http://aahblog.blogspot.com
Hooray! This is the first creative project I have seen proposed, so I am very happy to try and help you with some ideas. For those just joining, this project is a poem set in some old yet modern place in some unidentified time, the story involving murder, ghosts and revenge. It sounds exciting. I have a lot of jumbled thoughts about your proposal, so here is my attempt to tell you about them...
There always seems to be a "moral of the story". The morals I got from some of the books we read: Don't focus on one thing all your life (Frankenstein); Follow your heart (Whethering Heights); Fight temptation instead of avoiding it (The Monk); Appreciate what you have or your own power (Interview with the Vampire). These seemingly innocent morals from fairy tales are twisted into something ugly and horrifying by adding some kind of monster. Is your ghost the monster in your story? What moral might it be acting on or against?
As long as we're talking about it, what is the moral of your story? Will you be talking about women's rights or the family or aristocracy? What will make your plot uncanny? Will your story be a metaphor? That might be kind of difficult if you don't have a definite time period or setting.
I like that you are talking about a ghost. We had discussed that ghosts are never just there but that they stand for something. What does your ghost stand for? Think about the other ghosts we've encountered, the bleeding nun, Catherine's ghost, Beloved... What do they do in their stories? How do they relate and iterract with the characters?
A quote for you from Whethering Heights: Heathcliff talking to Catherine's ghost, "He got on to the bed and wrenched open the lattice, bursting, as he pulled at it, into an uncontrollable passion of tears. "Come in! come in!" he sobbed, "Cathy, do come. Oh, do -once more! Oh! my heart's darling hear me this time - catherine, at last!" (Pg. 23). Her ghost is an obsession for him, symbolizing his past, his only love, all his regret. What does it mean that she returns to his house but doesn't talk to him? Does he get anything out of her appearance? Why does she show up in the first place?
Have fun writing!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Response 1
http://leahgriesel.blogspot.com/
I like this idea: that the "outsiders" or "different" characters are desired. I would have liked a better taste of this idea, perhaps a few quotes and/or a more solid thesis. Why are they desireable?
What stands out for me when I think of Heathcliff is that he was able to "play the game" and manipulate the social network of society even though he was an outcast. I remember talking about that in class. It was the coolest thing for me to see it that way. Heathcliff has the ability to see what those trapped in "the game" cannot. He is allowed to do more things because he is not bound by the rules. Why could he do what he did (Tear apart two households, marry out of spite and downright torture people)? Why couldn't they stop him? Why is this desireable?
Louis is an interesting guy. But desireable? When I read, "Interview with the Vampire" in your list of two books, I thought that Claudia was the one that would be the proclaimed outcast. The head woman vampire was jealous of Claudia's beauty and that's why she wanted her gone. (That might have been the movie...). A quote that kind of describes this situation, "Estelle and Celeste... fondled Claudia with the license of the blind, running their hands over her radiant hair, touching even her lips, while she, her eyes still misty and distant, tollerated it all, knowing what I also knew and what they seemed unable to grasp: that a woman's mind as sharp and distinct as their own lived within that small body." (241). Again, I think that Armand tells Louis somewhere that Celeste was jealous.
As for Louis, I think he was desireable for his reluctance at accepting any truth until the end. I know that Santiago says he likes Louis on Pg. 239 when Louis doesn't hear him approaching. Perhaps you could look into why Louis is desireable to different characters, definitely Santiago, Lestat, Claudia and maybe Armand (Since I thought Armand liked Louis because they were so alike, but at the same time different in their views about "gradations of evil" ..."
Anyways, Good luck writing your paper. Have fun!
I like this idea: that the "outsiders" or "different" characters are desired. I would have liked a better taste of this idea, perhaps a few quotes and/or a more solid thesis. Why are they desireable?
What stands out for me when I think of Heathcliff is that he was able to "play the game" and manipulate the social network of society even though he was an outcast. I remember talking about that in class. It was the coolest thing for me to see it that way. Heathcliff has the ability to see what those trapped in "the game" cannot. He is allowed to do more things because he is not bound by the rules. Why could he do what he did (Tear apart two households, marry out of spite and downright torture people)? Why couldn't they stop him? Why is this desireable?
Louis is an interesting guy. But desireable? When I read, "Interview with the Vampire" in your list of two books, I thought that Claudia was the one that would be the proclaimed outcast. The head woman vampire was jealous of Claudia's beauty and that's why she wanted her gone. (That might have been the movie...). A quote that kind of describes this situation, "Estelle and Celeste... fondled Claudia with the license of the blind, running their hands over her radiant hair, touching even her lips, while she, her eyes still misty and distant, tollerated it all, knowing what I also knew and what they seemed unable to grasp: that a woman's mind as sharp and distinct as their own lived within that small body." (241). Again, I think that Armand tells Louis somewhere that Celeste was jealous.
As for Louis, I think he was desireable for his reluctance at accepting any truth until the end. I know that Santiago says he likes Louis on Pg. 239 when Louis doesn't hear him approaching. Perhaps you could look into why Louis is desireable to different characters, definitely Santiago, Lestat, Claudia and maybe Armand (Since I thought Armand liked Louis because they were so alike, but at the same time different in their views about "gradations of evil" ..."
Anyways, Good luck writing your paper. Have fun!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Final Project
Extended Literary Analysis Paper: I am confident in the paper Vampires and Humanity in and through Time I wrote for Interview with the Vampire. I feel that the topic of vampires as a metaphor is one worth exploring, and might even be fun, especially with all the Twilight and many more pieces of vampire entertainment about us. I would like to take this opportunity to become an educated viewer and get something deeper out my experience than just a good story. Anyways, in my first paper, I explored the possibilities of immortality and vampirism, what time means for immortals, and the search for truth and origin. In the final project I would dig further into the topic of time for vampires while applying them to the time/generation of the book's publication. In other words, vampires are a metaphor for issues of the time that the vampire book was published. To do this effectively, I would reference the works of The Postmodern Condition, Simulacra and Simulation, and Tendencies. These works on postmodern views and ways of thinking are what was going on at the time of Interview with the Vampire. A quote that I would like to use: "there are important senses in which "queer" can signify only when attached to the first person. ... to make the description "queer" a true one is the impulsion to use it in the first person". (Tendencies) I think this quote would be a good one to look at what Interview points out about thought. From Interview, Armand says, "is this th eonly power that obsesses you, so that yo must make us gods and devils yourself when the only power there exists is inside ourselves?" (237). The two quotes relate to each other because they refer to true meaning, or the purest source of information and thoughts.
To emphasize how the vampire is a metaphor for the time it was introduced I would also bring in Dracula and talk about it's metaphor to Britain, Victorian times and views. A most valuable resource for this part of the paper would be the literary analysis The Occidental Tourist: Dracula and the Anxiety of Reverse Colonization. I like that it talks about a variety of things. For instance, vampires being indicative of a country's ruin. The metaphor is that British appearance in a country means "game over". The analysis also talks about how vampires take over and transform their victims' "personal identities... cultural, political, and racial selves" (465). This is getting at the metaphor of colonization being a mix between the country and britain, but to really exploit this idea a quote about the "mother" vampire and it's child vampire interracting should be used. I should also look into the other analyses to see if there are any more historical accounts of Britain's views, politics or other relevant issues.
Through both novels, this would also be a good opportunity to see how each time viewed women, their place, and their rights. To do this I would examine how women interracted, responded and related to the vampire, which is a metaphor for the time and, in both novels, a man vampire. The same idea goes for gay or lesbian views in both novels.
To emphasize how the vampire is a metaphor for the time it was introduced I would also bring in Dracula and talk about it's metaphor to Britain, Victorian times and views. A most valuable resource for this part of the paper would be the literary analysis The Occidental Tourist: Dracula and the Anxiety of Reverse Colonization. I like that it talks about a variety of things. For instance, vampires being indicative of a country's ruin. The metaphor is that British appearance in a country means "game over". The analysis also talks about how vampires take over and transform their victims' "personal identities... cultural, political, and racial selves" (465). This is getting at the metaphor of colonization being a mix between the country and britain, but to really exploit this idea a quote about the "mother" vampire and it's child vampire interracting should be used. I should also look into the other analyses to see if there are any more historical accounts of Britain's views, politics or other relevant issues.
Through both novels, this would also be a good opportunity to see how each time viewed women, their place, and their rights. To do this I would examine how women interracted, responded and related to the vampire, which is a metaphor for the time and, in both novels, a man vampire. The same idea goes for gay or lesbian views in both novels.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Interview with the Vampire: "Queering" of the Family
There is a saying that goes something like, "You can't choose your family". Well, in the realm of vampires you can! Regarding Lestat, he chose very strangely his companions for the rest of eternity. Lestat created his first child, Louis. Already, the uncanny nature of the book reveals itself in this act. As in "Frankenstein", Victor creates without a woman a fully grown and functional vampire son and must teach it how to survive in the world, which he doesn't seem to do a very good job of. Louis tells the interviewer that Lestat's reasons for turning him were for Pointe du Lac to keep his dying father. Louis also suggests that Lestat was not that great with finances, "If he were not picking the pocket of a dead man in the alley, he was at the greatest gambling tables in the richest salons of the city, using his vampire keenness to suck gold and dollars and deeds of property from young planters' sons... But this had never given him the life he wanted, and so for that he had ushered me into the preternatural world that he might acquire an investor or manager..." (Pg 39). Louis was a security measure for Lestat so he could live forever in luxury. In this sense, the son was more of a slave: someone who only came to be in order to better the living experience of the master, which is what happened. Could this be a critique on the function of the American son? that he is only born to support his father? Or could it be a broader question of the function of future generations? Are people born only to support the lives of who came before them? (Social Security?).
When Louis finally drank from a human of his own will, Lestat bonded with him. This bonding seemed to be some sort of marriage for them and Lestat was all for it. Lestat finally suggested that they "talk" for the first time and he was very encouraging of Louis to accept and embrace the act of taking human blood. After they were married, Lestat was urgent about having a child. Lestat exclaimed, "I am like a mother... I want a child!" (Pg 88). This is another uncanny moment for Lestat. Instead of just playing the part of a human mother, he readily admits to this quality in him as feminine. Does this make him the wife of the couple? Well, Lestat had Louis suck the little girl almost to death and then he brought her into vampirism as their daughter. So here we have Lestat, a mother of two and spouse to the first, and Louis who contributed to the "birth" of his sister. This is very possible for a human family, an incestuous human family, to accomplish so it is not entirely far fetched. If Lestat had been a woman then it would not seem so entirely strange, but he is indeed a man. Is this a critique on what would happen if men were given the ability to reproduce?
As if it could not become weirder, the relationship between the little vampire daughter, named Claudia, Louis and Lestat becomes different over time. At first, Louis and Lestat are strictly teachers to her. It is kind of funny that Lestat is more of a father to her and teaches her to hunt while Louis teaches her to appreciate "vampire eyes" and literature. This suggests that it is Louis who is the mother in their couple. Then as Claudia's mind grows older, Louis notices, "She sees herself as equal to us now, and us as equal to each other" (Pg. 105). Their fear is that she does not understand the slavery and power structure that is part of the vampire family and she threatens the balance of their harmony by even questioning it. She plays on Louis's affection for her to help overthrow Lestat and to run away with her. During their adventure she confesses loving him and even kisses him. Louis and Claudia go from a mother and daughter relationship to being equally enslaved by Lestat and running away as equals, to being lovers, which Louis doesn't seem to object to. All of this is happening while she is trapped in the body of a little girl, which makes it really disturbing. Is this pointing out the flexibility of the woman's personality?
ALSO
I thought it was kind of funny seeing them as Lestat = Father, Louis = Mother, and Claudia = Daughter and the situations they were in. When Louis was interested in Babette, Lestat seemed rather jealous and short tempered with Louis as if he was cheating on him. Then when Louis described Lestats interest in the young musician he seemed very particular and personal about his obsession. I just thought it was funny that they were so petty about it with each other as if they really were lovers
When Louis finally drank from a human of his own will, Lestat bonded with him. This bonding seemed to be some sort of marriage for them and Lestat was all for it. Lestat finally suggested that they "talk" for the first time and he was very encouraging of Louis to accept and embrace the act of taking human blood. After they were married, Lestat was urgent about having a child. Lestat exclaimed, "I am like a mother... I want a child!" (Pg 88). This is another uncanny moment for Lestat. Instead of just playing the part of a human mother, he readily admits to this quality in him as feminine. Does this make him the wife of the couple? Well, Lestat had Louis suck the little girl almost to death and then he brought her into vampirism as their daughter. So here we have Lestat, a mother of two and spouse to the first, and Louis who contributed to the "birth" of his sister. This is very possible for a human family, an incestuous human family, to accomplish so it is not entirely far fetched. If Lestat had been a woman then it would not seem so entirely strange, but he is indeed a man. Is this a critique on what would happen if men were given the ability to reproduce?
As if it could not become weirder, the relationship between the little vampire daughter, named Claudia, Louis and Lestat becomes different over time. At first, Louis and Lestat are strictly teachers to her. It is kind of funny that Lestat is more of a father to her and teaches her to hunt while Louis teaches her to appreciate "vampire eyes" and literature. This suggests that it is Louis who is the mother in their couple. Then as Claudia's mind grows older, Louis notices, "She sees herself as equal to us now, and us as equal to each other" (Pg. 105). Their fear is that she does not understand the slavery and power structure that is part of the vampire family and she threatens the balance of their harmony by even questioning it. She plays on Louis's affection for her to help overthrow Lestat and to run away with her. During their adventure she confesses loving him and even kisses him. Louis and Claudia go from a mother and daughter relationship to being equally enslaved by Lestat and running away as equals, to being lovers, which Louis doesn't seem to object to. All of this is happening while she is trapped in the body of a little girl, which makes it really disturbing. Is this pointing out the flexibility of the woman's personality?
ALSO
I thought it was kind of funny seeing them as Lestat = Father, Louis = Mother, and Claudia = Daughter and the situations they were in. When Louis was interested in Babette, Lestat seemed rather jealous and short tempered with Louis as if he was cheating on him. Then when Louis described Lestats interest in the young musician he seemed very particular and personal about his obsession. I just thought it was funny that they were so petty about it with each other as if they really were lovers
Monday, November 2, 2009
DRACULA: Children
In Dracula, children do not play a major role. The few glimpses we do have of them are rare and revealing about what is happening in the story.
The "Bloofer Lady", who is actually Lucy as a vampire, attracts children away from their play in order to take their blood. The children do not seem to realize their danger for in the newspaper it accounted one of her victims as, "this poor little mite, when he woke up today, asked the nurse if he might go away... to play with the "bloofer lady." (Pg. 174). The symbolism of this child's opinion of the "Bloofer Lady" reflects the opinion of most of the heroes of the story at the time. The men who had loved Lucy were still so and, since they were ignorant or in doubt of her condition, would have ran away with her. Arthur's response to her seduction supports this theory: as she pleaded for him to rest with her he "seemed under a spell; moving his hands from his face, he opened wide his arms" (Pg. 188). His suceptibility to her spell was probably more potent because he had been her fiance and was childlike in his refusal to believe she was dead.
While the group of men confronted the vampire Lucy, she held in her posession a child which she would have fed on. When she became preoccupied with the men, "she flung to the ground, callous as a devil, the child that up to now she had clutched strenuously to her breast, growling over it as a dog growls over a bone" (Pg. 188). The child's situation mirrors that of Arthur as she seduces him. He is has helpless to her as a child is to a vampire with the strength of twenty men.
In a less significant situaiton, Jonathan is trying to get ahold of information regarding the boxes of earth. To get an address sent to him, "one of the children went off with a penny to buy an envelope and a sheet of paper, and to keep the change" (Pg. 230). This situation reflects Jonathan's usefullness at the moment. He is thrilled to be useful to the vampire hunt cause and the information he is getting is most important to him as the penny would have been to the child.
The "Bloofer Lady", who is actually Lucy as a vampire, attracts children away from their play in order to take their blood. The children do not seem to realize their danger for in the newspaper it accounted one of her victims as, "this poor little mite, when he woke up today, asked the nurse if he might go away... to play with the "bloofer lady." (Pg. 174). The symbolism of this child's opinion of the "Bloofer Lady" reflects the opinion of most of the heroes of the story at the time. The men who had loved Lucy were still so and, since they were ignorant or in doubt of her condition, would have ran away with her. Arthur's response to her seduction supports this theory: as she pleaded for him to rest with her he "seemed under a spell; moving his hands from his face, he opened wide his arms" (Pg. 188). His suceptibility to her spell was probably more potent because he had been her fiance and was childlike in his refusal to believe she was dead.
While the group of men confronted the vampire Lucy, she held in her posession a child which she would have fed on. When she became preoccupied with the men, "she flung to the ground, callous as a devil, the child that up to now she had clutched strenuously to her breast, growling over it as a dog growls over a bone" (Pg. 188). The child's situation mirrors that of Arthur as she seduces him. He is has helpless to her as a child is to a vampire with the strength of twenty men.
In a less significant situaiton, Jonathan is trying to get ahold of information regarding the boxes of earth. To get an address sent to him, "one of the children went off with a penny to buy an envelope and a sheet of paper, and to keep the change" (Pg. 230). This situation reflects Jonathan's usefullness at the moment. He is thrilled to be useful to the vampire hunt cause and the information he is getting is most important to him as the penny would have been to the child.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)