When I started this assignment I knew right away that I wanted to do James Thurber’s short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. I enjoyed the whole idea of this story and how this man is living mainly in his imagination. The problem was what criticism I should use. Like I said before I naturally use Deconstruction, that’s just how I look at things, so I wanted to do something else. So, by going through them I figured out I wanted to do a Marxist analysis.
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty was written in 1941. The Second World War had been going on for two years, and although America did not get involved until December of 1941, Americans as individuals were already getting involved. American society at this time is gearing up for war. America had heroes that had fought in World War I and heroes leaving for World War II. Society is looking for the young, strong, and courageous, and here is where the character Walter Mitty sits. Mitty (in real life) is described as “not a young man any longer” (229) by his wife. His wife is constantly nagging him; everything he does is not good enough for her. He never can seem to do anything right. On the first page Mitty’s wife is telling him he is driving too fast, after he drops his wife off a police officer tells him to drive faster, then when he gets to the garage the parking lot attendant yells at him for almost hitting another car and being a bad driver. In this story it is clear that Walter Mitty is not the strong, able, young man that society is looking for and honoring.
This is the part where it gets interesting, because Walter Mitty is unable to be all these things society is striving for; he recreates himself in his head. Mitty day dreams about being strong, courageous, and needed. Within this five page story he has five separate imaginings. The first he is a commander of a ship, he is fearless and all of his men respect him following his every command. The second he is a surgeon and apparently the only one who can save a millionaire banker who is good friends with President Roosevelt. The third he is a murderer who is knowledgeable about guns and a crack shot. In this dream there is also a “lovely dark-haired girl” (230) who jumps on his lap in the end. The fourth he is an air captain in the military and is flying alone because his copilot is sick, not only is he heroic by flying alone to do this ammunition drop off, but it is also mentioned that he can hold his liquor. Then in the fifth dream he is bravely standing in front of a firing squad ready to die without a blindfold. All of these dreams encompass the strength and masculinity that society holds important, and that Mitty longs for, but cannot grasp.
Walter Mitty cannot ever be happy because he can never be what society, at this time, has prescribed as good, and admirable. The story ends with Mitty waiting for his wife in front of the drugstore, which soon turns to Mitty in front of the firing squad awaiting his death. Mitty will never be the hero he dreams himself to be. Therefore it is easier for Mitty to live in a world that does not exist than in the real world with a society that does not except him.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Got It! Wait... What? (ch11)
Honestly it feels like I've been reading the same thing for the last few chapters. This Cultural Studies isn't any different. It appears to me that in the '50s and '60s a whole bunch of critics wanted to come up with their own theories. So instead of looking at everything together and creating one good strong criticism, they did their own thing and used a lot of each other's ideas. We, as modern day critics, are forced to shuffle through them all and try to figure out the differences rather than the similarities, because the similarities are too many.
Back to Cultural Studies.
So, the first part basically sets up what post colonialism is; the study of culture's that have become the "Other" which is basically anyone who has been colonized by the British. The first part of this chapter forgets to mention that there are many other countries that have colonized and are still colonizing other countries. For example when the British came over to North America the Spanish, French, Scandinavians, Japanese, Chinese, and Russians, were already there. They were already teaching their culture and pushing their beliefs on the Native Americans. Granted yes, some of these cultures would be considered "white" but some of them would not, and they all have different philosophies and cultures. Bressler says that the main concern of Cultural Studies/Post Colonialism is "highlighting the struggle that occurs when one culture is dominated by another"(201). This can be any culture though, and shouldn't be stereotyped down to only the white male can colonize.
Basically what I got out of chapter 11 is this. When reading texts that were written by post colonials one should not judge their culture but learn from it. One must often switch up their approach with each individual text because it's such a broad subject. And like the previous few chapters; one can use pretty much any of the other criticisms to do the task of critiquing these texts.
Back to Cultural Studies.
So, the first part basically sets up what post colonialism is; the study of culture's that have become the "Other" which is basically anyone who has been colonized by the British. The first part of this chapter forgets to mention that there are many other countries that have colonized and are still colonizing other countries. For example when the British came over to North America the Spanish, French, Scandinavians, Japanese, Chinese, and Russians, were already there. They were already teaching their culture and pushing their beliefs on the Native Americans. Granted yes, some of these cultures would be considered "white" but some of them would not, and they all have different philosophies and cultures. Bressler says that the main concern of Cultural Studies/Post Colonialism is "highlighting the struggle that occurs when one culture is dominated by another"(201). This can be any culture though, and shouldn't be stereotyped down to only the white male can colonize.
Basically what I got out of chapter 11 is this. When reading texts that were written by post colonials one should not judge their culture but learn from it. One must often switch up their approach with each individual text because it's such a broad subject. And like the previous few chapters; one can use pretty much any of the other criticisms to do the task of critiquing these texts.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Jack of All Trades (ch10)
The important thing you have to know about Cultural Poetics is basically you have to know everything. In order to look at a text one must be able to understand the historical context, the author's view point and the social context of a work. In order to be a good Cultural Poet you need to pretty much know a little bit about all of the humanities. The importance of society and how it affects both the authors and the readers is a large part of it. You also need to know about politics of the time and the historical eras.
I like the idea of the anthropology approach, although I am sure it is harder to follow than it sounds. It is true though that every critic puts their own spin or ideals into the texts they read, and so that should be removed in order to have a non bias opinion. This would be hard because when we put ourselves into the text it is then that we can truly connect with the work. I think it would be hard to critic something that I am not connected to.
When reading this chapter a lot of it sounded like the Marxist approach to criticism, especially the importance of society. The thing I've learned about all of these chapters is the links between all of them. Although they may have different major points they highlight there are many parts that are borrowed and used from each other.
I like the idea of the anthropology approach, although I am sure it is harder to follow than it sounds. It is true though that every critic puts their own spin or ideals into the texts they read, and so that should be removed in order to have a non bias opinion. This would be hard because when we put ourselves into the text it is then that we can truly connect with the work. I think it would be hard to critic something that I am not connected to.
When reading this chapter a lot of it sounded like the Marxist approach to criticism, especially the importance of society. The thing I've learned about all of these chapters is the links between all of them. Although they may have different major points they highlight there are many parts that are borrowed and used from each other.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Vive Le Revolution!!
It's sad that Karl Marx's solution to the world's problems created the very things he hated, and strives to get away from. When Marx asks the working class to head towards Communism he is asking them to be slaves to society, trapped in their class. Marx never seemed to figure out that rich and powerful people will always find a way to be rich and powerful regardless of political views.
When looking at the Marxism Criticism there's a call to revolution. We must read a text in order to know the bourgeoisie so that we can rally the people against it and towards Communism. It makes sense that texts will show the state of the society the writers are living in. Writing can also show or warn a society where they might be heading. This has been used in many different ways. Works like Fahrenheit 451 show what could happen if books are outlawed if people stop thinking critically, Ray Bradbury shows even people's emotions are affected. New movies are coming out like Gamer, and Surrogate with a clear message of what could happen if we keep pushing technology to its limits. These warn society that this could happen if we don't change our ways soon. But are these written by the bourgeoisie for a purpose to push everyone in the direction they want to go? That's the job of the critics.
The critics have a very heavy load to bear. They must read texts and figure out what exact message the bourgeoisie is saying so that they can tell the working class to do the opposite. My problem with that though is what critics can the working class trust? Would the critics be part of the working class or the bourgeoisie? It seems to me that most likely it would be a more lucrative state to work for society itself and not the lower class.
For me this way of criticism gives more questions than answers. Although it's called Marxism, as critics, we have to leave that side behind (at least I hope no critics are pushing Communism). Basically this form of criticism is looking at a work with all of the author's society in context to the work. What are our texts saying about us and how should we change after we find out the truth.
When looking at the Marxism Criticism there's a call to revolution. We must read a text in order to know the bourgeoisie so that we can rally the people against it and towards Communism. It makes sense that texts will show the state of the society the writers are living in. Writing can also show or warn a society where they might be heading. This has been used in many different ways. Works like Fahrenheit 451 show what could happen if books are outlawed if people stop thinking critically, Ray Bradbury shows even people's emotions are affected. New movies are coming out like Gamer, and Surrogate with a clear message of what could happen if we keep pushing technology to its limits. These warn society that this could happen if we don't change our ways soon. But are these written by the bourgeoisie for a purpose to push everyone in the direction they want to go? That's the job of the critics.
The critics have a very heavy load to bear. They must read texts and figure out what exact message the bourgeoisie is saying so that they can tell the working class to do the opposite. My problem with that though is what critics can the working class trust? Would the critics be part of the working class or the bourgeoisie? It seems to me that most likely it would be a more lucrative state to work for society itself and not the lower class.
For me this way of criticism gives more questions than answers. Although it's called Marxism, as critics, we have to leave that side behind (at least I hope no critics are pushing Communism). Basically this form of criticism is looking at a work with all of the author's society in context to the work. What are our texts saying about us and how should we change after we find out the truth.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Significant Woman (ch8)
I did read the whole of chapter 8 but I did get caught up in the introduction. I am a great fan of fairy tales always have been always will be so this stuck out to me the most. I do agree that fairy tales do tell you that if you are beautiful, young, and strong your happiness will come. The thing I really don't agree with is the whole Feminist look at fairy tales and that the women are brainless and weak. Bressler talks about Cinderella and how Feminists should look at the story on page 144 he states: "In sum, they must reject the idea that women (like the traditional Cinderella) are mindless, weepy, passive, helpless creatures who must wait for a man to come and make their lives meaningful." The problem with this statement is it's not true. The prince, granted, does take Cinderella out of the bad situation but he doesn't even know she exists until she comes to the ball. The true savior of the story is the Fairy Godmother (who is a woman) without her, Cinderella would be still stuck at home.
Rumpelstiltskin is another example of a strong woman. It is the girl who is cunning enough to both agree to ask for help from Rumpelstiltskin and to find out his name to save her child. Rapunzel, she is the one who has to find the Prince in the end and she saves his eyes with her tears. When looking at Fairy Tales it is always the women who suffer the most but they also use their own strength and love to overcome and persevere.
Granted these women do not have political power but they are not "mindless, weepy, passive, helpless creatures." I could go on and on but I'll stop with these three examples.
Often times in Fairy Tales it is the men who are pawns. Like in Cinderella, the Prince just shows up at the very end to sweep her off her feet. In Rumpelstiltskin the Prince is the object of the girl's desire and what she is striving for. In Rapunzel the Witch flicks the Prince off the tower and he falls and goes blind until Rapunzel finds him again.
Not only are the heroines strong women but more often than not the oppressor is a strong woman as well. Fairy Tales are dominated by women and their struggles, they are filled with cunning and smart women. Just because these heroic women in Fairy Tales are selfless, doesn't mean they are weak.
Rumpelstiltskin is another example of a strong woman. It is the girl who is cunning enough to both agree to ask for help from Rumpelstiltskin and to find out his name to save her child. Rapunzel, she is the one who has to find the Prince in the end and she saves his eyes with her tears. When looking at Fairy Tales it is always the women who suffer the most but they also use their own strength and love to overcome and persevere.
Granted these women do not have political power but they are not "mindless, weepy, passive, helpless creatures." I could go on and on but I'll stop with these three examples.
Often times in Fairy Tales it is the men who are pawns. Like in Cinderella, the Prince just shows up at the very end to sweep her off her feet. In Rumpelstiltskin the Prince is the object of the girl's desire and what she is striving for. In Rapunzel the Witch flicks the Prince off the tower and he falls and goes blind until Rapunzel finds him again.
Not only are the heroines strong women but more often than not the oppressor is a strong woman as well. Fairy Tales are dominated by women and their struggles, they are filled with cunning and smart women. Just because these heroic women in Fairy Tales are selfless, doesn't mean they are weak.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Get Your Mind Out Of The Gutter!! (ch7)
I have never been a fan of Sigmund Freud. I know he made great leaps in Psychology with his ideas of the unconscious but I get sick of reading words like erotic and incest which always seem to come quickly after his name. Like the whole Oedipus story, has Freud never read the end? Doesn't he realize that Oedipus doesn't know he married his own mother, and when he finds out he gouges his eyes out?
Honestly, I believe Psychoanalytic Criticism has done a lot of damage to the old stories. Beowulf has suffered greatly from this form, which is demonstrated in the somewhat new movie Holly Wood did. Grendel's Mother looks nothing like Angelina Jolie, in the poem she is disgusting and needs to be killed not sexually satisfied. This story is a grand tale of heroism and brutal masculinity not sexuality. When all you are looking for is sex you will find it, but you can also lose track of everything else the story is saying.
I did like the part in the chapter when it talks about characters and how the author describes the character and the reader recreates it. Often times just by explaining the personality of a character it gives a physical picture of that person in the minds-eye of the reader. When people can make a book character their own is when a book comes alive. There can only be an attachment between a character and a reader if there is a strong personality and enough left up to the imagination to create someone that is likable to each reader.
Honestly, I believe Psychoanalytic Criticism has done a lot of damage to the old stories. Beowulf has suffered greatly from this form, which is demonstrated in the somewhat new movie Holly Wood did. Grendel's Mother looks nothing like Angelina Jolie, in the poem she is disgusting and needs to be killed not sexually satisfied. This story is a grand tale of heroism and brutal masculinity not sexuality. When all you are looking for is sex you will find it, but you can also lose track of everything else the story is saying.
I did like the part in the chapter when it talks about characters and how the author describes the character and the reader recreates it. Often times just by explaining the personality of a character it gives a physical picture of that person in the minds-eye of the reader. When people can make a book character their own is when a book comes alive. There can only be an attachment between a character and a reader if there is a strong personality and enough left up to the imagination to create someone that is likable to each reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
