, staring blankly into space. Sure, it's artistic, and I'm sure at the time it was taken that this type of photograph was all the rage, but I definitely feel the loss that Houston discussed in her article. If the audience isn't able to decipher the purpose of the picture, then how are they able to appreciate it?

Houston claims that "By focusing on the officers and portraying them in this stylized manner, the real hardships faced by the troops are minimized, suggesting perhaps Fenton’s political acquiescence to his Royal sponsor. " I get that he couldn't get a clear shot if people didn't stand still, but the fact that a good chunk of the people in the photos are in clean, pressed uniforms doesn't make it seem like there's a war going on. His style is extremely Victorian, very formal, and while he at least gives recognition to those who were there, the rules that prohibited him ends up devaluing the experience of the soldiers. By not being able to capture images of dead bodies (as horrible as that sounds) and technology restricting his ability to capture battle scenes, without a written explanation of things we would never really get the whole picture.

Houston points out that "The primary function of Fenton’s photographs was to memorialize and record that which was already known, rather than to present something new." This technology was so new, they knew the limits. They were there simply to record, to capture even the smallest piece of the souls of the men who were there, and now we have teh history to prove it. Are they staged? For sure. Are they realistic to the settings? Not really. But did each of the men photographed serve their country? Absolutely. And I suppose that's what counts.

Whitman is sportin' the Levi's

You know, I'm just going to start off by saying how BRILLIANT I think it is that Levi's used Walt Whitman's poetry and even his own voice in order to promote their brand name. It is clear that Whitman had a great love for his country, and I feel that love is excellently put to use for America's advertisements. McCracken quotes Whitman:"The proof of a poet is that his country absorbs him as affectionately as he has absorbed it." Levi's has always been associated with America and the working man, it is the oldest, most trusted brand, and the men who shaped our lands and worked our fields wore them. With all things considered, the only person better suited to be a spokesperson for Levi's would be John Muir. . . (That's for you, Julie!).

In Leaves of Grass, Whitman argues, "Come to us on equal terms, Only then can you understand us, We are no better than you, What we enclose you enclose, What we enjoy you may enjoy." Who are we kidding!! It's like Gold points out, "Advertising has taken up what Whitman thought was the poet’s job." And it's true! I really felt like the article celebrated any involvement that the Levi's campaign had with Whitman. Just from my own perspective, why wouldn't you want to include someone who contributed so much to America's literary past? Not only are they helping to promote his standing legend, but they are revisiting the roots that Whitman reminded America about in the first place. You just can't go wrong when you incorporate things that people should already know (but probably don't) into something that they can see in their everyday lives. Too much of our history is lost on the younger generations as it is.

Poets were the voice of the past. Is it sad and disappointing that advertisement is the great influencer of the future? Of the present? I kind of think so.

The Veiled Minister and. . . Lady Gaga?

Lady Gaga: Born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta on March 26, 1986.

Through the seemingly infinite knowledge of Wikepedia and my own intuitive response to the reading, I discovered a key point of Dark Romanticism that also appears in The Minister's Black Veil:"Dark Romantics present individuals as prone to sin and self-destruction." In relation to Hawthorne's works, Wikepedia also informs us that: "His themes often center on the inherent evil and sin of humanity, and his works often have moral messages and deep psychological complexity." For those of us who have read it, TMBV absolutely fits this genre! I think the character of the preacher was defined within that last description of Hawthorne's writing.

Among some of the first responses of the congregation to Hooper's black veil was this:"The black veil, though it covers only our pastor's face, throws its influence over his whole person, and makes him ghostlike from head to foot. Do you not feel it so?'' The entire congregation is affected by this simple garment and the mystery behind it. "Each member of the congregation, the most innocent girl, and the man of hardened breast, felt as if the preacher had crept upon them, behind his awful veil, and discovered their hoarded iniquity of deed or thought." I think the most important fact to make about the veil itself is that it represents the unknown, or "the Other," which will always strike fear and doubt in the hearts of everyone else.

First of all, it was not a normal thing to hide your face. People who wear masks are weird, for one. Remember Lady Gaga and her unforgettable performance at the VMAs? I mean, she was of course eccentric before that little stunt, but the simple truth of the matter is that people who hide their face, hide their EYES, tend to come off as untrustworthy, even scary. What is that old saying?: The eyes are the window to the soul?

So what exactly is little miss Gaga trying to hide here?

"He has changed himself into something awful, only by hiding his face.'' At least that's what members of the church said about Mr. Hooper. The revelation of the mask comes later in the story, in Mr. Hooper's conversation with his wife, when he says: "I, perhaps, like most other mortals, have sorrows dark enough to be typified by a black veil."

So this is it, my friends. This is what it all comes down to. Mr. Hooper feels so much guilt and humiliation from his sins that cannot be seen by men that he feels some sort of obligation to display an outward symbol of his wickedness. While "normal" members of society put on a smile and walk around like they are blameless, he in fact seeks to attone for his sins by humbling himself and wearing this "letter A." But does this necessarily make him an evil character? NO WAY!! He's just a man attempting to wear his heart on his sleeve, which is a characteristic I would think to be admirable in a minister. They're people too, and there is a lot of pressure for them to be perfect servants of God.

Does this mean Lady Gaga is the next Billy Graham?. . .

ALSO, GO TEAM COOPER!!!! YAY-YEAH!!

Talking in Circles. . .

Nature centres into balls,
And her proud ephemerals,
Fast to surface and outside,
Scan the profile of the sphere;
Knew they what that signified,
A new genesis were here.

I think we talked about this in class, but the epigraph at the beginning of this poem is summing up the meaning of the text that follows. I never knew what an epigraph was, so I am proud to add another "smart word" to my vocabulary!!! (Thank you, Julie!!).

Throughout the text, Emerson reiterates his point that the circle is "the highest emblem in the cipher of the world." He makes several connections between nature and man, saying that circles or spheres are the very centers or elements that create life. They are the beginning and the end of all things, and every action, decision, path we take is displayed through these shapes and leave behind proof of their being within ripples. Emerson's main themes consist of an idealistic approach that everything in this life is interconnected, and one element cannot move without influencing another. He also feels that the thoughts of man can drive the genesis or creation of circles, and he exemplifies this through his statement: "Our life is an apprenticeship to the truth, that around every circle another can be drawn; that there is no end in nature, but every end is a beginning; that there is always another dawn risen on mid-noon, and under every deep a lower deep opens."

Knowing what we do about Emerson's creation of "man thinking," I think it's pretty safe to say that these thoughts are inter-connected. There cannot be evolution of circles without first the evolution of man's thoughts, and the challenges he faces to expand his mind past the natural world as we know it. "The key to every man is his thought." So basically, whatever truth man seeks, whatever methods he uses to further his thinking, man's thoughts are connected to every circle, and the circles are without end. "Scan the profile of the sphere; knew they what that signified, a new genesis was here." One must recognize what each circle signifies if we mean to expand or develop their meaning.

All this talk of circles is making me dizzy-- red rover, anyone?

Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Nature Submerged an Entire Island and Killed all the Dinosaurs

There are so many vivid descriptions of nature in this poem, one might imagine that Dorothy Wordsworth was a Neo-Pagan!! "Harmonious Powers with Nature work /On sky, earth, river, lake, and sea:/ Sunshine and storm, whirlwind and breeze/ All in one duteous task agree" (ll. 1-4). Wordsworth has personified the elements of nature, claiming that the various powers of nature are able to come together and agree on a duteous task. This opening stanza seems to allude to a worship of nature, which is later apparent throughout the rest of the poem. Another example of this is "But Nature, though we mark her not, Will take away -- may cease to give" (ll. 23-24). So much respect, awe, and wonderment is given to nature as a living being, it is clear that nature is worshipped.

The other theme that cannot be ignored is the author/narrator's devotion to beauty. This is also characteristic of Romanticism, and the colorful language and rich undertones leave the reader feeling comfortable and pleasant (At least I was- I'm pretty sure I sighed at the end. . .). Example: "Might see it, from the mossy shore Dissevered float upon the Lake, Float, with its crest of trees adorned On which the warbling birds their pastime take. Food, shelter, safety there they find There berries ripen, flowerets bloom; There insects live their lives -- and die: A peopled world it is; in size a tiny room" (ll. 9-16). To put it simply, Wordsworth is able to see and appreciate the beauty in nature all around her.

Though the narrator conveys a sense of loss at the end because the island has disappeared, I felt that the mood of the poem was not influenced by this development. "Buried beneath the glittering Lake! Its place no longer to be found, Yet the lost fragments shall remain, To fertilize some other ground" (ll.21-24). The tone and word choice suggest that this occurrence is understood, or at least accepted. The narrator is not angry, does not question it, and does is not afraid of the consequences. This of course links back to the worship of nature, where the people simply accept Nature's choice in removing the island from sight.

Overall, very beautiful poem. I'd be curious to see what would happen if Jurassic Park and the Floating Island were to combine themselves into one massive storyline. . . . That would have taken care of the world's regenerated dinosaur problem. . .

Help! I Need A Nightlight!

As Julie has prompted us to delve deeper into the meanings behind nature within this text, I found several instances that evoked a sort of fear/anxiety/terror that actually didn't include a lot of physical description. We discussed in class the possible meaning behind these feelings and the symbolic nature of these settings, and I believe Charles Brockden Brown did an excellent job portraying the current American condition (upheaval, uncertainty, entrapment) through the settings in his novel. Keeping this idea in mind, let's jump into the text.

So, the scene I have decided to discuss is the part where Edgar is about to "re-examine [the] cave" (93). It struck me as an amusing point in the story because he had chosen to come back to this unknown place in the dark, and didn't even notice his lack of proficient lighting until he actually reached the mouth of the cave (94). Edgar is so completely enveloped by his obsession to find out what Clithero is doing whilst he sleepwalks that his common sense has clearly taken the back seat. At the beginning of his venture into the cave, Edgar's mind begins to race: "I began to fear that I should be involved in a maze, and should be disabled from returning" (95). Ok, so Edgar can't see, he senses danger, he fears getting lost, and he recognizes the possibility he won't be able to find his way out- yet he still walks on, unable to save his curiosity for another time. STOP FOOL!

Even though this was pretty stupid to begin with, the quote I'd like to draw your attention to comes after he's decided to sally forth- "Intense dark is always the parent of fears" (95). This is it, my friends. This is the point where we should realize (with Edgar) that while his surroundings are indeed creepy and terrifying and stupidly played with by our hero, we are told that it is the darkness itself that FEEDS the anxiety of his situation. What does this mean? Why is this significant? Get ready. . .

AMERICA IS IN THE DARK AT THIS TIME!!! Wow. But seriously. Charles Brockden Brown fails to include more physical details about Edgar's surroundings on purpose!! He wants his readers to be able to draw connections and recognize his political statements. If he had indeed been more descriptive and focused on evoking fear using more detailed illustrations, then we would have just accepted nature to be seen for what it is instead of what is represents!

So that is why nature is depicted the way it is within the novel. Even if we read it for fun at first, we are easily able to critically analyze it later because of the way that Charles Brockden Brown sets it up for us.

A Baker's Extravaganza

"I'm looking over, my dead dog Rover who's been hit by a power mower!
One leg is missing, the other is gone
One leg is scattered all over the lawn!
No need explaining, the leg remaining
It just sits there on the floor!
I'm looking over, my dead dog Rover
Who I'd never hit before!!!"

Ok, so maybe this song doesn't really encompass TERROR or HORROR. . . it's just kinda morbid. And it was stuck in my head today. But still, the gore illustrated by the carefully chosen words above lead into the first topic of discussion: HORROR!!

So I've never really been a horror movie fan. Actually, when it comes to scary movies in general I tend to avoid all contact. When I first met my husband, he tried to expand my thriller cinematic experience and discovered it was best to leave this one alone. The turning point: his introduction to the THRILLER TORNADO!!! The Thriller Tornado is my go-to move when I watch scary movies, and I do it whether or not we are in public. Nevertheless, my husband decided his pride in calling me his wife was more valuable than his pleasure in watching me freak out.

Back to the point. Horror. I hate to do this, but I think I'm going to. Three simple words: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Ugh. If I am remembering this correctly, it took us a few tries to get through this one. Let us imagine that creating a horror film is like decorating a cake, and since this film is based off of a true story, lets start with a red velevet base. Add a women pulling a gun out of her crotch and shooting her brains out, and there we have our rich icing. But that's not all we get. On top of the red deliciousness, we have a random leg sawed off here, people being hung on meat hooks there, victims being falayed: SPRINKLES!!!!! TCM is a truly horrifying film that reaches down your throat and rips your stomach out. It's just gross for people to watch. . . and yet they LOVE IT!!! Sick bastards.

On the other hand, we have red velevet's worst enemy: Mom's favorite TERROR BROWNIES!!! (The box kind). The thing about brownies is: They are SIMPLE! Terror is too. Terror doesn't need all the blood and guts and brains and injured people to get the point across. Terror just subtly slips itself into situations and you as the viewer just can't help the character find their way out of the creepy house where people are trying to kill them for no reason. That's right. This movie sucks, but I think some people liked it: THE STRANGERS. This film is suspenseful, it keeps you on edge (well, not me, but I think some people), and you NEVER SEE THEIR FREAKING FACES!! Ugh. What a sucky end. But the point is, there is no escape, no one comes to rescue them, there is no reasoning behind the attack, and there is no later explanation except: "YOU WERE HOME." Boo. My 2 year old nephew could come up with that one. But some people really feel that it's creepy!! This film plays off the fear of the unknown, which is what Julie discussed in class today. The couple is in an unfamiliar house in the middle of nowhere, alone, and totally unable to defend themselves against the other. One of the biggest aspects about this movie that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats (or whirling like a tornado) is that WE see the strangers in the house, in the background, and Liv and her boyfriend miss it most of the time. They can feel the danger, but they don't see it. . . while we do. So there you have it. Terror is a simple box of brownie mix that just needs oil, eggs, and a pan to complete its deliciousness.

So after this enlightening metaphoric example of Terror and Horror, I just have to ask: Which dessert would you buy at a charity bake sale?