Hey everyone! In my American Lit class we have sadly left the craziness of good ol' Salem behind (boo, though i'm actually going there tomorrow so that should be interesting...more to come on that) and we have moved onto the Great Awakening. This time period, which began in the mid 1700's in America, is known for being a religious revival of sorts. Though religious devotion and reformation is a common thread in the texts from Salem as well as from authors of the Great Awakening like Jonathan Edwards, the inclusion of emotion is what sets the latter apart from the former. Long gone are the days of snooze-inducing Puritan prose, as Edward's works like Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God are fraught with fervent imagery, raw emotion, and maybe even some sexy stuff. In addition to looking at Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, we also examined Personal Narrative. The contrast between the two texts is stark, as one portrays God and religion as something to be revered and feared while the other suggests that he is beautiful and lovely. This contrast is especially blatant in the language used, and in the choice and repetition of certain words.
Word cloud for Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
Word cloud for Personal Narrative
So, I decided to make word clouds for both of the texts we looked at. For those who may not know, word clouds are a visual representation of word frequency. Therefore, the bigger a word is the more it is used! Repetition is a theme that pervades Edwards' work, and it is easy to see when looking at these word clouds. As he was a preacher, it can be deduced that repetition is a kind of tactic to drive home a point. In Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, the most used words are God (woah, shocker there), hell, wrath, destruction, and pleasure. For Personal Narrative, those words are God (again), Christ, sweet, divine, glory, and infinite.
God and the varying emotion that one feels in relation is obviously the topic of both pieces, however the contrast in language between the two are what distance them from each other. Fire and brimstone or light and goodness, either way Edwards certainly portrays God in such a way that provokes critical thought but also maybe an eye roll for good measure.
Hey everybody! In this post I'm going to be examining a company that you may be familiar with, Maybelline. Though this website was born as a "beauty and fashion" blog if you will, I'm sure it has become quite apparent that is not the case any longer. (Totally not to say that I don't enjoy makeup or writing about it...but that's not my point here.) In Crit Theory today we were discussing language and the relationship between ideas/objects and the words that we use to signify them. So, my friend and I decided to take a look at the makeup brand Maybelline in order to observe this phenomenon.
Diachronically speaking, Maybelline represents the
“ideal” woman in American culture: one that is seen and not heard. In other
words, she is revered for her physical appearance and not for her personal
beliefs or opinions. Although their ads have changed over time in terms of
appearance and marketing techniques (i.e. slogans and color schemes), the
message has remained static: women are made into meaningful individuals by
making themselves up with Maybelline products. In Maybelline ads from the early
1900’s, the message is blatant and woven expertly into the descriptions of the
ads. However, in more recent advertisements the sexism is implied in the
language rather than said outright.
When you look at this specific ad from Maybelline in
a synchronic sense, you get the idea that everything women are doing is for
men, not for themselves. Women are told through this makeup ad that men always
want them to be perfect. However, they are only perfect when it comes to their physical
appearance; women’s thoughts and ideas are clearly not as revered as much as
say, her eyes. Even if the women’s man is away, she should look the way he
thought she would when he returned.
The word “makeup” itself leads one to believe that
those who use it are hiding something. Makeup acts as a façade, a mask that
covers up the truth, and “the truth” is that women are undesirable without it.
Many of the advertisements feature words like “accent” and “perfect” imply that
women need to use Maybelline products because their natural beauty is
understated, boring, and in need of improvement.
These Maybelline ads speak to the nature of American
beauty ideals: women need makeup because they are not pretty without it.
Natural beauty is something to be ashamed of, and the façade that makeup
provides becomes the “truth”. The language that these ads utilize is persuasive
and steeped in sexism, aimed solely at generating revenue and perpetuating
stereotypes of women.
Maybelline’s “target audience” is arguably white,
heterosexual upper-middle class women. While this demographic is likely the
main consumer of these products, it is important to keep in mind that there are
a multitude of individuals (of varying races and ethnic backgrounds) who are
consuming but not being represented. The ideas that construct Maybelline as a
brand were once stable and static as women were trapped in a singular role by
society. However today, as women continue to stand up for themselves and defy
social norms, those ideas are outdated and fail to accurately support women as
a whole.
Hi everyone! It's fall now (in New England, anyways) and that means colder weather, chunky sweaters, and watching the 1993 Disney film Hocus Pocus on repeat. Shoutout to Halloweentown, also a fantastic movie, but for the purpose of this blog post we're sticking to the former. I've loved Hocus Pocus since I was a wee child along with all of my peers. Even more so, I've been a little bit obsessed with the Salem Witch Trials for years now as it is of significant interest to me. Perhaps my interest in this subject was solidified by it's unusual and macabre nature, however I'm inclined to believe that the media's portrayal of this event is too what peaked my fascination.
Why is the media so fixated on this particular historical event, even in today's popular culture? Are we fictionalizing it to the point where it becomes an unauthentic representation of "history", where real people are mere characters and their trials and tribulations become the plot of a dramatized soap opera of sorts?
Going back to Hocus Pocus for a brief moment...oh, quick little tid bit. My professor Robin shared with all of us today during her lecture on the trials that the Salem "witches" were not officially pardoned until 1992. Hocus Pocus came out the following year...coincidence? Although this is not quite relevant to my ultimate point, I think it is interesting to highlight the fact that this movie is still very much relevant, namely at this year's Mickey's Not So Scary Halloween Party at Disney World's Magic Kingdom.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the awesomeness? I want to high five whoever did the casting for this show, especially for Winifred, because they were all SPOT ON. Sadly, I highly doubt any of the young kids that were watching the show even know who the Sanderson sisters are, let alone have any idea about what the movie is meant to represent historically. Seeing as it is a children's movie, elements like death, evil, and witchcraft have a comedic spin put on them. However, applying comedic tropes to a serious and grotesque historical event, in this case, seems to mock instead of providing relief.
While Hocus Pocus is a funny anecdote about three fictitious witches, WGN's scripted drama Salem takes a more serious approach to the subject of the witch trials. First of all, check out the kick ass intro:
Wicked creepy and bonus points for using a Marilyn Manson song. Props! Anyways, in my opinion, Salem is a hybrid of sorts. Yes, it most definitely has some historical truth in it and visually it provides a sense of what living in 1690's Salem would have been like. But, considering the fact that there is still so much uncertainty and mystery surrounding the Salem Witch Trials, the show is able to take creative license regarding the extent to which they dramatize the stories and how far they delve into the realm of the supernatural. Some of the characters, like Cotton Mather and his father Increase, are based on real figures during the trials but most are not.
In saying that Salem is a hybrid, I am saying that it is part historical drama and part cheesy soap opera. As Salem was a wholly religious community with an emphasis on purity in all aspects of life, it is difficult to swallow the highly sexualized nature of the society (and its relationship to witchcraft) as it is portrayed in the show. The sex seems out of place in a show of this nature and it is all too obvious that the inclusion of the sex is only an attempt to keep Salem on the same plane as other popular sexualized TV shows like Game of Thrones and The Tudors. With all that being said, I wholeheartedly enjoy Salem. In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to like watching this show despite all of problems that encapsulate it, because in this case the outcome of consuming the media's representation of an event such as this is pure entertainment rather than edification.
People still flock to Salem, hundreds of years after hysteria engulfed the Puritan community that resided there. The tourists flood the city especially during the month of October, Halloween dredging up the screams of the afflicted and the accused alike. Modern culture, most notably literature and film/TV, too continues to dredge up this story, or parable if you will, but for what reason? To prevent the masses from forgetting the atrocities that occurred? To preserve a classic example of the battle between good and evil? To act as a drama in which we insert fictitious individuals into history to warp and distort the truth?
Regardless, the Salem Witch Trials serves as a moral paradigm and grotesque defining event in American history that will forever live on in Salem proper and in modern culture.
Hi everyone! This is the first post I am doing for my Currents in American Lit class, and today I wanted to quickly introduce you to the gloriousness that is Anne Bradstreet.
Now, here's the deal: Anne Bradstreet is considered to be the first female author published in the New World, and that feat in itself is impressive. Which is kind of sad, because the fact that it is impressive speaks to the position of women during this time period and even more specifically (and especially) in the Puritan society that Bradstreet resided in. The surprise that follows the publication of Anne's work The Tenth Muse Lately Sprung Up In America is best summarized by her brother in law, John Woodbridge, as he writes in his prologue:
"The worst effect of his [the reader’s] reading will be unbelief, which will make him question whether it be a woman’s work, and ask, is it possible?"
This is exactly the point where Bradstreet's subtle feminism comes into play. Forget bra burning in the 60's, because this wonderful woman dethroned the patriarchy with her understated poetry and I'm not even quite sure she knew the power in her own words.
In her poem "Prologue", Anne addresses those who question her abilities as a writer, and in turn her womanliness:
"I am obnoxious to each carping tongue
Who says my hand a needle better fits.
A poet's pen all scorn I should thus wrong;
For such despite they cast on female wits,
If what I do prove well, it wont advance-
They'll say it was stolen, or else it was by chance."
To me this verse screams, "Hey men, I know you don't like me and you think I should stick to my womanly duties but screw you because I'm just as capable as you!" Her mocking tone and sarcastic rhetoric is somewhat hidden underneath her coy jabs at male views on women. Personally, I believe that Bradstreet's In Honour Of The High And Mighty Princess, Queen Elizabeth is the most overtly feminist poem in the collection. In a world where men are consistently and simultaneously the author and the reader, Bradstreet turned this notion on its head by dedicating a poem to Queen Elizabeth who, "was so good, so just, so learn'd, so wise, from all the kings on earth she won the prize". To praise a queen rather than a king could be considered treason in the eyes of men, so in doing so Bradstreet may be considered the first American feminist. The most intriguing part of Bradstreet's ode to Elizabeth can be found in the second epitaph at the conclusion of the poem. Here, Elizabeth is referred to as an "unparallel'd prince", which leads to the question: Why use a highly gender specific (ie male) term to refer to a powerful woman? Is it because she is trying to appeal to her male readers, perhaps making Elizabeth more manly and therefore more fit to rule in the eyes of men? Or is it because Anne Bradstreet is attempting to shake society to its core by stating that a woman can do just as good of a job, maybe even a superior job, when it comes to ruling than a man? Gasp! With all things considered, Ms. Bradstreet was surely onto something with these poems of hers. Whether she was aware or not of the effects her work would have on society and how women were viewed within it, who knows. But regardless, Anne Bradstreet's radical poetry paved the way for female voices in the New World and that in itself is a contribution to be proud of. until next time,
Hi all! I feel a trend emerging...here I go again
finding connections between popular movies and less popular critical theory. I
feel like I simply cannot live a normal life anymore because I analyze everything way
too freakin' much. Life of an English major, am I right?
In case you didn't guess already, this time around
we are looking at the 2013 horror movie (this categorization is questionable, i would suggest cautionary tale) The Purge.
For anyone who hasn't seen it (Robin, this one's for
you), here is the trailer:
I think that watching the trailer is important in
this instance, as the film's premise is somewhat complicated to explain. Here
is the announcement that commences the holiday:
"This is not a test. This is your emergency
broadcast system announcing the commencement of the Annual Purge sanctioned by
the U.S. Government. Weapons of class 4 and lower have been authorized for use
during the Purge. All other weapons are restricted. Government officials of
ranking 10 have been granted immunity from the Purge and shall not be harmed.
Commencing at the siren, any and all crime, including murder, will be legal for
12 continuous hours. Police, fire, and emergency medical services will be
unavailable until tomorrow morning until 7 a.m., when The Purge concludes.
Blessed be our New Founding Fathers and America, a nation reborn. May God be
with you all."
(In Critical Theory, we have been talking about
Marxism and therefore how class structure influences and interacts with
ideologies. For this blog post, I will be referring specifically to and quoting
from Louis Althusser's Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.) Before we
even get to the film itself, let's take a moment to look closely at this
specific piece of text.
I think one of the most striking things about this
announcement is the strong religious language. Yes, the documents and oral
tradition that make America the great country it is today are steeped in religion (i'm looking at you puritans, ooh
crossover between american lit and crit theory, so meta) so it is not
particularly surprising that this speech echoes that tradition. What is jarring
about the pious content is that it acts as a buffer or excuse, if you will.
Oh, you murdered your neighbor? Well, it must have
been God's will I guess. Good thing he's there to back you up. And since you're a model citizen the other 364 days out of the year, he's going to forget it even happened.
Here is where the ideology comes in: Religion (or
the church itself), in Althusser's writings, functions as one of the main
ideological state apparatuses (or ISA's as they will be referred to from here
on out, because that phrase is too damn long). An ISA, as he explains is a,
"distinct and specialized institution(s)...of the private domain".
Even in the slightly futuristic setting of The Purge, religion remains one, if
not the most, dominant ISA in American culture.
The concept of the Purge itself is arguably
religious as well. The definition of the word "purge" is
a) rid (someone) of an unwanted feeling, memory, or
condition, typically giving a sense of cathartic release
or
b) an abrupt or violent removal of a group of people
from an organization or place
Okay, the first definition to me is fraught with
religious overtones. Confession anyone?!
The second one is a tad more out there, at least in
the context we're using it, but it sure is interesting. The Purge is not just
the masses wreaking bloody havoc on the upper class, the Purge is an
"equal opportunity employer" of sorts in the way that it encourages
everyone to participate.
Another startling aspect of the Purge is the absence
of what Althusser calls repressive state apparatuses (or RSA's). Unlike ISA's,
RSA's belong to the public domain as they are in place to control society (for
example, the police are an RSA). As Althusser points out, if ISA’s do their job
there is no real need for RSA’s with a few rare exceptions simply because we do
not live in a utopian society.
But is the comfort of ideology enough to survive the
Purge? Does the complete withdrawal of RSA’s from society for a brief period of time
lead to the destruction of ideology, and therefore all sense of morality? This
leads to the ultimate question: How many people would actually participate in
such an atrocious “holiday” if the opportunity arose?
In the film, there are two distinct kinds of people;
those who are gung ho about the Purge and seem excited, even giddy to murder
and maim whomever they can get their hands on. The other kinds of people are
entirely against the Purge, their only wish to survive the night and they do
so in varying ways. The family in the movie is well off financially; therefore
they can afford to hide out in their giant mansion which is armed with an expensive and elaborate
alarm system. However, as it is addressed in the sequel The Purge: Anarchy, the majority of people (shall we call them the
99 percent?) spend the night hiding wherever they can whether that’s their
modest unarmed home which is vulnerable to those who run amuck or perhaps
people who have no home at all who are trapped outside. This discrepancy in
protection and support for the Purge itself is yet another example of Marxist theory
coinciding with the concept, as the discrepancy amplifies the theme of class struggle
that pervades the film as a whole.
As far as ideology is concerned, this film could be interpreted a multitude of different ways. Take for instance, this article that suggests that The Purge serves an allegory for the possible domination of the U.S. by the Republican party. What I do know for certain is that this film would intrigue the likes of Marx and Althusser, and for that reason I wish they were still around so we could ask them: To purge? Or not to purge?
Hi guys! As you can probably tell, this post (and most likely the next few, at least) is going to be different than my usual posts. I will be creating content for two of the English classes that I am taking this semester which happen to be Critical Theory and Currents in American Literature. Today, for Critical Theory, I'm going to attempt to make connections between two things that seem entirely unrelated: welcome to the life of an English major.
Last night I went to see Sinister 2 with my boyfriend and, as expected, I was royally disappointed. I mean it's not like I went into it with the highest of expectations anyways.
I'm not going to waste much of my time recapping the plot for you, because a) I'm still kind of confused by it to be completely honest and b) it's not that important when it comes to the point that I'm attempting to make. As someone who is reasonably jumpy and easily spooked, it means something for me to say that I didn't find this film to be that scary at all. Sure, there were a few moments where I was disgusted by the gore or I jumped but the most shocking aspect of the movie was not supernatural in the least.
For this next part, you might need a little bit of backstory for you to follow me so here we go:
Sinister 2 follows a family (single mom with two twin nine year old boys) who moves to a farm in rural Indiana where some real crazy stuff has happened in the past. I'm talking some really messed up stuff. But that's besides the point. The mom is fighting for custody of her twin sons, as it is revealed over the course of the movie that their father is extremely abusive towards his wife and children, even sending his own son to the emergency room at one point.
Yes, I am aware that Sinister 2 is a horror film that on its superficial surface is about a demon that recruits children to do his bidding and murder their families. However, I can't shake the feeling that deep in the underbelly of this messy mythology there's something more sinister lurking than the Boogeyman. The subplot that addresses the domestic abuse that the mother and her two sons endure, to me, doesn't seem like much of a subplot at all. When I walked out of the movie last night, I couldn't stop pondering whether I had just watched a horror movie or a manifesto on the issue of basic human rights. As my boyfriend said to me after the movie was over, "You totally just analyzed that movie like an English major".
I know it's been a strange journey to this point, but here we are connecting Wimsatt and Beardsley's The Intentional Fallacy and The Affective Fallacy to Sinister 2. These two concepts, brought to you by New Criticism, question the role of the author and reader when it comes to trying to decode the meaning of a work. In this case, I suppose we are dealing with the author and the observer although the relationship between the two are highly similar.
According to Wimsatt and Beardsley, everything I just said about thinking Sinister 2 was about domestic abuse is irrelevant because the only way to know the "truth" is to look to the text, or in this case the script. If I asked Scott Derrickson, one of the writers, if he intended for the movie to actually be a giant metaphor for domestic abuse, with the Boogeyman character who tries to steal children away representing the twin's father, he may have absolutely no idea what the hell I'm even talking about. In most cases, the author doesn't even know his/her own intention! Therefore, how can the observer know the author's intention if he/she is unaware of it?
Also, the emotional effect that the film had on me personally is irrelevant as well in the eyes of Beardsley and Wimsatt. Just because it makes you feel something, doesn't mean that it's of any importance from a critical perspective. Harsh but true, man.
And that, my friends, is why new criticism was replaced by reader-response theory. Insert mic drop here.
Hi everyone! Long time, no talk. I know. To be quite honest with you, most of my summer has been utterly boring. As in, I've spent it working my tush off at two jobs. I'm in the process of saving up for my move to Florida (oh yeah, that's a thing that's happening btw!) hence lots and lots of slaving away as an underpaid waitress. But you know that they say....all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Or in this case, me, Shannon. I did, on the few occasions I wasn't stuck at work, do some traveling this summer! First, I visited my Disney roommate/best friend Brittany in her hometown of Lafayette, Lousiana. Also known as the hottest place on the planet. Or maybe that's just the entirety of the South in the summer? Yeah I'm gonna go with that.
We started my trip off right: with a trip to the world famous Cafe Du Monde of course! We didn't go to the original one first (we saved that for my birthday) but it didn't matter because the beignets and coffee are to die for no matter which one you go to. Swoon.
Brittany and I spent the first few days of my trip exploring Lafayette and the surrounding area.
the new fountain on brittany's campus; geaux cajuns!
We ended my trip in New Orleans where I turned 21 on Bourbon Street, posed with a cardboard cutout of Channing Tatum at his bar because the real one was not present (i also had my first legal drink there), and experienced some good ol' voodoo.
outside the american horror story coven house :)
And I went back to Orlando about a week ago with my friend Jaden because I just missed Disney too darn much. How predictable.
