Welcome back everyone! It seems like we didn’t waste any time getting back into the swing of things. I felt like I was a little thrown off by this book after all the novels that we have read previously. Not only was the style of writing quite different, but also I felt like I was waiting throughout the whole novel for some sort of indication that Stephen was gay! I was expecting him to fall for one of the boys in his class or even the priest, after the last couple of our novels that we read centering on homosexuality it was strange to have a main character that was straight again. I don’t know about the rest of you, but that through me off. Anyways, to the analyzing...
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man can be seem in many ways as James Joyce’s autobiography. The similarities between Stephen and Joyce are quite obvious in that they both were born and raised in Ireland, both had a father with many debts and continual financial instability and both even went to the same school, Clongowes Wood College, where they both suffered from sicknesses. On a more personal level both men felt isolated in the company of their classmates, never really fitting in, and always feeling as though they were alone. Making a faux autobiography about his life, Joyce was able to place his views on politics and religion into the story, which were not only very prevalent in Ireland at the time, but were also very important in his family. Joyce was also able to incorporate his beliefs on the importance of art and its ability to form people’s identities and shape their thoughts, which was very different from the message that Wilde was trying to get across in The Picture of Dorian Gray, believing in “art for art’s sake.”
One of the main themes that I found to be prevalent throughout the novel pertained to the influence that the females in the story had over Stephen’s actions and thoughts throughout his life. Whether it was the Virgin Mary, prostitutes, Emma, or his mother, the women were placed in a superior standpoint in his life, but as the story progresses and Stephen grows, we begin to see how their influence on him changes.
While towards the beginning of his life the Virgin Mary was seen by Stephen as his main object of devotion, believing “The glories of Mary held his soul captive,” (112) towards the end of the story Stephen’s view of her dramatically changes and she seems to have lost the control that she once had over him. “He crossed the bridge over the stream of the Tolka and turned his eyes coldly for an instant towards the faded blue shrine of the Blessed Virgin…” (175) This change in Stephen marks the moment he turns his back on the church and toward the world. Once the struggle between religion and art is over, Stephen’s view of women begins to gradually change, finding that prostitutes no longer entice him and his mother no longer pushes him. Women that he once viewed as idealized superior beings he know sees as who they really are, mere human beings just like himself.
I have to admit that one thing about the story that really bothered me took place in the second chapter when Joyce made unannounced leaps in time from present time to the past. I felt like I was getting a mental whiplash from these unexpected time shifts! Although, once I understood what was happening I found it kind of interesting how Joyce toyed with the approach of portraying Stephen’s stream of consciousness. This method of showing how Stephen really thought made the whole experience of seeing things through his perspective more believable, while also helping the reader to understand the fact that we are reading from the point of view of Stephen’s consciousness, Stephen’s misperceptions, and not from the point of view of an objective reality.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
“The Gay Artist as Tragic Hero in The Picture of Dorian Gray” Literary Criticism
“To have a capacity for passion and not to realize it, is to make oneself incomplete and limited.” (67) This statement made by Oscar Wilde in his essay “The Critic as Artist” is one by which many can be characterized in the novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray,” but to none so much as to the character of Basil Hallward. Throughout “The Gay Artist as Tragic Hero in The Picture of Dorian Gray” the author, Henry M. Alley, brings to light the passion and struggles behind whom many believe to be ‘the principle hero’ of the story, Basil Hallward.
“We take pleasure in the beauty of a statue, shall not then the living fill us with delight?”(2) This quote made by Aristotle does an excellent job of putting into words the internal struggle that Hallward faces until his untimely death. Hallward was indecisive on whether or not he should experience life, being too caught up in the perfect world of art. “Basil has no romances, no loves, no intimate relationships at all. When he dies, his absence is noted by his many friends but not grieved. His associations with the natural, with the web of life, and with vitality itself are in the context of art, not experience.” (4) This passage makes it clear that Hallward’s inexperience in life, resulting from his homophobia, led to a life of little consequence. “The choice of silence and an impossible love is Hallward’s own.” (5) Hiding behind his art and letting his homophobia control his life, there is no one to blame for Hallward’s tragic life but himself.
In Dorian’s final act of stabbing the portrait, a manifestation of his own internalized homophobia; he unwittingly ended up stabbing himself, becoming his own nemesis and ending his own life. In an act of poetic justice the corruption that embodied Dorian was killed and the beauty of the portrait was restored to life. “Hallward emerges again as the envisioner of that depicted youth and perfection, and so his manifestation of homoerotic love stands vindicated at the end, even while the accent must also fall upon his tragic inability to experience it carnally in his own life, or transcend his own worship of external beauty.” (6)
Both stabbings executed by Dorian were done out of his own internal homophobia. While the first stabbing resulted in the death of the man who loved him, the second stabbing resulted in the resurrection of the portrait to its original beauty. By restoring the beauty to the portrait, Dorian inadvertently restored Hallward’s expression of ‘homoerotic love.’ This act of poetic justice is bittersweet however when looking back on the talented artist’s tragic existence, which stemmed from what some believed to be his ‘hamartia’ or character flaw of being a sensitive gay man, whom through his own homophobia was unable to experience life outside of his art. “He is killed while he is still in the midst of his denial.” (6)
A claim made in the essay by Liebman stated, "The moral order that Basil believes in does not exist. At the end of Dorian Gray, the stage is strewn with the bodies of the innocent" (305). Who does Liebman believe to be innocent? Does he believe Dorian to be innocent? I understand that he mean to incorporate Sybil Vane, Basil Hallward, and Alan Campbell into the bodies of the innocent scattered across the stage, but Dorian is the one to die in the final scene. If he does mean to incorporate Dorian into the group of ‘innocent’ I am curious as to on what grounds he has for calling Dorian innocent, because from what I understand of the book Dorian could be said to be one of the main villains in the story.
When is comes to the question of whether or not Basil Hallward should be considered the hero of the novel, I find myself in agreement with Alley. Although I found that the authors reasoning behind calling Hallward ‘the principle hero’ was based primarily around his struggle with his identity as a gay man, I do agree that his intentions throughout the novel were to protect Dorian and ultimately save him from the corruption of his soul. This fact was clear to Dorian who believed that after Sybil’s death “Basil would have helped him to resist Lord Henry’s influence, and the still more poisonous influences that came from his own temperament. The love that he bore him – for it was really love – had nothing in it that was not noble and intellectual. It was not that mere physical admiration of beauty that is born of the senses, and that dies when the senses tire.” (P. 101)
One question that I have for Alley is in regards to a statement made in his essay, “Driven forward by his desire to consummate his love for Dorian, Hallward, in an equal and opposite way, pulls back, put off by the creatures which "are subject to generation and decay." (2) This statement directly contradicts the aforementioned passage from the novel in which it states that Hallward was truly in love with Dorian and not merely attracted to his beauty. If my understanding of the passage from the novel is correct, how can Hallward be completely in love with Dorian for more than his looks, while still aversive to Dorian’s eventual deterioration in beauty?
“Like the painter himself, Wilde began to hide away from the world the very sort of homoeroticism he sought to share with it.” (7) Hallward and Wilde were very much alike in the fact that they both tried to hide from the world their homosexuality. Both the painter and the writer were comparable in how they expressed their true feelings, through their art, which was probably the basis for their strong beliefs in aesthetics. Unfortunately their belief in aestheticism was the main factor in both their downfalls. In the case of Hallward, “Aesthetics put him into the danger zone of Dorian’s rage but not far enough to allow himself to come to a realization and seek refuge.” (6) Hallward’s love for Dorian and his beauty blinded him from Dorian’s true identity, leading to his death by the hands of Dorian. While, in the case of Wilde, “his plummet into penury, imprisonment, and isolation ultimately creates a ruin far more heartbreaking than Dorian’s murder of himself and the lovely and idealistic Hallward.” (7) Wilde’s novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray” was one of the main pieces of evident used against him in his trial, resulting in his imprisonment. The parallels in the tragic ends to both Hallward’s and Wilde’s life give a higher meaning to a statement Wilde made about Hallward and himself, “Hallward is what I think I am.” (3)
Work Cited:
• Henry M. Alley, "The Gay Artist as Tragic Hero in The Picture of Dorian Gray"
CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 11.2 (2009)
• Oscar Wilde, “The Picture of Dorian Gray” New York (2006)
• Wilde, Oscar. "The Critic as Artist." The Portable Wilde. Ed. Richard Aldington and Stanley Weintraub. New York: Penguin,
1981. 51-137.
• Aristotle. Aristotle on the Art of Fiction: An English Translation of Aristotle's Poetics. Ed. L.J. Potts. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1968.
“We take pleasure in the beauty of a statue, shall not then the living fill us with delight?”(2) This quote made by Aristotle does an excellent job of putting into words the internal struggle that Hallward faces until his untimely death. Hallward was indecisive on whether or not he should experience life, being too caught up in the perfect world of art. “Basil has no romances, no loves, no intimate relationships at all. When he dies, his absence is noted by his many friends but not grieved. His associations with the natural, with the web of life, and with vitality itself are in the context of art, not experience.” (4) This passage makes it clear that Hallward’s inexperience in life, resulting from his homophobia, led to a life of little consequence. “The choice of silence and an impossible love is Hallward’s own.” (5) Hiding behind his art and letting his homophobia control his life, there is no one to blame for Hallward’s tragic life but himself.
In Dorian’s final act of stabbing the portrait, a manifestation of his own internalized homophobia; he unwittingly ended up stabbing himself, becoming his own nemesis and ending his own life. In an act of poetic justice the corruption that embodied Dorian was killed and the beauty of the portrait was restored to life. “Hallward emerges again as the envisioner of that depicted youth and perfection, and so his manifestation of homoerotic love stands vindicated at the end, even while the accent must also fall upon his tragic inability to experience it carnally in his own life, or transcend his own worship of external beauty.” (6)
Both stabbings executed by Dorian were done out of his own internal homophobia. While the first stabbing resulted in the death of the man who loved him, the second stabbing resulted in the resurrection of the portrait to its original beauty. By restoring the beauty to the portrait, Dorian inadvertently restored Hallward’s expression of ‘homoerotic love.’ This act of poetic justice is bittersweet however when looking back on the talented artist’s tragic existence, which stemmed from what some believed to be his ‘hamartia’ or character flaw of being a sensitive gay man, whom through his own homophobia was unable to experience life outside of his art. “He is killed while he is still in the midst of his denial.” (6)
A claim made in the essay by Liebman stated, "The moral order that Basil believes in does not exist. At the end of Dorian Gray, the stage is strewn with the bodies of the innocent" (305). Who does Liebman believe to be innocent? Does he believe Dorian to be innocent? I understand that he mean to incorporate Sybil Vane, Basil Hallward, and Alan Campbell into the bodies of the innocent scattered across the stage, but Dorian is the one to die in the final scene. If he does mean to incorporate Dorian into the group of ‘innocent’ I am curious as to on what grounds he has for calling Dorian innocent, because from what I understand of the book Dorian could be said to be one of the main villains in the story.
When is comes to the question of whether or not Basil Hallward should be considered the hero of the novel, I find myself in agreement with Alley. Although I found that the authors reasoning behind calling Hallward ‘the principle hero’ was based primarily around his struggle with his identity as a gay man, I do agree that his intentions throughout the novel were to protect Dorian and ultimately save him from the corruption of his soul. This fact was clear to Dorian who believed that after Sybil’s death “Basil would have helped him to resist Lord Henry’s influence, and the still more poisonous influences that came from his own temperament. The love that he bore him – for it was really love – had nothing in it that was not noble and intellectual. It was not that mere physical admiration of beauty that is born of the senses, and that dies when the senses tire.” (P. 101)
One question that I have for Alley is in regards to a statement made in his essay, “Driven forward by his desire to consummate his love for Dorian, Hallward, in an equal and opposite way, pulls back, put off by the creatures which "are subject to generation and decay." (2) This statement directly contradicts the aforementioned passage from the novel in which it states that Hallward was truly in love with Dorian and not merely attracted to his beauty. If my understanding of the passage from the novel is correct, how can Hallward be completely in love with Dorian for more than his looks, while still aversive to Dorian’s eventual deterioration in beauty?
“Like the painter himself, Wilde began to hide away from the world the very sort of homoeroticism he sought to share with it.” (7) Hallward and Wilde were very much alike in the fact that they both tried to hide from the world their homosexuality. Both the painter and the writer were comparable in how they expressed their true feelings, through their art, which was probably the basis for their strong beliefs in aesthetics. Unfortunately their belief in aestheticism was the main factor in both their downfalls. In the case of Hallward, “Aesthetics put him into the danger zone of Dorian’s rage but not far enough to allow himself to come to a realization and seek refuge.” (6) Hallward’s love for Dorian and his beauty blinded him from Dorian’s true identity, leading to his death by the hands of Dorian. While, in the case of Wilde, “his plummet into penury, imprisonment, and isolation ultimately creates a ruin far more heartbreaking than Dorian’s murder of himself and the lovely and idealistic Hallward.” (7) Wilde’s novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray” was one of the main pieces of evident used against him in his trial, resulting in his imprisonment. The parallels in the tragic ends to both Hallward’s and Wilde’s life give a higher meaning to a statement Wilde made about Hallward and himself, “Hallward is what I think I am.” (3)
Work Cited:
• Henry M. Alley, "The Gay Artist as Tragic Hero in The Picture of Dorian Gray"
CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 11.2 (2009)
• Oscar Wilde, “The Picture of Dorian Gray” New York (2006)
• Wilde, Oscar. "The Critic as Artist." The Portable Wilde. Ed. Richard Aldington and Stanley Weintraub. New York: Penguin,
1981. 51-137.
• Aristotle. Aristotle on the Art of Fiction: An English Translation of Aristotle's Poetics. Ed. L.J. Potts. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1968.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Sibyl Vane And Her Prince Charming From Hell
Wow! I think that we can add Oscar Wilde to the “He-Man Woman Haters Club” (The Little Rascals reference). I am not going to lie I was a little offended by some of the ways in which he both spoke about and portrayed women in the novel. I am not a feminist or anything, but man am I glad to not have been his wife. Talk about a low self-esteem. If you did not know that Oscar Wilde was gay before reading the story then you probably figured it out by the end. Not only was it blatantly obvious in the way that the men in the novel had an almost homoerotic relationship throughout the novel, but also in the way in which Wilde portrayed women. In the novel Oscar Wilde projects his misogynistic views through the character of Lord Henry Wotton. Having prior knowledge of Oscar Wilde’s homosexuality, I was quite shocked to discover that he was married. It is easy to presume that Wilde’s views of women were influenced by his loveless marriage, greatly marred by his homosexuality. Wilde expresses his views of marriage in the statement made by Lord Henry, which said, "married life is merely a habit, a bad habit." (178)
One of the main themes in the story was centered on aestheticism and the belief that art exists for the sake of beauty alone. This theme was introduced into the story through the character of Lord Henry, who upon meeting Dorian Gray used his influence to pollute Dorian’s mind with such beliefs. Dorian’s aesthetic views, adopted from Lord Henry, are first apparent in his relationship with Sibyl Vane. A beautifully gifted actress in a rundown theatre, Sibyl Vane was not the source of Dorian Gray’s love as much as her art and acting were. Dorian mesmerized by her brilliant performances mistakes his love for the actresses work for his love for Sibyl herself. This point was very much apparent when after Dorian finished praising Sibyl’s work and all her different roles, Lord Henry asked Dorian, "When is she Sibyl Vane?" and Dorian replied "Never." (48) This line makes it very clear that it was the roles that she played that Dorian was in love with and not Sibyl herself. If that was not clear enough, when Dorian and his friends go to watch Sibyl’s play after Dorian proposes to her, her dreadful performance leads to Dorian calling off the engagement and wishing never to see her again, stating “Without your art you are nothing.” (75)
The character of Sibyl Vane was a very…well dull one in the novel, but she also happens to play the main female role in the story. Even though she knew nothing about Dorian, not even his name calling him Prince Charming, she claimed to be completely in love with him. This love led her to act horribly in her final play because, as she told Dorian, she preferred real life to art and that her art, her passion, has lost all meaning to her because nothing compared to real love. This going against everything that Dorian believed in, he rejected Sibyl leading her to commit suicide. Sibyl’s ability to throw away her art and her life for a man that she knew nothing about seemed a little overdramatic and ridiculous to me, but then again the author was not exactly trying to portray women in a good light.
Sibyl Vane, while very one-dimensional, played a very important role in the story. Her relationship with Dorian and her ultimate suicide was a key factor in Dorian’s first turn to a life of crime and cruelty. Her death triggers the first change in Dorian’s portrait, revealing to him the consequences of his earlier pledge to give his soul in exchange for eternal youth. Sibyl Vane was Dorian’s last chance for salvation before Lord Henry’s influence completely took him over and led him to a life of sin. “When I am with her, I regret all that you have taught me. I become different from what you have known me to be. I am changed, and the mere touch of Sibyl Vane’s hand makes me forget you and all your wrong, fascinating, poisonous, delightful theories.” (67) While this statement by Dorian was true, it was also quite paradoxical it that his infatuation with Sibyl was based off of what Lord Henry had taught him about aestheticism and his philosophy to place beauty and self-pleasure above consideration for others.
(I didn’t get into the later events of the novel because I didn’t want to spoil the ending for those of you who hadn’t finished the book yet.) ☺
One of the main themes in the story was centered on aestheticism and the belief that art exists for the sake of beauty alone. This theme was introduced into the story through the character of Lord Henry, who upon meeting Dorian Gray used his influence to pollute Dorian’s mind with such beliefs. Dorian’s aesthetic views, adopted from Lord Henry, are first apparent in his relationship with Sibyl Vane. A beautifully gifted actress in a rundown theatre, Sibyl Vane was not the source of Dorian Gray’s love as much as her art and acting were. Dorian mesmerized by her brilliant performances mistakes his love for the actresses work for his love for Sibyl herself. This point was very much apparent when after Dorian finished praising Sibyl’s work and all her different roles, Lord Henry asked Dorian, "When is she Sibyl Vane?" and Dorian replied "Never." (48) This line makes it very clear that it was the roles that she played that Dorian was in love with and not Sibyl herself. If that was not clear enough, when Dorian and his friends go to watch Sibyl’s play after Dorian proposes to her, her dreadful performance leads to Dorian calling off the engagement and wishing never to see her again, stating “Without your art you are nothing.” (75)
The character of Sibyl Vane was a very…well dull one in the novel, but she also happens to play the main female role in the story. Even though she knew nothing about Dorian, not even his name calling him Prince Charming, she claimed to be completely in love with him. This love led her to act horribly in her final play because, as she told Dorian, she preferred real life to art and that her art, her passion, has lost all meaning to her because nothing compared to real love. This going against everything that Dorian believed in, he rejected Sibyl leading her to commit suicide. Sibyl’s ability to throw away her art and her life for a man that she knew nothing about seemed a little overdramatic and ridiculous to me, but then again the author was not exactly trying to portray women in a good light.
Sibyl Vane, while very one-dimensional, played a very important role in the story. Her relationship with Dorian and her ultimate suicide was a key factor in Dorian’s first turn to a life of crime and cruelty. Her death triggers the first change in Dorian’s portrait, revealing to him the consequences of his earlier pledge to give his soul in exchange for eternal youth. Sibyl Vane was Dorian’s last chance for salvation before Lord Henry’s influence completely took him over and led him to a life of sin. “When I am with her, I regret all that you have taught me. I become different from what you have known me to be. I am changed, and the mere touch of Sibyl Vane’s hand makes me forget you and all your wrong, fascinating, poisonous, delightful theories.” (67) While this statement by Dorian was true, it was also quite paradoxical it that his infatuation with Sibyl was based off of what Lord Henry had taught him about aestheticism and his philosophy to place beauty and self-pleasure above consideration for others.
(I didn’t get into the later events of the novel because I didn’t want to spoil the ending for those of you who hadn’t finished the book yet.) ☺
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Carmilla
Though there are many aspects of the novel that I found to be fascinating, the relationship between the characters Carmilla and Laura was what I found to be the most intriguing. I have to say that I was quite surprised by the relationship between the two characters, especially when you take into account the fact that Le Fanu’s novel was not published until 1872. I did not believe that such open allusions to homosexuality, if any, were made in literature at that time. To be honest when Le Fanu first began to describe the two characters relationship I thought that I was imagining the less than innocent infatuation the two characters had with each other. However, it soon became clear that I was in fact not hallucinating and that Carmilla’s open displays of affection for Laura bordered on lesbianism. “Sometimes after an hour of apathy, my strange and beautiful companion would take my hand and hold it with a fond pressure…It was like the ardour of a lover… and her hot lips travelled along my cheek in kisses; and she would whisper, almost in sobs, “You are mine, you shall be mine, you and I are one for ever.” (Ch. 4)
Though the feelings were not returned as affectionately by Laura, her vivid accounts of her dreams were more sexually charged that anything else in the story. “Certain vague and strange sensations visited me in my sleep…they left an awful impression, and a sense of exhaustion, as if I had passed through a long period of great mental exertion and danger... Sometimes there came a sensation as if a hand was drawn softly along my cheek and neck. Sometimes it was as if warm lips kissed me, and longer and more lovingly as they reached my throat, but there the caress fixed itself. My heart beat: faster, my breathing rose and fell rapidly and full drawn; a sobbing, that rose into a sense of strangulation, and turned into a dreadful convulsion, in which my senses me and I became unconscious.” (Ch. 7)
While Carmilla’s displays of affection were sensual, Laura’s feelings for Carmilla were of an entirely different nature. “I felt rather unaccountably towards the beautiful stranger. I did feel, as she said, 'drawn towards her', but there was also something of repulsion. In this feeling, however, the sense of attraction immensely prevailed.” (Ch. 3) Carmilla’s supernatural hold on Laura was not quite strong enough to deter Laura’s own doubt as to Carmilla's insanity and to her motives. Having said that, Carmilla did still possess great power over Laura and in doing so was able to constantly draw Laura to her, resulting in Laura’s feelings toward Carmilla to be continually conflicting throughout the story. “I experienced a strange tumultuous excitement that was pleasurable, ever and anon, mingled with a vague sense of fear and disgust. I had no distinct thoughts about her while such scenes lasted, but I was conscious of a love growing into adoration, and also of abhorrence.” (Ch. 4)
While the relationship between Laura and Carmilla does seem to be romantic, I do not believe that it was so much the intention of the author to portray a lesbian couple, as it was to portray Carmilla’s supernatural seduction of her victim Laura. Although Carmilla did show blatant sexual advances toward Laura in her conscious and even unconscious state, and made professions of love toward Laura numerous times, I cannot help but think that her motives for such actions were solely for the acquisition of Laura’s blood. It was clear from the beginning that Carmilla was not in the her full strength and I believe it is why she pursued Laura in the manner in which she did, instead of taking her at once and bleeding her dry as vampires are known to do. Similarly, it is obvious that Laura’s feelings for Carmilla were a direct effect of her supernatural seduction and in her own mind she was actually repulsed by Carmilla and her advances.
It seemed that although the story was not set in Ireland, rather a place in Austria, the devastation that the vampires brought upon Styria was reflective of the effects of the famine that was plaguing Ireland at the time. Allusions to this can be seen in the meek population of Styria, “I have said 'the nearest inhabited village', because there is, only three miles westward… a ruined village...Respecting the cause of the desertion of this striking and melancholy spot, there is a legend which I shall relate to you another time.” (Ch. 1)
Another aspect of the novel that I found interesting was the role of the men in the story. I don’t know if it was just me, but I found the men in the story to be very emasculated. They all seemed to share a very submissive quality, always following the orders of the women, which I found to be very strange, like the theme of homosexuality, for the time in which the novel was written. What do you guys think; did you find the roles of the males and females were switched in the novel?
Though the feelings were not returned as affectionately by Laura, her vivid accounts of her dreams were more sexually charged that anything else in the story. “Certain vague and strange sensations visited me in my sleep…they left an awful impression, and a sense of exhaustion, as if I had passed through a long period of great mental exertion and danger... Sometimes there came a sensation as if a hand was drawn softly along my cheek and neck. Sometimes it was as if warm lips kissed me, and longer and more lovingly as they reached my throat, but there the caress fixed itself. My heart beat: faster, my breathing rose and fell rapidly and full drawn; a sobbing, that rose into a sense of strangulation, and turned into a dreadful convulsion, in which my senses me and I became unconscious.” (Ch. 7)
While Carmilla’s displays of affection were sensual, Laura’s feelings for Carmilla were of an entirely different nature. “I felt rather unaccountably towards the beautiful stranger. I did feel, as she said, 'drawn towards her', but there was also something of repulsion. In this feeling, however, the sense of attraction immensely prevailed.” (Ch. 3) Carmilla’s supernatural hold on Laura was not quite strong enough to deter Laura’s own doubt as to Carmilla's insanity and to her motives. Having said that, Carmilla did still possess great power over Laura and in doing so was able to constantly draw Laura to her, resulting in Laura’s feelings toward Carmilla to be continually conflicting throughout the story. “I experienced a strange tumultuous excitement that was pleasurable, ever and anon, mingled with a vague sense of fear and disgust. I had no distinct thoughts about her while such scenes lasted, but I was conscious of a love growing into adoration, and also of abhorrence.” (Ch. 4)
While the relationship between Laura and Carmilla does seem to be romantic, I do not believe that it was so much the intention of the author to portray a lesbian couple, as it was to portray Carmilla’s supernatural seduction of her victim Laura. Although Carmilla did show blatant sexual advances toward Laura in her conscious and even unconscious state, and made professions of love toward Laura numerous times, I cannot help but think that her motives for such actions were solely for the acquisition of Laura’s blood. It was clear from the beginning that Carmilla was not in the her full strength and I believe it is why she pursued Laura in the manner in which she did, instead of taking her at once and bleeding her dry as vampires are known to do. Similarly, it is obvious that Laura’s feelings for Carmilla were a direct effect of her supernatural seduction and in her own mind she was actually repulsed by Carmilla and her advances.
It seemed that although the story was not set in Ireland, rather a place in Austria, the devastation that the vampires brought upon Styria was reflective of the effects of the famine that was plaguing Ireland at the time. Allusions to this can be seen in the meek population of Styria, “I have said 'the nearest inhabited village', because there is, only three miles westward… a ruined village...Respecting the cause of the desertion of this striking and melancholy spot, there is a legend which I shall relate to you another time.” (Ch. 1)
Another aspect of the novel that I found interesting was the role of the men in the story. I don’t know if it was just me, but I found the men in the story to be very emasculated. They all seemed to share a very submissive quality, always following the orders of the women, which I found to be very strange, like the theme of homosexuality, for the time in which the novel was written. What do you guys think; did you find the roles of the males and females were switched in the novel?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
“Maria Edgeworth In Blackface”
Having no prior knowledge of Irish history, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that when I first read Castle Rackrent I assumed that it was just supposed to be a comical story about a over zealous servant to a doomed family. I found it kind of strange how there was an introduction, glossary, footnotes and appendix to what I thought to be a light and inconsequential novel. Having read “Maria Edgeworth In Blackface” I now see that Maria Edgeworth’s motives were not so pure in her conception of this novel and that she had strong political incentive for including all of the attachments, especially the glossary, that were in the novel.
The Irish rebellion of 1798 was something that I had not heard of until reading “Maria Edgeworth In Blackface.” After reading the essay and doing further research online, it became obvious that Edgeworth intended on using the novel as her way of voicing her opinion on the subject of the rebellion. During the time after the Irish rebellion of 1798, many published their accounts of the horrors that took place during that time, almost all of them being from loyalist perspectives. To be able to publish her views of the rebellion without being criticized, Edgeworth created a humorous and seemingly insignificant tale of an artless and illiterate servant to the Rackrent family. To convince the readers of Thady’s legitimacy the Editor “…presents information in the editorial commentary to convince us of its simplicity and authenticity, while simultaneously presenting evidence which alerts us to the political tension in Ireland.” (851)
Edgeworth used several tactics to mask her intended interpretation of the novel. While the most obvious way in which Edgeworth masqueraded her novel was by having a comical overtone in it, I believe that the most successful way in which she achieved this was through her blackface portrayal of the narrator Thady Quirk. Although Thady was a white male, Edgeworth’s performance can still be seen as a form of linguistic blackface in the sense that she represented a simpleminded, imprudently loyal steward. “In taking Thady’s voice, Edgeworth thus becomes a minstrel character, performing what Kenneth Lynn refers to as “a white imitation of a black imitation of a contented slave.” (849) Blackface minstrelsy was a clever way for Edgeworth to cover up her real intentions of the novel because, while she did insert her strong political views into the novel, the fact that she was telling it from the point of view of a simpleminded, subaltern steward made it easy for the reader to dismiss anything they said without getting worked up. “Set apart from society, believed to be mentally inferior and immature, black characters could express serious criticism without compelling the listener to take them seriously.” (864)
Besides the heavy political implications, mostly provided in the glossary, Edgeworth also centered much of the story on land right and law. “Thady called it their whiskey; not that the whiskey is actually the property of the tenants, but that it becomes their right after it has been often given to them. In this general mode of reasoning respecting rights the lower Irish are not singular, but they are peculiarly quick and tenacious in claiming these rights.” (C, 127) In Castle Rackrent, Thady helped his son Jason acquire a farm on the Rackrent estate by manipulating the bids. This action turned out to be one of the first steps that led to Jason overtaking the entire estate. “The central question of the novel thus becomes, Whose land is it and what right do they have to it?” (854)
After completing the essay I found that my original interpretation of the novel was completely off. What I had once assumed to be a light and comical tale of little significance, turned out to be a novel filled with hidden political motives, and which centered itself a great deal around land rights and law.
The Irish rebellion of 1798 was something that I had not heard of until reading “Maria Edgeworth In Blackface.” After reading the essay and doing further research online, it became obvious that Edgeworth intended on using the novel as her way of voicing her opinion on the subject of the rebellion. During the time after the Irish rebellion of 1798, many published their accounts of the horrors that took place during that time, almost all of them being from loyalist perspectives. To be able to publish her views of the rebellion without being criticized, Edgeworth created a humorous and seemingly insignificant tale of an artless and illiterate servant to the Rackrent family. To convince the readers of Thady’s legitimacy the Editor “…presents information in the editorial commentary to convince us of its simplicity and authenticity, while simultaneously presenting evidence which alerts us to the political tension in Ireland.” (851)
Edgeworth used several tactics to mask her intended interpretation of the novel. While the most obvious way in which Edgeworth masqueraded her novel was by having a comical overtone in it, I believe that the most successful way in which she achieved this was through her blackface portrayal of the narrator Thady Quirk. Although Thady was a white male, Edgeworth’s performance can still be seen as a form of linguistic blackface in the sense that she represented a simpleminded, imprudently loyal steward. “In taking Thady’s voice, Edgeworth thus becomes a minstrel character, performing what Kenneth Lynn refers to as “a white imitation of a black imitation of a contented slave.” (849) Blackface minstrelsy was a clever way for Edgeworth to cover up her real intentions of the novel because, while she did insert her strong political views into the novel, the fact that she was telling it from the point of view of a simpleminded, subaltern steward made it easy for the reader to dismiss anything they said without getting worked up. “Set apart from society, believed to be mentally inferior and immature, black characters could express serious criticism without compelling the listener to take them seriously.” (864)
Besides the heavy political implications, mostly provided in the glossary, Edgeworth also centered much of the story on land right and law. “Thady called it their whiskey; not that the whiskey is actually the property of the tenants, but that it becomes their right after it has been often given to them. In this general mode of reasoning respecting rights the lower Irish are not singular, but they are peculiarly quick and tenacious in claiming these rights.” (C, 127) In Castle Rackrent, Thady helped his son Jason acquire a farm on the Rackrent estate by manipulating the bids. This action turned out to be one of the first steps that led to Jason overtaking the entire estate. “The central question of the novel thus becomes, Whose land is it and what right do they have to it?” (854)
After completing the essay I found that my original interpretation of the novel was completely off. What I had once assumed to be a light and comical tale of little significance, turned out to be a novel filled with hidden political motives, and which centered itself a great deal around land rights and law.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Castle Rackrent
When I first read Castle Rackrent I was fairly confident that the main villain of the story was Jason M’Quirk, especially after he had practically forced Sir Condy into signing away the whole family estate and cheated him into signing away, for only a few hundred golden guineas, his wife’s jointure. Although that can definitely be seen as villainous, after further reading I found Thady to be the true villain of the story. Thady may have appeared to be the simpleminded, subaltern steward to the Rackrent family, but in reality he was quite dubious and much more disingenuous than anyone would have guessed.
Through Thady’s skewed narrative of the Rackrent history we came to see Jason as the villain of the story based on his coup over the Rackrent family, when in reality Thady had crucially aided his son in the take over of the Rackrent estate from the beginning by assisting Jason in buying up pieces of the estate under market value. Although Thady may not have deliberately helped his son in the takeover of the Rackrent estate, Thady performed a litany of other actions that contributed to the ruin of the Rackrent family.
“While in theory Thady is naïve, what he says and what he doesn’t say may plainly be determined by partisanship or cunning.” (10) Thady stated, “Sir Condy, was ever my great favorite,”(83) and even called him his ‘white-headed boy.’ While this might give the impression that he took great care of Sir Condy, in reality he contributed to his ruin most of all. “It was he who taught his ‘white-headed boy’ to gamble, and to consider the drunkard Sir Patrick Rackrent the model of a popular Irish gentleman.”(11) Though it may seem like these were not such terrible things to do, they were the two contributing factors that causing Sir Condy’s death, and not only that, his death ended up being an imitation of the way in which Sir Patrick died.
Thady’s relationship with his son was a very complicated one. Thady introduced his son by saying, “To look at me, you would hardy think ‘poor Thady’ was the father of attorney Quirk; he is a high gentleman, and never minds what poor Thady says, and having better than fifteen hundred a year, landed estate, looks down upon honest Thady; but I wash my hands of his doings, and as I have lived so will I die, true and loyal to the family.”(66) By this introduction it is clear that Thady and Jason had a strained father son relationship. Jason, who had established a fine life for himself, seemed to have no respect for his father or what he did, while Thady will forever be unashamedly devoted to the Rackrent family.
What surprises me the most about Thady is how he so blatantly aided his son by manipulating the bids on the lease of a farm on the Rackrent estate. “I spoke a good word for my son, and gave out in the country that nobody need bid against us.” (74) I found this to be very interesting, for although Thady could not foresee the consequences of his actions, to see him choose anybody, including his son, over the best interest of the Rackrent family and estate went against the actions of the blindly devoted and loyal servant that I understood Thady to be.
In the end of the story when Thady was devastated over his son’s takeover of the Rackrent estate, it seemed that his angst was because Thady was always the subaltern servant to the Rackrent and cannot see himself as anything else. By the Rackrent family ruined and his son taking over the estate, in Thady’s eyes Jason has betrayed him and the subaltern class he had always known.
An event that Thady was an active participant in, which were actions less causative to the ruin of the Rackrent family as they were just plain villainous, included his part in the seven year “incarceration” of Sir Kit’s young Jewish bride. The thing that I found most disturbing about this was that even after Sir Kit’s death Thady had nothing to say about his actions except that “he was never cured of his gaming tricks; but that was the only fault he had, God bless him.” (81) The only fault he had! What part of locking a girl in a room for seven years does not raise a red flag of being wrong? Seeing that Thady did not find anything wrong with what Sir Kit did, and what he did for that matter, just proves how truly evil he was.
When looking back over the novel it is clear that "honest Thady" was an active participant in the downfall of the Rackrent family. The family which he claimed to love so dearly.
Through Thady’s skewed narrative of the Rackrent history we came to see Jason as the villain of the story based on his coup over the Rackrent family, when in reality Thady had crucially aided his son in the take over of the Rackrent estate from the beginning by assisting Jason in buying up pieces of the estate under market value. Although Thady may not have deliberately helped his son in the takeover of the Rackrent estate, Thady performed a litany of other actions that contributed to the ruin of the Rackrent family.
“While in theory Thady is naïve, what he says and what he doesn’t say may plainly be determined by partisanship or cunning.” (10) Thady stated, “Sir Condy, was ever my great favorite,”(83) and even called him his ‘white-headed boy.’ While this might give the impression that he took great care of Sir Condy, in reality he contributed to his ruin most of all. “It was he who taught his ‘white-headed boy’ to gamble, and to consider the drunkard Sir Patrick Rackrent the model of a popular Irish gentleman.”(11) Though it may seem like these were not such terrible things to do, they were the two contributing factors that causing Sir Condy’s death, and not only that, his death ended up being an imitation of the way in which Sir Patrick died.
Thady’s relationship with his son was a very complicated one. Thady introduced his son by saying, “To look at me, you would hardy think ‘poor Thady’ was the father of attorney Quirk; he is a high gentleman, and never minds what poor Thady says, and having better than fifteen hundred a year, landed estate, looks down upon honest Thady; but I wash my hands of his doings, and as I have lived so will I die, true and loyal to the family.”(66) By this introduction it is clear that Thady and Jason had a strained father son relationship. Jason, who had established a fine life for himself, seemed to have no respect for his father or what he did, while Thady will forever be unashamedly devoted to the Rackrent family.
What surprises me the most about Thady is how he so blatantly aided his son by manipulating the bids on the lease of a farm on the Rackrent estate. “I spoke a good word for my son, and gave out in the country that nobody need bid against us.” (74) I found this to be very interesting, for although Thady could not foresee the consequences of his actions, to see him choose anybody, including his son, over the best interest of the Rackrent family and estate went against the actions of the blindly devoted and loyal servant that I understood Thady to be.
In the end of the story when Thady was devastated over his son’s takeover of the Rackrent estate, it seemed that his angst was because Thady was always the subaltern servant to the Rackrent and cannot see himself as anything else. By the Rackrent family ruined and his son taking over the estate, in Thady’s eyes Jason has betrayed him and the subaltern class he had always known.
An event that Thady was an active participant in, which were actions less causative to the ruin of the Rackrent family as they were just plain villainous, included his part in the seven year “incarceration” of Sir Kit’s young Jewish bride. The thing that I found most disturbing about this was that even after Sir Kit’s death Thady had nothing to say about his actions except that “he was never cured of his gaming tricks; but that was the only fault he had, God bless him.” (81) The only fault he had! What part of locking a girl in a room for seven years does not raise a red flag of being wrong? Seeing that Thady did not find anything wrong with what Sir Kit did, and what he did for that matter, just proves how truly evil he was.
When looking back over the novel it is clear that "honest Thady" was an active participant in the downfall of the Rackrent family. The family which he claimed to love so dearly.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
“Violence and the Constitution of the Novel”
Hello everybody and welcome to my first official Irish related blog. Wow, what an essay, and by that I mean, Holy Confusing! After completing reading “Violence and the Constitution of the Novel” by David Lloyd, a very long and arduous article I might add, to say that I was overwhelmed would be an understatement. I felt like the author purposefully used vocabulary that only about ten people in the world understand to make it way more ambiguous than it needed to be. I am not going to lie; I looked up at least fifty words and still had no idea what he was talking about. I felt like the essay was in another language with all the deciphering I had to do!
Now that I got all of that ranting out of my system I can get to my interpretation of the essay, which focused on the stereotype of violence in Ireland.
The one thing that really stuck out to me when reading the essay was the first line. “With the possible exception of greenness, no quality has more frequently and repetitiously been attributed to Ireland than violence.”(125) This line really surprised me and confirmed by prior confession of knowing absolutely nothing about Ireland because I, like the line states, attribute greenness to Ireland almost instinctively when I think about the country, while on the other hand I would have never guessed to attribute Ireland to violence. To read that violence is attributed to Ireland almost as frequently as the color green really changed my perspective and opened my eyes to the history of Ireland. Reading further I found that this perceived connection between Ireland and violence is one of the biggest stereotypes attributed to Ireland, historically as well as in its literature.
“…while traditional accounts of Irish history, historical as well as literary, constantly stress the endemic and excessive violence of the culture, the more detailed studies of agrarian disturbances tend to suggest that actual levels of violence were far lower than such representations imply.” (141) Understanding the true level of violence in Ireland compared to that in other countries is based on your perception of violence in general.
Tom Bartlett, writer of “An End to Moral Economy,” sheds light on the distinction between agrarian disturbances and disturbances stemming from military intervention. This distinction between the two types of violence showcases the inconsistency of representation. Even though neither type of violence can be said to be more violent than the other, disturbances stemming from military intervention were seen as state-sanctioned and so it “ceases to be violence insofar as bloodshed is subordinated to the founding of the state,”(126) while agrarian disturbances, also known as local outrages, were seen as savage. This brings to light the double standard that is held in differentiating violence in Ireland compared to that in other countries. Violence in Ireland was caused more by land than by food, which in the eyes of the British, made them archaic.
Accounts of violence in Ireland were not only exaggerated in its history, but also in its writing. The volatility of Irish society, and the stereotype of its violence, plays a major role in one of the reasons that Irish literature is characterized as inadequate. The continual eruption of violence in Ireland prevented writers from providing compelling resolutions, which were very much apparent in English literature at the time.
After reading “Violence and the Constitution of the Novel” and acquiring a better understanding of violence in Ireland and its stereotype, I really feel like I grasped a greater knowledge of Irish history and writing. And although I will never fully understand all that I read, or half of it for that matter, I feel that what I have taken away from the essay will really help me in understanding the backgrounds of the novels that we will be reading this semester.
Now that I got all of that ranting out of my system I can get to my interpretation of the essay, which focused on the stereotype of violence in Ireland.
The one thing that really stuck out to me when reading the essay was the first line. “With the possible exception of greenness, no quality has more frequently and repetitiously been attributed to Ireland than violence.”(125) This line really surprised me and confirmed by prior confession of knowing absolutely nothing about Ireland because I, like the line states, attribute greenness to Ireland almost instinctively when I think about the country, while on the other hand I would have never guessed to attribute Ireland to violence. To read that violence is attributed to Ireland almost as frequently as the color green really changed my perspective and opened my eyes to the history of Ireland. Reading further I found that this perceived connection between Ireland and violence is one of the biggest stereotypes attributed to Ireland, historically as well as in its literature.
“…while traditional accounts of Irish history, historical as well as literary, constantly stress the endemic and excessive violence of the culture, the more detailed studies of agrarian disturbances tend to suggest that actual levels of violence were far lower than such representations imply.” (141) Understanding the true level of violence in Ireland compared to that in other countries is based on your perception of violence in general.
Tom Bartlett, writer of “An End to Moral Economy,” sheds light on the distinction between agrarian disturbances and disturbances stemming from military intervention. This distinction between the two types of violence showcases the inconsistency of representation. Even though neither type of violence can be said to be more violent than the other, disturbances stemming from military intervention were seen as state-sanctioned and so it “ceases to be violence insofar as bloodshed is subordinated to the founding of the state,”(126) while agrarian disturbances, also known as local outrages, were seen as savage. This brings to light the double standard that is held in differentiating violence in Ireland compared to that in other countries. Violence in Ireland was caused more by land than by food, which in the eyes of the British, made them archaic.
Accounts of violence in Ireland were not only exaggerated in its history, but also in its writing. The volatility of Irish society, and the stereotype of its violence, plays a major role in one of the reasons that Irish literature is characterized as inadequate. The continual eruption of violence in Ireland prevented writers from providing compelling resolutions, which were very much apparent in English literature at the time.
After reading “Violence and the Constitution of the Novel” and acquiring a better understanding of violence in Ireland and its stereotype, I really feel like I grasped a greater knowledge of Irish history and writing. And although I will never fully understand all that I read, or half of it for that matter, I feel that what I have taken away from the essay will really help me in understanding the backgrounds of the novels that we will be reading this semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)