Elites Acting Badly

Marilyn Butler’s idea is that Emma’s high status gives her more leeway to act badly – but also that her bad actions are her own moral responsibility. On one hand, this seems reasonable; certainly after this election season it seems like elites can get away with things that ordinary people could never do. But at the same time, I wonder whether Austen is actually challenging the idea that women lived their lives in the way that men imagined they do. I don’t know much about any of Austen’s other heroines, but it may be that women always do far more then society tells them they are supposed to. You could argue that poor women have more leeway because they don’t have class expectations thrust upon them.

Emma definitely does have advantages due to status. For instance, her wealth (and doting father) may mean that she can vow to remain single, because she does not have to marry for economic support. But I only think the first half of Butler’s statement may be true. I haven’t seen yet that Emma takes “moral responsibility” for her bad behavior, like when she discouraged the union of Mr. Martin and Harriet due to her own prejudices and self-interest, or when she gossips about Jane's and Mr. Dixon's supposed attraction to each other. 

Merit and Birth

Harriet Smith is an example of a character who does not have the right breeding, being introduced as the daughter of an unnamed “somebody” and in perilous circumstances. Despite her apparently humble background she is pretty and an excellent student (but seems kind of clueless much of the time). Still it is Emma’s endorsement of her through her friendship that makes her become more accepted into society. It doesn’t seem like merit or birth, it seems like connections that create Harriet’s value.

Mr. Woodhouse is Emma’s father and head of the family estate. He is very elite in the town of Highbury, and so expects respect from the community, and has certain assumed expectations that the world should work how he thinks it should, and is kind of oblivious to others. He is a hypochondriac and does not seem to care about anyone but himself. His advantages of birth seem to have led to him being incredibly self-centered. He doesn’t seem to think that any people should get married, and assumes that what he thinks is correct whether it is about wedding cake, boiling eggs, or how people should live.

I do think that there are modern day connections to this. Birth v. merit still seems like an enormous issue, especially in the wake of this week’s election. America prides itself on being a meritocracy, that anyone can achieve if you work hard, but that is a lie. If you come from a certain family, or have a certain family wealth you may have an array of privileges about what you can do, and how you should be treated in society. As importantly, those privileges allow you to amass more wealth and privileges, so there is no such thing as a meritocracy, despite America claiming to be based on one.

Emma: First Reaction

In the beginning chapters of the novel, Emma seems incredibly spoiled and elitist, but not stupid. Emma seems to come by some of this self-centeredness naturally: her father, Mr. Woodhouse thinks his daughter  is perfect, and he seems to have weird views on proper behavior that he believes everyone else should follow (like not eating wedding cake), and does not always fully understand what people around him are saying or thinking. 

So far, I am finding it hard to like Emma that much. She seems pretty shallow. For instance, she likes Harriet Smith because she is beautiful, and cares a lot about status and how much money people have. I can't tell if Austen is creating Emma as a caricature of what people in the time imagined elite women to be like, because Emma definitely doesn't seem realistic or a complex person. Emma seems to think that she should control everyone around her. One positive is that she seems to be able to care about others. She is tolerant of her father's idiosyncrasies, and although she is sad for herself, she seems happy that her governess/friend Miss Taylor got married.

I didn't know anything about Jane Austen, so didn't have many expectations. I don't think I expected there to be so many chapters about so little. This definitely isn't like Othello, which had lots of action and less introspection. 

Loving over Time

 I actually think it is not totally historical accurate to say that interracial relationships have been taboo for so long. I think that they became more taboo after slavery, when white people in the U.S. and especially the South wanted to make sure that black people would continue to be oppressed. In the time period when Shakespeare wrote Othello, I am not sure that it was as remarkable as it looks to us, looking backwards. In the 1600s and 1700s racism was not fully developed and there may have been more flexibility before U.S. slavery was fully established. After all, Othello is called The Moor, not the negro. So I think that historical context matters in understanding race.

But at the same time, there is no question that marriage laws are a way that society decides who does and doesn't have rights. I think there are so many taboos on marriage (gay marriage, interracial, interfaith) because people see marriage as a way to structure society. Whether you are married, how many times you are married, who you are allowed to marry: these all are seen to reflect on people's place in society.

As for comparing the Lovings and Othello/Desdemona: both couples are in love, though there are class differences. The Lovings were average people (he was a bricklayer), and neither was the child of a political leader or a military hero.  Although, I never realized that Mildred was African American and Native American, because people talk about them as black and white. Finally, the story of the Lovings shows how hard people had to struggle to get basic rights that others took for granted.

Posts of Othello

It is interesting how these advertisements for Othello portray such different images of the play. In the two with photographs of actual people, they seem to most emphasize the violence against a white woman by a black man. The woman doesn't look happy in either. Yet another advertisement has silhouettes of black and white arms holding hands, as if it is a loving relationship. The other three images just show one person. The two close ups of heads (middle top and lower left) seem to show a conflict over someone's race -- one shows a brown faceless chocolate shell of a head cracked open to reveal a white inside; the other shows an black man whose torso is half black and half white clothed. And finally, the American Globe Theatre poster just shows a silhouette of a figure who could be black but could just be in shadow, peeking out from a curtain.

It seems clear from most of these that race is a big part of Othello. It also seems like an interracial relationship is a big part of the play, but it isn't clear if it is a romantic or abusive one. In terms of how these make me feel, the two photograph-based posters make me uncomfortable because of the man's hand around the woman's neck. The top middle one, with the cracked chocolate head, seems like it may be kind of racist because it compares a brown-skinned human being to food.

Blog #3: The Problems with Poetry

After reading Renaissance poetry over the weekend, I definitely can relate to the feeling that poetry is difficult to understand. I spent half the time I was reading thinking: what is this about? What am I supposed to get from this author? For instance, I thought The Flea was an interesting commentary on taking something small and unimportant and investing it with grand powers of connection between people, but apparently, that was not the interpretation I was supposed to have. Which is depressing because I had actually gotten something out of it, but not the right something.

On the other hand, I have read poetry that I find really meaningful. Sometimes poetry can get the emotion of an idea across in a few words much better than an entire paragraph of text. Langston Hughes's "Dream Deffered" poem is only 51 words long. But it conveys the pain and suffering and disappointment caused by American racism. When the last line asks, "Or does it explode?" the reader sees Hughes's perspective on the possible result of oppression: rebellion.

But poems are only meaningful if you understand them and can relate to what they are saying. Part of the reason that the Renaissance poetry may seem difficult is because of the language and metaphors and outdated phrasing.

So I think we read poetry as a way to connect with other people, to see their experiences expressed in personal ways. But if we can't make those connections, it is hard to find the meaning in the poetry.

Leaders and Heroes: The Difference

King Hrothgar is one of the few people with actual leadership experience. He has gone through a variety of situations, both good and bad. He did not stop Grendel from attacking, but he did save his people from many wars and traumas. His advice to Beowulf is mainly to remember to be humble because he has seen many heroes like Beowulf who become complacent heroes who do not remember the customs and ideals that made them heroes in the first place. This complacency has led to many ex-heroes's demise. This seems to be arguing that being a hero is not the same thing as being a leader. Conquering and destroying enemies is a different skill set from leading a people. For example, when Beowulf went to kill Grendel's mother, he had no fear of death, so he could blindly go forward knowing he could die. As a hero, that was seen as great and selfless. But if he were a ruler, that would have been disastrous for his people, because it would put them all at risk.

Beowulf does show parallels to current politics. As I write this blog post, a television ad is playing that questions whether one presidential candidate can be trusted with nuclear codes. Donald Trump has built his campaign on being a hero who will "Make America Great Again." At the Republican Convention, his speech argued that only he could save America. But this style of individualistic masculine heroism is probably better left to stories and movies. To rule a country, you need to be able to build coalitions and work effectively with many people. Unlike Beowulf, however, the current presidential contest does not seem to be between age and youth. Instead, we might argue that it is a contest between gendered leadership styles.

The Monster Word Cloud

The character that the words in my Wordle are describing is Frankenstein's Monster.

My words are:

• Vengeful
• Self Taught
• Friendless
• Fiend
• Mistake
• Murderer
• Tragedy
• Elizabeth
• Clerval
• Nature
• William
• Isolation
• Impulsive

This entire book is quite tragic, which is the reason that is one of the mpst important words in the Wordle. I chose nature because The Monster saw nature as one of the few good things in it's life. Elizabeth, Clerval and William are all the names of the people that The Monster directly killed, and while the fact that they died is significant to the plot of the story and why Frankenstein vows to exact revenge on The Monster, these murders also had a profound effect on The Monster itself. These names go along with impulsive, as the first murder (of William) was not premeditated, but instead an act of blind rage. Obviously murder is a key theme throughout the book. Fiend and mistake are both words that were used to describe The Monster. Isolation and friendlessness were the main reasons for just about everything The Monster did in the book. While The Monster learned most everything from his "friends" in the cottage, they never directly taught him anything, so it had to teach himself most of what it knows. The Monster was hellbent on getting revenge on Frankenstein for making it and not making it a partner, which is why Vengeful is at the top of that list.