Weekly Response #8

Emily Schmitt

ENG 280

Natalie M. Philips

10/16/12

Weekly Response #8

Ryan and Rivkin: “Rather, literature is in the first instance a social phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be studied independently of the social relations, the economic forms, and the political realities of the time in which it was written.” (Ryan and Rivikin 644.)

Pride and Prejudice: “If I can but see one of my daughters happily settled at Netherfeild, “said Mrs. Bennet to her husband, “and all the others equally well married, I shall have nothing to wish for.” (Austen 48.)

Question: How important is not just the setting of literature, but its context in its interpretation?

This is perhaps a half-hearted question to put forth, but I could not think of any better way to phrase what I wanted to say, which is that I believe the context of literature is just as important, if not more so, than the setting of the story itself. Just as setting is important, context is also. Quite frankly I was flabbergasted to find that there were people who didn’t think so. Of course the political and social happenings of the time had an impact on what was written, and of course it is important to understand those happenings so that we, studying the literature now, can better understand what the author had initially intended. I do not really care that it is possible to analyze text without its context; the point is that before you do so it is imperative that you understand what the author was initially trying to do. The context and social ideas of the time it was written or became popular are immensely important in determining that. The example I use from P&P demonstrates this in the idea of marriage. Initially reading this quote, as a woman in the twenty first century, my sensibilities as a woman with equal rights and aspirations to man were offended. However when taken into consideration the time period that this was written and the social and political norms of the time, it is better understood to me that Mrs. Bentley might not just be a horrible woman who doesn’t believe herself or other women capable of anything more, and more of a mother who desperately wants her daughters to become what she see’s as ultimately ‘successful’. 

Weekly Response #7

Emily Schmitt

ENG 280

Natalie M. Philips

10/10/12

Weekly Response #7

Woloch: “But the nuanced distinction between “understanding” and “cleverness,” which concerns the interior realm of human character is built in-and-through a social comparison that is necessarily exterior.” (Woloch 52.)

Pride and Prejudice: “In Darcy’s presence she dared not mention Wickham’s name; but Elizabeth instantly comprehended that he was uppermost in her thoughts; and the various recollections connected with him gave her a moments distress; but, exerting herself vigorously to repel the ill-natured attack, she presently answered the question in a tolerably disengaged tone.” (Austen 280.)

Question: Is character interaction necessary to create a character that has depth and understanding, or is it the characters reaction to those interactions that develops depth?

Woloch makes the point that for characters to acquire traits such as ‘cleverness’ and ‘understanding’ they have to be able to exercises those traits against other characters. However I don’t’ think that it is simply interactions between characters that identify those characters with specific traits. More specifically I believe it is a characters reactions to those interactions that define the traits they posses, or bring them to the fore. I am going so far as to say that what makes a character round as opposed to flat is the diversity and complication of their reactions to interactions with other characters, not just the initial display of those traits through interaction. 

Weekly Response #6

Emily Schmitt

ENG 280

Natalie M. Philips

10/3/12

Weekly Response #6

Gilbert and Gubar: “For to be selfless is not only to noble, it is to be dead.” (Gilbert and Gubar 817.)

Pride and Prejudice: “I know you do; and it is that which makes the wonder. With your good sense, to be honestly blind to the follies and nonsense of others!” (Austen 53.)

Question: Austen portrays Jane as the archetype of the proper woman, in doing so does she inherently ‘kill’ any depth the character might have had?

Essentially what I am trying to bring up is that the archetypical woman in literature is doomed to be a dead uninteresting character. This is assuming that the archetypical woman is one who is selfless, beautiful, virtuous, dainty, flawless, etc. The example of this I use is Jane in Pride and Prejudice. The notion here is that even if Austen had wanted to deepen Jane’s character as perhaps a companion to Elizabeth, she would not have been able to do so without veering from Jane’s MO. That is being pretty, perfect, and bashful. The Archetypical woman is inherently flat, and as Gilbert and Gubar have noted, inherently dead. Women in these roles have absolutely no chance of becoming interesting until they loose some of the virtue that makes them what they are.

Weekly Response #5

Emily Schmitt

ENG 280

Natalie M. Phillips

9/26/12

Weekly Response #5

Viktus: “In the scenes that lead up to Desdemona’s murder and Othello’s suicide, the trope of turning (in the sense of conversion) occurs frequently as the effects of Iago’s evil are felt and Desdemona, once Othello’s “soul’s joy,” becomes a “fair devil.” (Viktus 154.)

Othello: “Yes she must die, else she’ll betray more men. / Put out the light, and then put out the light. / If I quench thee, thou flaming minister, / I can again thy former light restore, /” (5.2. 6-9)

Question: Why is it Desdemona who ‘turns’ when her character remains honest except through the lenses of Othello’s misconceptions?

Essentially what I am asking is who is actually doing the tuning in this scenario? Viktus is indicating through his word choice that Desdemona is the one making the change from ‘good’ to ‘evil’. This is true when you are analyzing Desdemona’s ‘role’ in the play from a specific perspective. However, I have been convinced of a different persuasion. I don’t think Desdemona does any turning at all. I believe it is Othello who does all of the turning. It is only because we are looking at Desdemona through Othello’s perspective that it appears as if Desdemona has betrayed him, while in reality, it is Othello who has been poisoned by Iago towards ‘evil’.  Viktus identifies ‘turning’ as synonymous with changing faiths, or becoming un-virtuous. I believe that his definition fits Othello’s fall from grace better than it does a change in view point.