Blog Post 10/29- "Hyper and Deep Attention" + Digital Media Project

Theory Quote: “The contrast in the two cognitive modes may be captured in an image: picture a college sophomore, deep in Pride and Prejudice, with her legs draped over an easy chair, oblivious to her ten year-old brother sitting in front of a console, jamming on a joystick while he plays Grand Theft Auto.” (Hayles)

            As a future high school educator, one of main responsibility in teaching English is having the students be “connected” to the literature.  I have learned that most students need a reason why they have to read a certain text, or the importance of the book is lost on them.  The students need motivation to “concentrate” on why they need to read a certain assignment.   The best approach is having the students be connected to the text in a “personal” setting is by having the students connecting the text to their personal lives.

            The quote from “Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes” captures the increasing prevalence of the “hyper attention” in children and how teachers must “alter” their teaching abilities to better suit these needs.  While the article does touch on the awareness of ADHD and ADD in our society, our generation’s reliability to media plays a very important part on “concentrating for a connection”.   As I found examples for the “Digital Media Project”, I would try to find “media” that I could use in the classroom to show how different types of media can portray the same story.  While I found many examples to fit this criteria, I was fascinated by ones that strayed from the original literary text.  I may be going too far off topic here, but I discovered a movie called “Gnomeo and Juliet”, which was an animated movie telling the story of Romeo and Juliet but with talking garden gnomes.  I didn’t watch the movie, but I think it’s safe to say that neither of main characters die a tragic death.  What fascinated me the most though, is how children will be able to make a personal connection to the plot?  Children might be interested in it because it is colorful, but was it really necessary for this movie to be made?  I struggled to find an answer to this question, connecting the “fragileness” of the gnomes to the “fragile” nature of Shakespeare’s characters (deep), but the only answer I was firmly set upon was: they did it for the money. 

Weekly Response 10/22-Second Paper Ideas

            As I mentioned in my previous blog posts, I am fascinated with Jane Austen’s use of “parody” and “satire” in Pride and Prejudice.  Her constant use of minor characters, along with her exaggerations of class “roles” perfectly fit into this construction of “parodying” social and literature norms.  For my second paper, I am planning on connecting Woloch’s brief descriptions of “parody” along with the claims in the  “Class” article to the representation of  these uses in Pride and Prejudice and how looking at this novel in a “satirical” sense provides a much deeper understanding of what Austen is trying to accomplish with these characters. 

            As I was reading the excerpts from Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, it was very clear to me (and probably most readers) that the author was “parodying” Austen’s literary structure and story-telling devices.   Author Seth Grahame Smith exposes the satirical nature of Austen’s famous text about romance and class structure and uses “humor” and “parody” to help readers enjoy the original text even more.  and  While this may be an “extreme” form of satire, especially involving zombies, the humor comes from the reader’s familiarity with the norms expected from Austen’s work and the unexpected nature that two such different literary genres would combine successfully.  As I begin to write my paper, I need to flesh out a better understanding of why Austen wants the audience to see the “satire” in her work and how different (and satirical)  versions of this text are connected to the Austen’s own “self-satire”.

Weekly Response-10/15

Weekly Response 10/15/12
1a) In Jane Austen’s world, human worth is to be judged by standards better and more enduring than social status; but social status is always relevant…The importance assigned to class distinction is the source for much of her comedy and her irony, as of her social status” (McMaster 129)
1b) “I am now convinced, my dear aunt, that I have never been in much love...were I distractedly in love with him, I cannot say that I regret my comparative insignificance.” (Pride and Prejudice, Volume 2, Chapter 3).
2) Can Jane Austen’s descriptions and attitudes to social class and rank be considered as “parody” or “satire”?  If so, how is this “comedic” approach beneficial to the story compared to a straight-forward dramatic tale?
3) In last week’s literary theory article, Woloch described Austen’s overuse of minor characters as her own version of a “parody”.  Parody can be described as a trope that skewers or disassembles perceived norms, which in this case, would be the literary expectation that the story will mainly focus on the protagonist.  Yet, this week’s article discussed how Austen’s viewed “class rank” as misguided but important.  The expectation that with higher class equals means a more “prestigious” personality is mocked in Pride and Prejudice, with Austen commonly using “higher class” characters as sources of foolishness and snobbery.
Elizabeth’s passage about Wickman and her “comparative insignificance” can be seen as “satire” in hindsight.  If Austen’s novel awarded high-nobility individuals with the personality they deserve, the conflict would cease to exist.  Elizabeth’s battle with her “insignificance” allows her to see the “higher-class” individuals with “parody”, and as the protagonist, she is able to “rise above” these individuals and their notions of lower-class individuals, such as Mr. Collins, Miss Bingley, Lady Catherine, etc.  While adding a “comedic” light onto this conflict may seem unwarranted, Austen develops a consistency to how the characters will act based on their class standings.

Blog Post 10/8

1a) “…as Tony Tanner writes, to show ‘the relief with which an intricate person seeks out some solitude away from the miseries which can be caused by the constant company of more limited minds’” (Woloch 46).

1b) “Lizzy is not a bit better than the others; and I am sure she is not half as Jane, nor half so good humored as Lydia.  But you are always giving her preference.”

2) How does the characterization of the minor characters, such as Elizabeth’s sisters, and their “limited minds” actually benefit the story arc of Elizabeth?  Why does Austen’s use competition (one vs many) create a narrative difference between Elizabeth and her sisters?

3) The first time the reader hears about Elizabeth, Mr. Bennett compares her positively to the other Bennett girls, and Mrs. Bennett scolds him for creating such a “competition” between the sisters. As I read through Pride and Prejudice, the idea of “competition” rarely came to my mind.  The use of “comparison”, though, was embedded due to our discussion in class on this subject.  The minor character’s “limited minds” in the novel were definitely compared to Elizabeth’s actions.  Knowing that Elizabeth is the protagonist allowed me to see these comparisons on the “Elizabeth-side” mainly because her motives are much more fleshed out and realized than Jane and Elizabeth’s “lustful” (too harsh of word?) younger sisters.  Woloch describes that the “protagonist needs a contrast here to be fully individualized.”  Elizabeth’s hesitation of marriage and her drawn-back demeanor sets her apart from the other minor characters in the play.

            Yet, Austen’s over-reliance on the minor characters and their motives (very one-dimensional), or as Woloch calls it a “parody”, may make a reader feel overwhelmed by the constant contrasts between them and Elizabeth.  Yet, the “one vs. many” approach to the novel creates a narrative difference between Elizabeth (one) and her sisters (many), which provides the reader to comprehensively understand why the motives of Elizabeth will eventually provide a positive ending.  The characters’ constant competition between themselves provides the distinction that Elizabeth’s happy ending will “win”.   

Weekly Response 10-1

1a) “…the woman writer acknowledges with pain, confusion, and anger that what she sees in the mirror is usually a male construct, the “pure gold baby” of male brains, a glittering and wholly artificial child.”- (Gilbert and Gubar 813).

1b) “Affection of Candour is common enough;-one meets its everywhere.  But to be candid without ostentation or design-to take the good of every body’s character and make it still better, and says nothing of the bad-belongs to you alone.” (Austen 275).   

2) Does the “angel/monster” opposition occur in Pride and Prejudice in ways that favor the extremes? In other words, does evilness have to be connected to the “monster” or are there other traits that are considered “monster”?

3)  As I was reading Gilbert and Gubar’s literary theory, I was surprised at how “dark” the material was.  The idea of women being able to constitute both sides of the “moral spectrum” whether it was “angel” or “monster” quite intrigued me.  I was reminded of Shakespeare’s treatment of Desmondia in Othello, where Desmondia “switched” between angel and monster in Othello’s eye.  Yet, as I was reading this article, I was having problems facing the “monster” side when it came to Pride and Prejudice.  There were multiple examples of the “angelic” women in Jane Austen’s novel, in which Gilbert and Gubar describe angelic characteristics as “the arts of pleasing men…or proper acts of a lady” (816).

            Gilbert and Gubar state that women cannot be successful writers if they do not “kill” stereotypes that “male-defined masks” put on them.  I have never read any Jane Austen’s novels before (I know), so reading the first volume with their article in mind allowed to respect the arguments they were making.  Yet, the “evilness” of the monster metaphor still stuck to me as being a bit harsh.  I really couldn’t connect any of the female characters to this side.  Sure, there were many characters who weren’t the “most” proper.  As I flipped through the act again, I ran across the conversation between Jane and Elizabeth after the first ball.  Jane seems to be transfixed on how perfect everything was at the ball and how Mr. Bingley was “just a young man ought to be”, and acting in a very angelic-like nature, where Elizabeth complains Mr. Bingley’s sisters and criticizes Jane’s ability to be so nice.  Elizabeth does play off Jane’s gleefulness and critiques her angelic-like behavior.  It struck me that in the first act, Elizabeth’s reluctance to various angelic-like characteristics can be seen from a “monster” perspective.  Not because she is “evil”, but because she is acting in the opposite nature of her “angelic” counterparts.  Her relationship with Darcy and Collins are based on them adapting to her “non-angelic” side.