1) Of all the methods we covered in class, I found the ideological, pentadic, fantasy-theme, and generic methods to be the most useful. Pentadic is a good method for determining the motivation of the rhetor, and for some artifacts (like political ones), the motivation for creation is very important. Ideological criticism is right up my alley; searching out the belief systems of the rhetor, nosing them out from where they might be hidden, is both challenging and entertaining. I love a good analysis, so digging through a piece and figuring out all the little details that make it work is actually fun for me. The fantasy-theme method is one that I can relate to very easily; it is based around symbolic convergence theory, or the idea of a shared consciousness among groups, which is basically the definition of a fanfiction community (to many of which I am hopelessly addicted). I like the generic criticism because it actually helps me to understand how genres work, and how they are created/identified; genres come up a lot in literature, so knowledge of them is helpful for an English major.
2) I liked analyzing different artifacts in the blog posts. It was very interesting to take the class material and apply it to something modern, something that hadn’t been analyzed before, something that didn’t have preexisting findings to tell me that my findings were wrong. It made the class relatable to life outside the university.
3) I actually found reading the book to be the most challenging part of this class. Rhetorical criticism deals with some fairly abstract issues, and some of the books explanations were fairly abstract too. It was hard to get my head around the concepts when I didn’t have a concrete foundation to build off of.
4) If I ever need to find out the motivation of something, I can use one of the methods I have learned. They are useful tools for analysis, and I both enjoy analysis and expect to see it in my chosen career path. Also, knowledge of fantasy-theme criticism relates directly to certain online communities in which I am actively involved; it’s fun knowing there’s an official name for a bunch of friends hanging out online and psyching out about the same stuff.
5) I need to know my friend’s opinion about something, but it’s an odd topic that I don’t want to ask about outright. To determine her opinion, I could either observe her actions, or draw her into conversation about a near subject. By paying close attention, I should be able to gather what she doesn’t say out loud, which will reveal her motivation for saying/not saying a certain thing, and therefore what she really thinks.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The oddest artifact ever
I recently published a blog post about an artifact called Fanfiction.net. I defined fanfiction, and alluded to the fact that fanfiction is written about many different TV shows, movies, etc. For my final essay, I would like to delve deeper into the world of fanfiction, into an individual community, namely that built around the CW series Supernatural. The reason I feel this would be an appropriate artifact is that each community is not merely a placeholder for fics (the common shorthand term for a piece of fiction), but it also has its own rules. These rules dictate the most common structures to be found in the stories, or in other words, the shared interests of the fans. What most intrigues me, though, is that the rules that govern these fanfiction communities are exceedingly different from the standards that are deemed appropriate in reality. For example, a very popular theme that runs throughout the different fanfiction categories is slash, either male/male or female/female relationships (clarification: slash is not the theme referred to as inappropriate; that comes next). This concept maintains its popularity in the Supernatural genre, despite the very glaring fact that the two main characters are brothers. For some reason, a relationship that would elicit pure horror in real life is condoned and encouraged (although, admittedly, not by all the members of the fandom, or fanfiction community). My interest in this artifact lies in the discovery of why normal rules are not only set aside, but smashed into pieces, the pieces burned to ashes, and then the ashes thrown out of the window for good measure. I would like to examine the slash community in depth and discover, in a nonjudgmental way, why some of the fans of Supernatural condone incest in their stories.
For the analysis of this artifact I will use fantasy-theme criticism. Symbolic convergence theory could not be better suited to the description of a fandom: the two assumptions of this theory, according to Sonja Foss, are that “communication creates reality” and “individuals’ meanings for symbols can converge to create a shared reality or community consciousness.” The show Supernatural is based on two brothers hunting ghosts and other evil creatures; that in itself is already a created reality. The fans of the show take it a step further, creating an alternate reality, or, to use a common phrase, alternate universe (AU). This alternate universe is the community consciousness.
For the analysis of this artifact I will use fantasy-theme criticism. Symbolic convergence theory could not be better suited to the description of a fandom: the two assumptions of this theory, according to Sonja Foss, are that “communication creates reality” and “individuals’ meanings for symbols can converge to create a shared reality or community consciousness.” The show Supernatural is based on two brothers hunting ghosts and other evil creatures; that in itself is already a created reality. The fans of the show take it a step further, creating an alternate reality, or, to use a common phrase, alternate universe (AU). This alternate universe is the community consciousness.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Fanfiction.net: Where Fans Come Together
Fanfiction.net: Where Fans Come Together
The artifact I have chosen for this analysis is a website called Fanfiction.net. As the name suggests, Fanfiction.net is a home for massive amounts of fanfiction; for those who are unacquainted with the awesomeness that is fanfiction, it is fiction that has been written by fans. To offer a more helpful explanation, it is fiction about an idea that belongs to someone else; the author writes their own story about one of their favorite books, TV shows, video games, etc. The writer essentially has free reign in the story; they can introduce new characters and settings, and the plot follows whatever twists and turns their imagination can come up with. But, the key characteristic, as stated above, is that all of the original writing, like the plot, is based around someone else’s original story, and the fanfic author has no claim to any recognizable (i.e. from the show, book, etc.) aspects.
To look a little further into Fanfiction.net, the site is divided into categories. The home page offers links to fanfiction for Anime/Manga, Books, Cartoons, Comics, Games, Misc, Movies, Plays/Musicals, and TV Shows. There is also a second section that offers fanfiction for Crossovers into all these same categories; a crossover is a story that combines aspects of two otherwise unrelated works, such as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings (yes, it’s been done). When browsing through the different groups, you find an enormous list of titles; each title links to the fanfiction written for that particular piece. Stories or movies with more than one or two fanfics have their own group; however, if a work has only one fanfic, that fanfic often winds up in the Miscellaneous section.
The site also offers several different fan-friendly features. When looking for something in particular, the site has a search option. Readers can save certain stories or authors as favorites, to make them easy to find in the future. Readers can also comment on the stories they have read, either offering criticism or just saying that they liked the piece. The Just In page showcases all of the brand new stories, while Communities and Forum pages allow site users to communicate. Finally, the Beta Readers page allows writers to find a Beta, or an editor to help them with their work.
Setting, character, and action themes: 1) For setting, I found these references: Fanfiction.net is the actual website, while Anime/Manga, Books, Cartoons, Comics, Games, Misc, Movies, Plays/Musicals, and TV Shows are the different pathways available within the site. Communities and Beta Readers are character references; a Community is formed by an individual site member, and Beta Readers are volunteer site members. Action references include Search and Forums; Search allows readers to find specific stories/authors, and Forums allow site members to communicate.
The artifact I have chosen for this analysis is a website called Fanfiction.net. As the name suggests, Fanfiction.net is a home for massive amounts of fanfiction; for those who are unacquainted with the awesomeness that is fanfiction, it is fiction that has been written by fans. To offer a more helpful explanation, it is fiction about an idea that belongs to someone else; the author writes their own story about one of their favorite books, TV shows, video games, etc. The writer essentially has free reign in the story; they can introduce new characters and settings, and the plot follows whatever twists and turns their imagination can come up with. But, the key characteristic, as stated above, is that all of the original writing, like the plot, is based around someone else’s original story, and the fanfic author has no claim to any recognizable (i.e. from the show, book, etc.) aspects.
To look a little further into Fanfiction.net, the site is divided into categories. The home page offers links to fanfiction for Anime/Manga, Books, Cartoons, Comics, Games, Misc, Movies, Plays/Musicals, and TV Shows. There is also a second section that offers fanfiction for Crossovers into all these same categories; a crossover is a story that combines aspects of two otherwise unrelated works, such as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings (yes, it’s been done). When browsing through the different groups, you find an enormous list of titles; each title links to the fanfiction written for that particular piece. Stories or movies with more than one or two fanfics have their own group; however, if a work has only one fanfic, that fanfic often winds up in the Miscellaneous section.
The site also offers several different fan-friendly features. When looking for something in particular, the site has a search option. Readers can save certain stories or authors as favorites, to make them easy to find in the future. Readers can also comment on the stories they have read, either offering criticism or just saying that they liked the piece. The Just In page showcases all of the brand new stories, while Communities and Forum pages allow site users to communicate. Finally, the Beta Readers page allows writers to find a Beta, or an editor to help them with their work.
Setting, character, and action themes: 1) For setting, I found these references: Fanfiction.net is the actual website, while Anime/Manga, Books, Cartoons, Comics, Games, Misc, Movies, Plays/Musicals, and TV Shows are the different pathways available within the site. Communities and Beta Readers are character references; a Community is formed by an individual site member, and Beta Readers are volunteer site members. Action references include Search and Forums; Search allows readers to find specific stories/authors, and Forums allow site members to communicate.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Rudy
Rudy
Rudy is an incredible story based on the experience of Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger, a man who grew up with dreams of playing football with the Fighting Irish at the University of Notre Dame. Rudy’s upbringing made his dream seem like pure fantasy; he grew up in a family that did not have the means to send him to a school like Notre Dame. He didn’t have the grades necessary to get him into the university, and he didn’t have the size to get him onto the football team. The family tradition involved the sons following their father into the local steel mill, which Rudy (along with his two older brothers) did after high school. However, during the years he worked at the mill, he continued dreaming of Notre Dame. A terrible accident at the mill killed his best friend; the horrible loss inspired Rudy to go for his dream, right then. He couldn’t get in right away, but his enthusiasm inspired a priest to come to his aid and get him into Holy Cross Junior College; eventually, even while struggling with dyslexia, Rudy’s grades improved enough that his dream university accepted him as a transfer student. After acceptance, despite being much smaller than all the other football players, he made the team by a display of pure spirit and willingness to put forth an unequaled effort in everything he did. He showed this effort during every practice for two years, even though he never played a single game because the actual team outnumbered the amount of players allowed to dress for each game. During the final game of his senior year, his very last chance, the coach allowed Rudy to dress; he was put into play towards the very end, and tackled the quarterback. This single official tackle was an inspiring ending to the career of a man who, despite massive obstacles, never stopped dreaming, and through pure will made his dearest dream come true.
Pentadic criticism is based in Kenneth Burke’s perception of dramatism, or the analysis of human motivation through a dramatic lens. The dramatic lens appears largely in the application of five dramatic terms: act (what happened), agent (who performed the act), agency (by what means the act was performed), scene (when and where the act occurred), and purpose (why the act was performed). According to Burke, these terms work for rhetorical criticism because the agent performs a willful action (they specifically chose to do it, i.e. they were motivated to do it), and because when a person decides to send a message, they send it in much the same fashion as a play is performed. This method is acutely appropriate for Rudy because it focuses on human motivation, and Rudy is nothing if not a message about dreams and motivation.
There were several significant points that highlighted Rudy’s motivation in a very visible fashion. One such scene was when Rudy’s best friend, Pete, dies in an accident at the steel mill where they both work. Pete always believed in Rudy, and always supported his dreams of Notre Dame. When Pete dies, Rudy realizes that if he wants to go for his dream, he needs to do it now: he needs to go for it, completely and totally. In this emotionally charged scene I found several pentadic ratios. Scene-agent: the steel mill strongly influenced Rudy; he was sucked into the mill as part of reality, briefly giving up the possibility that his dreams could ever be true. But the steel mill killed Pete, and made him realize that he really wanted to be elsewhere. Act-Agent: the act, being Pete’s death, had a very strong influence on Rudy. Without that catalyst, he might have grown complacent and stayed in the mill forever; his best friend’s funeral drove him to his dream. Agency-agent: not to sound repetitive, but the way Pete died definitely influenced Rudy. If he had died in a car accident, Rudy might have stayed on at the mill. But he died in the mill itself, making the steel working profession an eternal emblem of grief and stagnation for Rudy. With that memory always looming over him, he had to get out of the mill, and Notre Dame was the only place he wanted to go.
Another scene that really spoke to me concerning Rudy’s motivation was when Rudy was at Notre Dame, speaking to his father on the phone. He had accomplished his goal, and made the football team, but because he never dressed for any games and his family couldn’t see him on the sidelines when they watched the games on TV, they didn’t believe he was actually on the team. In order to prove to his family that he really was on the team, he went to his coach and begged to dress for just one game, just so his family could see him; the coach agreed, and Rudy phoned home in pure excitement. The ratios in this scene focus on Rudy being told that no, his family will not believe him without visible proof. Act-agent: practically being called a liar by his family inspired Rudy to go to his coach and beg. Agent-act: Rudy did not sit quietly and endure his family’s disbelief; he went out and did something about it. Scene-act: Rudy actually made it into Notre Dame, but Notre Dame was so high class that his family didn’t really believe he could match up against the football players. The scene of Notre Dame influenced his family to not quite believe in him, even though he proved he was smart enough to get into the University. Purpose-agent: Rudy’s purpose, his goal, drives him throughout the movie. Attaining this goal dictates absolutely everything he does. Purpose-act: Again, Rudy’s goal dictates everything he does: it controls all of his actions.
Rudy is an incredible story based on the experience of Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger, a man who grew up with dreams of playing football with the Fighting Irish at the University of Notre Dame. Rudy’s upbringing made his dream seem like pure fantasy; he grew up in a family that did not have the means to send him to a school like Notre Dame. He didn’t have the grades necessary to get him into the university, and he didn’t have the size to get him onto the football team. The family tradition involved the sons following their father into the local steel mill, which Rudy (along with his two older brothers) did after high school. However, during the years he worked at the mill, he continued dreaming of Notre Dame. A terrible accident at the mill killed his best friend; the horrible loss inspired Rudy to go for his dream, right then. He couldn’t get in right away, but his enthusiasm inspired a priest to come to his aid and get him into Holy Cross Junior College; eventually, even while struggling with dyslexia, Rudy’s grades improved enough that his dream university accepted him as a transfer student. After acceptance, despite being much smaller than all the other football players, he made the team by a display of pure spirit and willingness to put forth an unequaled effort in everything he did. He showed this effort during every practice for two years, even though he never played a single game because the actual team outnumbered the amount of players allowed to dress for each game. During the final game of his senior year, his very last chance, the coach allowed Rudy to dress; he was put into play towards the very end, and tackled the quarterback. This single official tackle was an inspiring ending to the career of a man who, despite massive obstacles, never stopped dreaming, and through pure will made his dearest dream come true.
Pentadic criticism is based in Kenneth Burke’s perception of dramatism, or the analysis of human motivation through a dramatic lens. The dramatic lens appears largely in the application of five dramatic terms: act (what happened), agent (who performed the act), agency (by what means the act was performed), scene (when and where the act occurred), and purpose (why the act was performed). According to Burke, these terms work for rhetorical criticism because the agent performs a willful action (they specifically chose to do it, i.e. they were motivated to do it), and because when a person decides to send a message, they send it in much the same fashion as a play is performed. This method is acutely appropriate for Rudy because it focuses on human motivation, and Rudy is nothing if not a message about dreams and motivation.
There were several significant points that highlighted Rudy’s motivation in a very visible fashion. One such scene was when Rudy’s best friend, Pete, dies in an accident at the steel mill where they both work. Pete always believed in Rudy, and always supported his dreams of Notre Dame. When Pete dies, Rudy realizes that if he wants to go for his dream, he needs to do it now: he needs to go for it, completely and totally. In this emotionally charged scene I found several pentadic ratios. Scene-agent: the steel mill strongly influenced Rudy; he was sucked into the mill as part of reality, briefly giving up the possibility that his dreams could ever be true. But the steel mill killed Pete, and made him realize that he really wanted to be elsewhere. Act-Agent: the act, being Pete’s death, had a very strong influence on Rudy. Without that catalyst, he might have grown complacent and stayed in the mill forever; his best friend’s funeral drove him to his dream. Agency-agent: not to sound repetitive, but the way Pete died definitely influenced Rudy. If he had died in a car accident, Rudy might have stayed on at the mill. But he died in the mill itself, making the steel working profession an eternal emblem of grief and stagnation for Rudy. With that memory always looming over him, he had to get out of the mill, and Notre Dame was the only place he wanted to go.
Another scene that really spoke to me concerning Rudy’s motivation was when Rudy was at Notre Dame, speaking to his father on the phone. He had accomplished his goal, and made the football team, but because he never dressed for any games and his family couldn’t see him on the sidelines when they watched the games on TV, they didn’t believe he was actually on the team. In order to prove to his family that he really was on the team, he went to his coach and begged to dress for just one game, just so his family could see him; the coach agreed, and Rudy phoned home in pure excitement. The ratios in this scene focus on Rudy being told that no, his family will not believe him without visible proof. Act-agent: practically being called a liar by his family inspired Rudy to go to his coach and beg. Agent-act: Rudy did not sit quietly and endure his family’s disbelief; he went out and did something about it. Scene-act: Rudy actually made it into Notre Dame, but Notre Dame was so high class that his family didn’t really believe he could match up against the football players. The scene of Notre Dame influenced his family to not quite believe in him, even though he proved he was smart enough to get into the University. Purpose-agent: Rudy’s purpose, his goal, drives him throughout the movie. Attaining this goal dictates absolutely everything he does. Purpose-act: Again, Rudy’s goal dictates everything he does: it controls all of his actions.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Artifact: Emma, by Jane Austen. Published in 1815.
Artifact background: Emma takes place at a time when true power was inherent in land ownership. The great families are those that own their estates, and the older they are, the longer they have held their land, the more powerful they become. Emma belongs to one such privileged family, the Woodhouse clan of Hartfield estate. George Knightley, one of the few characters superior to Emma, also owns his own land, Donwell Abbey. A new class is being formed by the merchants; wealth is the other key factor in being a great family, although money earned through trade does not have the same prestige as wealth collected from tenants (lords of the land, paid rent by the people working the land). Social structure is everything: you are born to a certain level and society itself tries to keep you there, neither letting you rise nor fall. People are not allowed to venture above their own level; if they try, they are met with scorn and condescension.
I am interested in Emma because Jane Austen wrote it as a satire; she specifically meant for there to be hidden commentary, and I enjoyed searching it out. I love to analyze things, and there’s a wealth of analysis to be found in this book; in essence, I am analyzing Austen’s analysis of her society. What makes it even better is that she is making fun of the flaws in society.
The significance I find in analyzing Emma is to discover just what exactly society was like in 1815. One point I find particularly interesting is discerning how much of the book is satire and how much was, at the time, acceptable social norms to Austen.
I will use ideological criticism to analyze Emma because I find that method to be the most comprehensive when breaking down a novel of Emma’s depth. There’s a lot to be found between the lines, and I want to know just what exactly Austen is saying.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Bold Fresh Tour
Searching for an artifact that could be analyzed using pentadic criticism, I came across the Bold Fresh Tour that is being hosted by Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck in various cities across the United States.
The act is the Bold Fresh Tour itself; throughout the course of the tour, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly travel through America, offering their brutally honest comments and opinions to their audiences.
The agents of the Bold Fresh Tour are, of course, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck, two very blunt conservatives who have taken it upon themselves to educate America as to the truth of our current political situation.
The scene of the artifact varies; the tour travels through different states, including New York, Virginia, South Carolina, and California. The presentation itself, though, occurs in different theaters. The theaters are down to earth, a common meeting place for everyone instead of an overdone fancy hall that costs a fortune. This offers both an instant connection to the people who want to attend, and easy access to everybody.
The agency is oral communication. In every city, O'Reilly and Beck personally speak to their audiences, giving their speeches several times over.
The purpose of the Bold Fresh Tour, according to its speakers, is truth. O'Reilly delivers his "No Spin" spiel, while Beck follows with his blunt and comedic truth. In this way they hope to deliver information that, according to them, has henceforth been denied to the public by the flamboyantly liberal news media.
By analyzing the artifact, I have discovered these ratios:
Act-scene: the act itself determines where it will take place, namely in large cities with lots of people available to attend.
Act-agency: the tour also determines the agency, or the means by which the tour is accomplished. The nature of the tour cannot be changed, but the way in which it is carried out is planned for optimum success.
Agent-scene: O'Reilly and Beck are not invited to certain cities. They choose where they want to go.
Agent-act: O'Reilly and Beck worked together to plan this tour and make it happen. They put the whole thing together; without the agents, the act wouldn't take place.
Agent-agency: not only did O'Reilly and Beck choose to do the tour, they chose how they wanted to do the tour. This included choosing to speak in movie theaters instead of fancy auditoriums, so as to connect with people better.
Agency-scene: the agents want to make this tour appealing to regular people. To help advance this goal, they picked a scene that would be familiar and inviting to anyone; they picked a movie theater.
Purpose-scene: part of the purpose of the tour is to reach as many people as possible. This is accomplished by picking specific locations, specific scenes, that are highly populated and conservatively favorable.
Purpose-act: the tour would be useless if O'Reilly and Beck didn't have some sort of agenda to further. Their purpose, informing people, inspired the tour.
Purpose-agent: the calling of truth inspired both O'Reilly and Beck to do the tour.
Purpose-agency: This is similar to agency-scene. To suit their purpose, which is to reach as many people as possible, the agents arrange the tour in such a way as to appeal to everyone they possibly can (multiple locations, movie theater settings, etc.).
The act is the Bold Fresh Tour itself; throughout the course of the tour, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly travel through America, offering their brutally honest comments and opinions to their audiences.
The agents of the Bold Fresh Tour are, of course, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck, two very blunt conservatives who have taken it upon themselves to educate America as to the truth of our current political situation.
The scene of the artifact varies; the tour travels through different states, including New York, Virginia, South Carolina, and California. The presentation itself, though, occurs in different theaters. The theaters are down to earth, a common meeting place for everyone instead of an overdone fancy hall that costs a fortune. This offers both an instant connection to the people who want to attend, and easy access to everybody.
The agency is oral communication. In every city, O'Reilly and Beck personally speak to their audiences, giving their speeches several times over.
The purpose of the Bold Fresh Tour, according to its speakers, is truth. O'Reilly delivers his "No Spin" spiel, while Beck follows with his blunt and comedic truth. In this way they hope to deliver information that, according to them, has henceforth been denied to the public by the flamboyantly liberal news media.
By analyzing the artifact, I have discovered these ratios:
Act-scene: the act itself determines where it will take place, namely in large cities with lots of people available to attend.
Act-agency: the tour also determines the agency, or the means by which the tour is accomplished. The nature of the tour cannot be changed, but the way in which it is carried out is planned for optimum success.
Agent-scene: O'Reilly and Beck are not invited to certain cities. They choose where they want to go.
Agent-act: O'Reilly and Beck worked together to plan this tour and make it happen. They put the whole thing together; without the agents, the act wouldn't take place.
Agent-agency: not only did O'Reilly and Beck choose to do the tour, they chose how they wanted to do the tour. This included choosing to speak in movie theaters instead of fancy auditoriums, so as to connect with people better.
Agency-scene: the agents want to make this tour appealing to regular people. To help advance this goal, they picked a scene that would be familiar and inviting to anyone; they picked a movie theater.
Purpose-scene: part of the purpose of the tour is to reach as many people as possible. This is accomplished by picking specific locations, specific scenes, that are highly populated and conservatively favorable.
Purpose-act: the tour would be useless if O'Reilly and Beck didn't have some sort of agenda to further. Their purpose, informing people, inspired the tour.
Purpose-agent: the calling of truth inspired both O'Reilly and Beck to do the tour.
Purpose-agency: This is similar to agency-scene. To suit their purpose, which is to reach as many people as possible, the agents arrange the tour in such a way as to appeal to everyone they possibly can (multiple locations, movie theater settings, etc.).
Monday, February 8, 2010
Ideological Analysis: Emma
Jane Austen’s Emma is a novel filled with a multitude of characters and social events. The characters range from rich to poor, and can be classified as high class, low class, and rising class (meaning that they are not yet high class, but will reach the higher echelons in time). The social events consist mainly of fun dinner parties and lots of frivolous dalliances between Emma and a select group of her friends. Emma herself is a bright individual, but doesn’t always see things very clearly; the novel mainly follows her point of view, and paints a picture of the world through her twenty-one year old eyes.
The chief observable aspects of the artifact include the characters, the rank (class) in society of the characters, and their actions. The characters I find most compelling are Emma, her father Mr. Woodhouse, Mr. Knightley, Harriet Smith, and Mr. Elton. Emma, an heiress of high society, is basically good at heart, but feels she is smarter than everybody and knows what is best for them better than they do; thus she spends a good deal of her time meddling in the affairs of her friends, and consequently mucking up some very important issues for them. Mr. Woodhouse and Mr. Knightley are also high society; Mr. Woodhouse is somewhat deficient in his perception of reality, whereas Mr. Knightley is completely down-to-earth, setting the two men as opposites. Harriet Smith is a foolish and easily influenced girl who has no standing in society whatsoever; despite her lack of connection, Emma is determined to find her a good husband. Mr. Elton, the local pastor, is of some standing, but his class does not compare to that of the Woodhouses or the Knightleys.
The meaning of this artifact is found in the actions of the characters, most particularly in their courtship dealings. Despite Harriet Smith’s complete lack of advantage or anything to offer a potential suitor, Emma is determined to find her a husband of consequence, convinced that if she herself affixes value to Harriet, it will be seen by others. She fixes on Mr. Elton as Harriet’s groom-to-be, and contrives to bring them together, even going so far as to subtly sabotages a proposal of marriage from a farmer (low standing) that Harriet seems to have genuine affection for. The sensible Mr. Knightley is quite angry with Emma for pressuring Harriet into a refusal; as he says, “Miss Harriet Smith may not find offers of marriage flow in so fast, though she is a very pretty girl. Men of sense…do not want silly wives. Men of family would not be fond of connecting themselves with a girl of such obscurity.” (Austen.) (This might seem cruel and shallow by today’s standards, but during this time period, marriage was as much a business arrangement as it was a romantic notion.) Emma disagrees heartily, convinced that she knows better and that Harriet’s beauty has worked its magic on Mr. Elton, who is quite obvious in his admiration. However, for all of Emma’s meddling, the plan backfires: Mr. Elton’s cheerful doting was aimed at Emma herself, never Harriet, and when Emma questions his intentions Mr. Elton fires back with condescension, scorning a connection between himself and Harriet, asserting that he “need not so totally despair of an equal alliance as to be addressing myself to Miss Smith!” (Austen.) Emma snaps back in defense of her friend and they both leave angry, Emma going home to fume that Mr. Elton would dare presume to qualify himself as her equal, for surely “he must know that in fortune and consequence she was greatly his superior. He must know that the Woodhouses had been settled for several generations at Hartfield, the younger branch of a very ancient family – and that the Eltons were nobody.” (Austen.) The very contempt that Mr. Elton applied to Harriet, who is of less consequence than he, is now applied to him, for Emma is the highest of all and will not suffer the lesser man to pretend to her status.
Given the vast amount of evidence indicating class wars, it is safe to say that the ideology of this novel is that of a rather strict societal hierarchy. Individual standing was firmly defined and widely known; a person’s marriage opportunities depended on the family name and money. Jane Austen seems to disagree with these inescapable rules, however; many of the people of high standing are deluded, possessed of poor or weak character, or downright absurd. While the novel does illustrate the reality of life from class to class, it also ridicules the separation by highlighting just how mediocre many of the “high society” people really are, especially pointing out, in Emma herself, extreme arrogance and fallibility of reason.
Austen, Jane. Emma. United States of America: Barnes & Noble Books, 1816. Print.
The chief observable aspects of the artifact include the characters, the rank (class) in society of the characters, and their actions. The characters I find most compelling are Emma, her father Mr. Woodhouse, Mr. Knightley, Harriet Smith, and Mr. Elton. Emma, an heiress of high society, is basically good at heart, but feels she is smarter than everybody and knows what is best for them better than they do; thus she spends a good deal of her time meddling in the affairs of her friends, and consequently mucking up some very important issues for them. Mr. Woodhouse and Mr. Knightley are also high society; Mr. Woodhouse is somewhat deficient in his perception of reality, whereas Mr. Knightley is completely down-to-earth, setting the two men as opposites. Harriet Smith is a foolish and easily influenced girl who has no standing in society whatsoever; despite her lack of connection, Emma is determined to find her a good husband. Mr. Elton, the local pastor, is of some standing, but his class does not compare to that of the Woodhouses or the Knightleys.
The meaning of this artifact is found in the actions of the characters, most particularly in their courtship dealings. Despite Harriet Smith’s complete lack of advantage or anything to offer a potential suitor, Emma is determined to find her a husband of consequence, convinced that if she herself affixes value to Harriet, it will be seen by others. She fixes on Mr. Elton as Harriet’s groom-to-be, and contrives to bring them together, even going so far as to subtly sabotages a proposal of marriage from a farmer (low standing) that Harriet seems to have genuine affection for. The sensible Mr. Knightley is quite angry with Emma for pressuring Harriet into a refusal; as he says, “Miss Harriet Smith may not find offers of marriage flow in so fast, though she is a very pretty girl. Men of sense…do not want silly wives. Men of family would not be fond of connecting themselves with a girl of such obscurity.” (Austen.) (This might seem cruel and shallow by today’s standards, but during this time period, marriage was as much a business arrangement as it was a romantic notion.) Emma disagrees heartily, convinced that she knows better and that Harriet’s beauty has worked its magic on Mr. Elton, who is quite obvious in his admiration. However, for all of Emma’s meddling, the plan backfires: Mr. Elton’s cheerful doting was aimed at Emma herself, never Harriet, and when Emma questions his intentions Mr. Elton fires back with condescension, scorning a connection between himself and Harriet, asserting that he “need not so totally despair of an equal alliance as to be addressing myself to Miss Smith!” (Austen.) Emma snaps back in defense of her friend and they both leave angry, Emma going home to fume that Mr. Elton would dare presume to qualify himself as her equal, for surely “he must know that in fortune and consequence she was greatly his superior. He must know that the Woodhouses had been settled for several generations at Hartfield, the younger branch of a very ancient family – and that the Eltons were nobody.” (Austen.) The very contempt that Mr. Elton applied to Harriet, who is of less consequence than he, is now applied to him, for Emma is the highest of all and will not suffer the lesser man to pretend to her status.
Given the vast amount of evidence indicating class wars, it is safe to say that the ideology of this novel is that of a rather strict societal hierarchy. Individual standing was firmly defined and widely known; a person’s marriage opportunities depended on the family name and money. Jane Austen seems to disagree with these inescapable rules, however; many of the people of high standing are deluded, possessed of poor or weak character, or downright absurd. While the novel does illustrate the reality of life from class to class, it also ridicules the separation by highlighting just how mediocre many of the “high society” people really are, especially pointing out, in Emma herself, extreme arrogance and fallibility of reason.
Austen, Jane. Emma. United States of America: Barnes & Noble Books, 1816. Print.
Ideological Criticism (Chapter 7)
Ideological Criticism (Chapter 7)
1) What is an ideology?
According to Sonja Foss, an ideology is a “mental framework” that suggests certain “beliefs, values, and assumptions.” Basically, it is a system of beliefs that tells the world how the holder of a particular ideology is liable to think about, or “interpret,” the different components of life.
2) What are the primary components of an ideology?
The primary components of an ideology are evaluative beliefs. In a nutshell, evaluative beliefs are ideas that can take on new meanings when viewed from a different angle. An example of this would be monogamy vs. polygamy: both practices center around matrimony, but some cultures believe in single partners, while others believe in taking many partners (at the same time). Both sides of the spectrum believe that they are right; it’s a matter of one idea interpreted in two different ways.
1) What is an ideology?
According to Sonja Foss, an ideology is a “mental framework” that suggests certain “beliefs, values, and assumptions.” Basically, it is a system of beliefs that tells the world how the holder of a particular ideology is liable to think about, or “interpret,” the different components of life.
2) What are the primary components of an ideology?
The primary components of an ideology are evaluative beliefs. In a nutshell, evaluative beliefs are ideas that can take on new meanings when viewed from a different angle. An example of this would be monogamy vs. polygamy: both practices center around matrimony, but some cultures believe in single partners, while others believe in taking many partners (at the same time). Both sides of the spectrum believe that they are right; it’s a matter of one idea interpreted in two different ways.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Blog Post 2: Three Artifacts
Over the past couple of days I have collected a list of three artifacts that I believe embody a certain set of beliefs; accordingly, they could be analyzed very well using the ideological method of criticism.
The first artifact is one that I discovered through my job. I work at Hallmark, and among the hundreds of products we carry are calendars. One calendar in particular struck me when I first saw it; upon further examination, I found that the LANG 2010 Schoolhouse calendar is extraordinarily green. I would have expected that a calendar bearing the name “Schoolhouse” would have been oriented towards teaching, and it is; but it heavily promotes a very specific kind of teaching, namely conservation and how to be environmentally conscious. Given the heavy saturation of Earth-friendly themes, both written and painted, this artifact is extremely well-suited to the ideological method of criticism; the dominant ideology is, of course, “Go Green.”
The second artifact was very popular in the 1990s. The Left Behind series, co-written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, tells the story of the Apocalypse, as foretold by The Book of Revelation in the Bible. According to The Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse begins with The Rapture, when God brings his people home to Heaven; in the Left Behind series, this event actually happens with the disappearance of millions of people around the world, inspiring international panic. The freaked-out masses turn to the charismatic Nicolae Carpathia, a strong and quickly-rising leader, who turns out to be none other than the Anti-Christ. Only a few people are aware of Carpathia’s true identity, however; the only way they can fight back is by being loyal to God and advancing God’s will. Obviously, the dominant ideology of this series is Christian, stating that the only way to attain eternal salvation is by following Christian tenets.
The third artifact is one I’m reading for a different class, none other than Jane Austen’s Emma. This book is riddled through with class issues. The main character, Emma, spends her time chasing suitable connections for her friend Harriet, who has no advantages or social leverage. Harriet is, in fact, in love with a respectable farmer, but Emma sabotages the relationship because a “lowly farmer” is not good enough for her friend, and should Harriet make such a poor connection, Emma would have to discontinue the acquaintanceship with her “dear friend.” Status and suitability of connection are more important to Emma than her friend’s happiness. The ideology of high class vs. low class parades throughout the book.
The first artifact is one that I discovered through my job. I work at Hallmark, and among the hundreds of products we carry are calendars. One calendar in particular struck me when I first saw it; upon further examination, I found that the LANG 2010 Schoolhouse calendar is extraordinarily green. I would have expected that a calendar bearing the name “Schoolhouse” would have been oriented towards teaching, and it is; but it heavily promotes a very specific kind of teaching, namely conservation and how to be environmentally conscious. Given the heavy saturation of Earth-friendly themes, both written and painted, this artifact is extremely well-suited to the ideological method of criticism; the dominant ideology is, of course, “Go Green.”
The second artifact was very popular in the 1990s. The Left Behind series, co-written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, tells the story of the Apocalypse, as foretold by The Book of Revelation in the Bible. According to The Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse begins with The Rapture, when God brings his people home to Heaven; in the Left Behind series, this event actually happens with the disappearance of millions of people around the world, inspiring international panic. The freaked-out masses turn to the charismatic Nicolae Carpathia, a strong and quickly-rising leader, who turns out to be none other than the Anti-Christ. Only a few people are aware of Carpathia’s true identity, however; the only way they can fight back is by being loyal to God and advancing God’s will. Obviously, the dominant ideology of this series is Christian, stating that the only way to attain eternal salvation is by following Christian tenets.
The third artifact is one I’m reading for a different class, none other than Jane Austen’s Emma. This book is riddled through with class issues. The main character, Emma, spends her time chasing suitable connections for her friend Harriet, who has no advantages or social leverage. Harriet is, in fact, in love with a respectable farmer, but Emma sabotages the relationship because a “lowly farmer” is not good enough for her friend, and should Harriet make such a poor connection, Emma would have to discontinue the acquaintanceship with her “dear friend.” Status and suitability of connection are more important to Emma than her friend’s happiness. The ideology of high class vs. low class parades throughout the book.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Assignment 1: Chapter 3
According to the textbook, neo-Aristotelian, or traditional, criticism is a method of critiquing that involves studying an artifact from the different angles of the five long-established canons of rhetoric, namely invention, organization, style, memory, and delivery.
Analyzing an artifact entails three central steps, the first of which is to recreate the context in which the artifact occurred. Recreating the context requires focus in three areas: the background of the rhetor, the occasion in which the artifact was presented, and the audience that first saw and felt the impact of the artifact. Studying the background of the rhetor informs the critic of the rhetor’s motivations and training (rhetorical skills), as well as what sort of factors might have influenced him/her to create the artifact. Learning about the occasion teaches the critic about any outside influence the rhetor might have been subject to, including general public feeling about the topic at that time period, and just what exactly triggered, and then followed, the act. Finally, studying the audience clues the critic in to what strategies would have best persuaded that particular crowd, as well as what they were likely to know or feel about the topic.
The second step of analyzing an artifact is to apply the five canons to the work itself. Having already studied up on the context, the critic is now dissecting the artifact itself, peering through the different lenses of the five canons of classical rhetoric.
The final step is to assess the impact of the artifact on the audience. To accomplish this step, the critic must have determined the rhetor’s goal in producing the artifact, and must now decide whether or not that goal has been met. This requires observation of the audience; how did they react initially, and how do they react after a period of time? The effect on the audience will reveal whether or not the artifact successfully achieved its goal.
The phrase that continually repeats throughout the discussion of traditional criticism is “the canons of rhetoric.” There are five of these canons, and they each approach the artifact from a different direction, offering a thorough analysis of all possible angles. The first canon is invention, or the creation and finding of source material. This canon deals with the question of whether or not the rhetor possesses and presents credible and persuasive evidence. The second canon is organization, which studies the way the arrangement of the artifact emphasizes the intended topic. The third canon is style, which deals primarily with choice of language; did the language create the intended response in the audience? The fourth canon is memory, which looks at whether or not the rhetor had a good mastery over his/her subject materials. The final canon is delivery, which observes the way the rhetor’s voice and physical gestures affected the audience.
Analyzing an artifact entails three central steps, the first of which is to recreate the context in which the artifact occurred. Recreating the context requires focus in three areas: the background of the rhetor, the occasion in which the artifact was presented, and the audience that first saw and felt the impact of the artifact. Studying the background of the rhetor informs the critic of the rhetor’s motivations and training (rhetorical skills), as well as what sort of factors might have influenced him/her to create the artifact. Learning about the occasion teaches the critic about any outside influence the rhetor might have been subject to, including general public feeling about the topic at that time period, and just what exactly triggered, and then followed, the act. Finally, studying the audience clues the critic in to what strategies would have best persuaded that particular crowd, as well as what they were likely to know or feel about the topic.
The second step of analyzing an artifact is to apply the five canons to the work itself. Having already studied up on the context, the critic is now dissecting the artifact itself, peering through the different lenses of the five canons of classical rhetoric.
The final step is to assess the impact of the artifact on the audience. To accomplish this step, the critic must have determined the rhetor’s goal in producing the artifact, and must now decide whether or not that goal has been met. This requires observation of the audience; how did they react initially, and how do they react after a period of time? The effect on the audience will reveal whether or not the artifact successfully achieved its goal.
The phrase that continually repeats throughout the discussion of traditional criticism is “the canons of rhetoric.” There are five of these canons, and they each approach the artifact from a different direction, offering a thorough analysis of all possible angles. The first canon is invention, or the creation and finding of source material. This canon deals with the question of whether or not the rhetor possesses and presents credible and persuasive evidence. The second canon is organization, which studies the way the arrangement of the artifact emphasizes the intended topic. The third canon is style, which deals primarily with choice of language; did the language create the intended response in the audience? The fourth canon is memory, which looks at whether or not the rhetor had a good mastery over his/her subject materials. The final canon is delivery, which observes the way the rhetor’s voice and physical gestures affected the audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)