Thursday, May 20, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Last-minute questions on the parody essay
1. "For the parody essay, if one of the key themes we touch on is Israel's ability to always get himself out of sticky situations, how many situations should we include?" (Could also apply to any parodied text in which there is a repeated plot device.) Answer: you should not feel that you need to imitate every single iteration of something that's repeated--say, if you were doing "Earth's Holocaust," you wouldn't need to have an analogue in your parody for every single episode of throwing something into the fire and then debating it. For one thing, there isn't room in this short assignment! Since you are trying to draw attention to something being reiterated, you do want to reproduce the effect of repetition, however, so do at least a couple of go-rounds. The question to ask yourself is: why is this element [plot situation, rhetorical device, phrase, etc.] being underlined and emphasized through repetition? What's important about it?
2. "If you take one of the stories we're read and change the genre, is that still considered a parody? For example, 'Man of the Crowd' as a romantic comedy." It could work, as long as you maintained some other recognizable elements from the original: for instance, the narrator's peculiar point of view, the German epigraph and theme, the kinds of wandering they do through the city, the 19c setting, etc. My concern is that if you choose too much to change from the original--if your version has a different narrative style, a different relationship between the narrator and the character, a contemporary US city, and a different conclusion to be drawn from the ending, what's left? Where are the key elements from the original that you still have left to highlight through your exportation into parody?
Here's a case where it might help to try to draft the analysis first: ask yourself, what am I saying about the original by changing the ending to suit a romantic comedy? (In the first place, how do you know when you're "in" a romantic comedy--is it the gender of the two main characters, or the uniting of the lovers in a happy ending?)
2. "If you take one of the stories we're read and change the genre, is that still considered a parody? For example, 'Man of the Crowd' as a romantic comedy." It could work, as long as you maintained some other recognizable elements from the original: for instance, the narrator's peculiar point of view, the German epigraph and theme, the kinds of wandering they do through the city, the 19c setting, etc. My concern is that if you choose too much to change from the original--if your version has a different narrative style, a different relationship between the narrator and the character, a contemporary US city, and a different conclusion to be drawn from the ending, what's left? Where are the key elements from the original that you still have left to highlight through your exportation into parody?
Here's a case where it might help to try to draft the analysis first: ask yourself, what am I saying about the original by changing the ending to suit a romantic comedy? (In the first place, how do you know when you're "in" a romantic comedy--is it the gender of the two main characters, or the uniting of the lovers in a happy ending?)
Last-minute questions on the adaptation essay
Question from the floor today:
"For the adaptation prompt, do we have to address all the questions asked in the prompt--what's the intended audience, what do we learn, meaning of recycling etc.?"
Answer:
No. It was meant to be a suggestive list, not an exhaustive one. Some of those questions won't matter much in your particular case study, or there may be no easy way to answer them. We are leaving it to your best judgment to tell us why this particular case of an adaptation in relation to its original may be interesting. Imagine you are making the case to another member of the class.
"For the adaptation prompt, do we have to address all the questions asked in the prompt--what's the intended audience, what do we learn, meaning of recycling etc.?"
Answer:
No. It was meant to be a suggestive list, not an exhaustive one. Some of those questions won't matter much in your particular case study, or there may be no easy way to answer them. We are leaving it to your best judgment to tell us why this particular case of an adaptation in relation to its original may be interesting. Imagine you are making the case to another member of the class.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Do you respect a literary work less because the author was paid for it?
Just that--an opinion poll. Unlike the other posts this afternoon, which are more detailed. I'm curious, because there seemed to be a consistent thread in the questions to the effect that an economic motive tainted the text somewhat.
The sense of closure and alternate endings
For those who found the ending unsatisfactory, what if it had ended:
a) with Israel aboard the Ariel, masquerading as someone else in order to fit in?
b) with him fleeing successfully after Ethan Allen recognizes and calls out to him?
c) with him in London, making do and enjoying his old age with his son?
a) with Israel aboard the Ariel, masquerading as someone else in order to fit in?
b) with him fleeing successfully after Ethan Allen recognizes and calls out to him?
c) with him in London, making do and enjoying his old age with his son?
The Gothic in Israel Potter
No one asked about this, but I wish we'd had time to discuss it in class: what do we do with all the Gothic tropes in the novel? Being entombed alive in Squire Woodcock's hidden room, the 'skeleton' of the Bonhomme Richard, the references to ghosts everywhere...?
There seems to be many cases when the novel is completely sending up Gothic conventions, as in the "Encounter of Ghosts' chapter with Israel escaping by passing as a dead man, or the farmer who comes after his suddenly-ambulatory scarecrow with a pitchfork.
On the other hand, what about when Israel tries to cloak his true identity after mis-boarding the Ariel (Shakespeare reference!), he becomes a 'phantom,' a 'ghost' because he is not recognized and accepted by any of the social spheres on board the ship? The "who are you" question seems to be getting metaphysical here. If he's not recognized by others, does he exist at all? Or does he become, like Wakefield, a 'disappeared man' who may not be fully human in the absence of social ties?
There seems to be many cases when the novel is completely sending up Gothic conventions, as in the "Encounter of Ghosts' chapter with Israel escaping by passing as a dead man, or the farmer who comes after his suddenly-ambulatory scarecrow with a pitchfork.
On the other hand, what about when Israel tries to cloak his true identity after mis-boarding the Ariel (Shakespeare reference!), he becomes a 'phantom,' a 'ghost' because he is not recognized and accepted by any of the social spheres on board the ship? The "who are you" question seems to be getting metaphysical here. If he's not recognized by others, does he exist at all? Or does he become, like Wakefield, a 'disappeared man' who may not be fully human in the absence of social ties?
What adaptations are out there?
"What texts are commonly adapted?...It would be really helpful on the paper." Now, this is something Wikipedia is really good at. Check out the 'adaptations' section for the entries on Uncle Tom's Cabin and Moby-Dick, for example.
It might be helpful to review the handout, "A Taxonomy of Cultural Borrowing." It provides some vocabulary for thinking about adaptation. It's on the website under "assignments."
All the section blogs were full of great ideas.
It might be helpful to review the handout, "A Taxonomy of Cultural Borrowing." It provides some vocabulary for thinking about adaptation. It's on the website under "assignments."
All the section blogs were full of great ideas.
The idea of exile in Israel Potter
Question from the floor: "can you talk about the 'idea' of exile in IP"? OK, there's one major intertext beneath this, which is the Biblical story of the exile and captivity of the Israelites in Egypt, and then later in Babylon. In the Egypt story, the Israelites arrived basically as contract laborers, were made slaves, and then were ultimately led out of captivity by Moses (and Aaron) into the promised land of Zion. This becomes a template for a virtually infinite number of "redeemed captivity" stories, especially in slave narratives (read Douglass' speech carefully and you'll see his frequent reference to this Biblical theme).
American Revolutionary discourse often made reference to their oppression as being like that of the Israelites: the colonists were 'slaves' and the King of England was like Pharaoh. (The irony of this usage of 'slave' seems to have been mostly lost on them.) Because of Israel's name, his struggles to break free of the English yoke (the "dogs" who chase him, as he tells JPJ) can be likened to that of the revolutionaries. But he doesn't really break free for 45+ years. A story of captivity, to follow the Biblical template, should end with redemption from captivity, with salvation, as when the Israelites get to form their own nation. Instead, Israel's "full circle" homecoming is laden with irony; it's not triumph but social death--the land and the nation don't remember him, and there is no promise for the future.
Israel's story seems to deviate from that of his nation, which perhaps suggests there is some unfinished business in the US redemption plot. And/or it may suggest the limits of mapping a modern political story onto a spiritual story: economics, and the contingencies by which a hard-working person can slip easily into abject poverty, are also important. Nations like to think of themselves in such spiritualized, sacral terms, but there are always economic factors at work in political questions, as well as philosophical/spiritual causes.
American Revolutionary discourse often made reference to their oppression as being like that of the Israelites: the colonists were 'slaves' and the King of England was like Pharaoh. (The irony of this usage of 'slave' seems to have been mostly lost on them.) Because of Israel's name, his struggles to break free of the English yoke (the "dogs" who chase him, as he tells JPJ) can be likened to that of the revolutionaries. But he doesn't really break free for 45+ years. A story of captivity, to follow the Biblical template, should end with redemption from captivity, with salvation, as when the Israelites get to form their own nation. Instead, Israel's "full circle" homecoming is laden with irony; it's not triumph but social death--the land and the nation don't remember him, and there is no promise for the future.
Israel's story seems to deviate from that of his nation, which perhaps suggests there is some unfinished business in the US redemption plot. And/or it may suggest the limits of mapping a modern political story onto a spiritual story: economics, and the contingencies by which a hard-working person can slip easily into abject poverty, are also important. Nations like to think of themselves in such spiritualized, sacral terms, but there are always economic factors at work in political questions, as well as philosophical/spiritual causes.
Characters as metaphors for nations
Question from the floor: talk more about this. So let's start with a really explicitly stated one, on p. 136: "America is the Paul Jones of nations." What is Paul Jones like? A "democratic sea-king" (102), which is itself contradictory: how can you be a king and be democratic at the same time? What's kinglike about him: he assumes absolute command, shows no quarter to enemies, yet upholds principles of honor (i.e. returning the silver plate). What's democratic about him: he values people according to their ability, not their birth (so he makes Israel his quarter-master, effectively an instant officer, when he sees his skills). But that's just for starters.
To the extent that JPJ's qualities are lent to "democracy" as an idea, what do we make of his being portrayed as a "bloody cannibal" (103), an Indian (63, 64, 118), and as a tattooed "savage" (69) who may hail from the South Seas or anywhere? To get to the bottom of this, you have to then decide whether cannibal/savage barbarian are admirable traits, or not. On 132, the narrator gives a philosophical aside asking whether civilized countries might not be barbaric, in that they wage (arguably) senseless war on each other. But I would suggest that there are many places in the novel in which being "barbaric" or "savage" seems to be a necessary or natural energy--one that "civilization" could use more of. Civilization and barbarism form a dyad: you can't define one without reference to the other.
To the extent that JPJ's qualities are lent to "democracy" as an idea, what do we make of his being portrayed as a "bloody cannibal" (103), an Indian (63, 64, 118), and as a tattooed "savage" (69) who may hail from the South Seas or anywhere? To get to the bottom of this, you have to then decide whether cannibal/savage barbarian are admirable traits, or not. On 132, the narrator gives a philosophical aside asking whether civilized countries might not be barbaric, in that they wage (arguably) senseless war on each other. But I would suggest that there are many places in the novel in which being "barbaric" or "savage" seems to be a necessary or natural energy--one that "civilization" could use more of. Civilization and barbarism form a dyad: you can't define one without reference to the other.
Did Melville hate Israel Potter? Does it matter?
Question from the floor today: "From what I've read about this book, Melville admits it was his worst novel..." and other comments to this effect, mostly geared toward explaining away its apparent failures as a novel. First: is that true? Second: if it were, how would it help us understand the text better?
This impression may have come from Wikipedia, where the entry for the novel says: "Thus Melville wrote it as quickly and as straightforwardly as he could in order to secure some sort of income, and for mainly that reason he loathed the book." But there's no source given for this conclusion. I find this to be, like many Wikipedia entries on literary works, overgeneralized and naive: what sort of knowledge or expertise were the editors of this entry working from? (I do think Wikipedia is great for many other things, and I do respect the general idea of collective knowledge). How would we know whether he "loathed" the book, one he devoted a considerable amount of time to? The very imperfect tools we have to get inside Melville's head (to the extent we can ever do that), since he left few diaries or working drafts, are letters to and from other people, and sometimes marginalia on other books. I've been looking through the Melville biographies I have at the office, but haven't found any smoking guns yet that would indicate how he felt (at least at the moment he wrote such a letter) about IP. I'll keep looking; I have some more books at home.
But more to the point: what difference would it make? We know barely anything about Shakespeare the person, his writing process, or his feelings about his own works (or even whether he wrote much of what is attributed to them), but that doesn't stop us from considering other things about the plays and poems. So let's give IP the same respect. What traditions is the novel written into; what innovation does it work on those traditions? How does it address its readers? What problems does it introduce? What do different groups of readers think about it, want from it, take from it?
This impression may have come from Wikipedia, where the entry for the novel says: "Thus Melville wrote it as quickly and as straightforwardly as he could in order to secure some sort of income, and for mainly that reason he loathed the book." But there's no source given for this conclusion. I find this to be, like many Wikipedia entries on literary works, overgeneralized and naive: what sort of knowledge or expertise were the editors of this entry working from? (I do think Wikipedia is great for many other things, and I do respect the general idea of collective knowledge). How would we know whether he "loathed" the book, one he devoted a considerable amount of time to? The very imperfect tools we have to get inside Melville's head (to the extent we can ever do that), since he left few diaries or working drafts, are letters to and from other people, and sometimes marginalia on other books. I've been looking through the Melville biographies I have at the office, but haven't found any smoking guns yet that would indicate how he felt (at least at the moment he wrote such a letter) about IP. I'll keep looking; I have some more books at home.
But more to the point: what difference would it make? We know barely anything about Shakespeare the person, his writing process, or his feelings about his own works (or even whether he wrote much of what is attributed to them), but that doesn't stop us from considering other things about the plays and poems. So let's give IP the same respect. What traditions is the novel written into; what innovation does it work on those traditions? How does it address its readers? What problems does it introduce? What do different groups of readers think about it, want from it, take from it?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
flotsam of Uncle Tom
Repeating Jenna's post here:
Since we just talked about Uncle Tom's Cabin, I thought I'd bring up "The Small House of Uncle Thomas" from Rodger and Hammerstein's "The King and I"
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ekNKr8otk&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvbE-Ztwz5I&feature=related
It's about 14 minutes long in total, but I highly recommend it.
Since we just talked about Uncle Tom's Cabin, I thought I'd bring up "The Small House of Uncle Thomas" from Rodger and Hammerstein's "The King and I"
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ekNKr8otk&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvbE-Ztwz5I&feature=related
It's about 14 minutes long in total, but I highly recommend it.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Welcome post
This is our space for posting (1) any further thoughts left over from lecture/section conversations, and (2) what we notice about adaptations and "cultural borrowings." Until I can get everyone set up as an "author" for this blog, you'll have to leave comments to specific posts...or just put them under "welcome."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)