Okay....so am I the only one who thinks Capitola and Herbert are going to shag? "Herbert Greyson sprang to assist her' but before he reached the spot Cap had pocked herself up, straightened her disordered dress, and now she ran to meet and shake hands with him. There was such a sparkle of joy and glow of affection in the meeting between these two that Old Hurrican, who saw it, suddenly hushed his laugh and grunted to himself." (p.208). It seems so obvious; he taught her to read and right, she grew up so fast on the streets of New York and when she introduced him to Old Hurrican, she was flurting with him. I like the match, but only if they wait a few years...till she's of age!
Also, I want to address the ridiculous notion that Cap was arrested for wearing boys clothing. I understand the idea that gender roles are inherently important to people of the 19th century...but come on! Were they for real? Did people really get arrested for cross dressing? Now-a-days we call it entertainment...trannie shows are awesome!
"What is the matter here?"
"Nothing, your honor, 'cept a boy tuk up for wearing girl's clother, or a girl tuk up for wearing boy's, I dunno which," said the man touching his hat." (p.179)
Oh, then to top it off, Cap may be the rightfull owner of the estate. Remember when Mrs. Condiment...that crakcks me up...Mrs. Condiment...I mean, what, is she wearing a ketchup colored dress...anyhow--remember when she was telling Cap about the Indians and the man, old Henri Le Noir, who killed them. Sounds like that may be Cap's great-grandfather or something.
And on a more serious not...you know how we learned that fathers in these narratives were ment to be absent and provide the means for mothers to teach the children their ways in the world? Well, somehow I believe the authors of the last three novels have though differently. They give us fathers that are not involved and replace them with other men who take on their roles. In a way, they are telling us that a male role model is important and the absence of fathers is not really ok, just tolerated.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Lamplighter Prompt
To be completely honest, the only connection that I could find among the three girls was the little girl in the video, Anna, seemed indecisive and eager to please like Ellen. Ellen was always trying to please her mother and in doing so, changing her mind constinetely when her opinion differed from her mothers...
" A most beautiful page, indeed; is this your choice Ellen?"
"well, mamma, I don't know; what do you think?"
"I think it is rather inconveniently large and heavy for everyday use. It is quite a weight upon my lap. I shouldn't like to carry it in my hands long. You would want a little table on purpose to hold it."
"Well, that wouldn't do at all," said Ellen, laughing. "I believe you are right, mamma..."
Now if it were Gerty on the show, I think the outcome may have been equal. Both girls aim to please. Neither seems clear about their choices. When asked if she likes the 3rd grade Anna says, "It's not really too hard, but it's not too easy." It's almost as if she wants to stay neutral because she may be afraid of what the adults may think of her answer.
Gerty is the same way. She instictively wants to please True as if it were wired into her little adolescent brain, "O, I wish I could do something for Uncle True!" (p. 31). Again, later in the text, Gerty tries to make True happy by preparing toast. But, in this instance, she forgets about the toast and it burns, "The tears came into Gerty's eyes;- she looked very much disappointed, but said nothing." She wanted so desperately to do something for nice for True--even something as simple as making toast.
I don't feel Gerty is so different from Anna. I think she would have been shy and reserved just as Anna. Most children that age are reserved; testing the waters if you will. Of course Gerty may have shown a bit of a temper if you mention Nan Grant or her kitten. But, other then that, I don't see her as much different from children now. In fact, I'm glad she's fisty. It makes her believable; not make up like Ellen. There are no children now-a-days like Ellen.
" A most beautiful page, indeed; is this your choice Ellen?"
"well, mamma, I don't know; what do you think?"
"I think it is rather inconveniently large and heavy for everyday use. It is quite a weight upon my lap. I shouldn't like to carry it in my hands long. You would want a little table on purpose to hold it."
"Well, that wouldn't do at all," said Ellen, laughing. "I believe you are right, mamma..."
Now if it were Gerty on the show, I think the outcome may have been equal. Both girls aim to please. Neither seems clear about their choices. When asked if she likes the 3rd grade Anna says, "It's not really too hard, but it's not too easy." It's almost as if she wants to stay neutral because she may be afraid of what the adults may think of her answer.
Gerty is the same way. She instictively wants to please True as if it were wired into her little adolescent brain, "O, I wish I could do something for Uncle True!" (p. 31). Again, later in the text, Gerty tries to make True happy by preparing toast. But, in this instance, she forgets about the toast and it burns, "The tears came into Gerty's eyes;- she looked very much disappointed, but said nothing." She wanted so desperately to do something for nice for True--even something as simple as making toast.
I don't feel Gerty is so different from Anna. I think she would have been shy and reserved just as Anna. Most children that age are reserved; testing the waters if you will. Of course Gerty may have shown a bit of a temper if you mention Nan Grant or her kitten. But, other then that, I don't see her as much different from children now. In fact, I'm glad she's fisty. It makes her believable; not make up like Ellen. There are no children now-a-days like Ellen.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Stowe Prompt
Note: my text references are based of page numbers form the actual novel not the online pdf format.
Uncle Tom's Cabin does seem somewhat of a controversial text, especially based of the perameters we've discussed about 19th century children's literature. I feel it follows some theories while breaking others. Of course, since the book was published in 1852 there will be traces of "typical" format styles related to the 1800's, but Stowe twisted the ideals most peole deemed normal.
On one hand, the novel is didactic in every sense. The overtone of Christianity is evident throughout the book, "Well; but is it true that they have been passing a law forbidding people to give meat and drink to those poor coloured folks that come along? I heard they were talking of some such law, but I didn't think any Christian legislature would pass it!" (p. 74). Even faced with the horror of becoming seperated from his family and leaving the only place he has known as home, Tom insists on remaining purly rooted in his faith, "I'm in the Lord's hands' said Tom; 'nothin' can go no furder than He let's it; and thar's one thing I can thank Him for. It's me that;s sold and going down, and not you nur the chil'en. Here you're safe; what comes will come only on me; and the Lord, He'll help me -I know He will." (p. 88).
The teaching a lesson to the future leaders of America was of grave importance. Authors used the novels to preach to the children. They were taught religion, morality, and even gender roles, "But Lor! who'll ever mend for ye?' and Aunt Chloe, again overcome, laid her head on the box side, and sobbed. 'To think on't! no crittur to do for ye, sick or well! I don't railly think I ought ter be good now!" (p. 91). The thought that Uncle Tom will not have anyone to care for him makes his wife sick. And it's not the idea that there is no one who will help him, it's the idea that it will not be her. Her natural nurturing emotions come into overdrive and she hurts for her husbands wellbeing.
Another aspect of the text that follows the theories of 19th century literature is looking toward the children to uphold a sound and just future, " Oh, Mas'r George, you has everything - larnin', priviledges, readin', writin' - and you'll grow up to be a great, learned, good man, and all the people on the place and your mother and father'll be so proud on ye!" (p. 95).
On the other hand, even though the novel discusses in great lengths the ideals and theories of being a Christian, the character practice quite the opposite. This text which is based on slavery, absolutely contridictes the moral standards of Christians, " 'Don't quote Bible at me that way, Mr. Wilson,' said George, with a flashing eye, 'don't! for my wife is a Christian, and I mean to be, if ever I get to where I can; but to quote Bible to a fellow in my circumstances is enough to make him give it up altogether. I appeal to God Almighty; I'm willing to go with the case to Him, and ask Him if I do wrong to seek my freedom.'" (p. 103).
Uncle Tom's Cabin does seem somewhat of a controversial text, especially based of the perameters we've discussed about 19th century children's literature. I feel it follows some theories while breaking others. Of course, since the book was published in 1852 there will be traces of "typical" format styles related to the 1800's, but Stowe twisted the ideals most peole deemed normal.
On one hand, the novel is didactic in every sense. The overtone of Christianity is evident throughout the book, "Well; but is it true that they have been passing a law forbidding people to give meat and drink to those poor coloured folks that come along? I heard they were talking of some such law, but I didn't think any Christian legislature would pass it!" (p. 74). Even faced with the horror of becoming seperated from his family and leaving the only place he has known as home, Tom insists on remaining purly rooted in his faith, "I'm in the Lord's hands' said Tom; 'nothin' can go no furder than He let's it; and thar's one thing I can thank Him for. It's me that;s sold and going down, and not you nur the chil'en. Here you're safe; what comes will come only on me; and the Lord, He'll help me -I know He will." (p. 88).
The teaching a lesson to the future leaders of America was of grave importance. Authors used the novels to preach to the children. They were taught religion, morality, and even gender roles, "But Lor! who'll ever mend for ye?' and Aunt Chloe, again overcome, laid her head on the box side, and sobbed. 'To think on't! no crittur to do for ye, sick or well! I don't railly think I ought ter be good now!" (p. 91). The thought that Uncle Tom will not have anyone to care for him makes his wife sick. And it's not the idea that there is no one who will help him, it's the idea that it will not be her. Her natural nurturing emotions come into overdrive and she hurts for her husbands wellbeing.
Another aspect of the text that follows the theories of 19th century literature is looking toward the children to uphold a sound and just future, " Oh, Mas'r George, you has everything - larnin', priviledges, readin', writin' - and you'll grow up to be a great, learned, good man, and all the people on the place and your mother and father'll be so proud on ye!" (p. 95).
On the other hand, even though the novel discusses in great lengths the ideals and theories of being a Christian, the character practice quite the opposite. This text which is based on slavery, absolutely contridictes the moral standards of Christians, " 'Don't quote Bible at me that way, Mr. Wilson,' said George, with a flashing eye, 'don't! for my wife is a Christian, and I mean to be, if ever I get to where I can; but to quote Bible to a fellow in my circumstances is enough to make him give it up altogether. I appeal to God Almighty; I'm willing to go with the case to Him, and ask Him if I do wrong to seek my freedom.'" (p. 103).
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Wide, Wide World Prompt
I am actually glad we are discussing the parents of this novel-in particular, the Captain. All the secondary readings we have discussed emphasized the importance of the family unit. Stay in the country with your family, obey your parents, do chores and learn the importance of hard work...yada yada yada. Know, call me nieve, but doesn't a "family" consist of 2 parents? Unless of course there is divorce, death, ect. I understand traditionally in the 19th century, and even today, gender responsibilities play a key role. But, we only see the back of Mr. Montgomery's head, so to speak. The "parental roles" have been placed soley on Mrs. Montgomery.
Mr. Montgomery is more concerned with trying to get out of the country because of the lawsuit then with his family, "...said he must himself go speedily to France, and that now was her best opportunity; assuring her, however, that his circumstances would not permit him to take Ellen with them...". The Captain doesn't seem too much concerned with the responsibilities of fatherhood. He shows no signs of remorse for the inevitable separation between his daughter and wife.
Mrs. Montgomery on the other hand can not stand the idea of leaving Ellen, "She had at first absolutely refused to leave Ellen, when her husband proposed it; declaring that she would rather stay with her and die than take the chance if recovery with such a cost." Mrs. Montgomery, ultimately, is concerned that she may never she her daughter again. She realizes she could leave for Europe and not come back.
The context of the novel seems to portray the idea that parenting relies on maternal teachings. The father is the bread winner and the mother stays home to raise the children. Now, this theory is typical even today, but not to the extent of this novel. "The breakfast-table was still standing, and her father gone, when Ellen went down stairs..." Gone, gone, gone. He is never there. He can't even escort his daughter, whom he is about to abandon for quite some time, to live with his sister, "No my daughter. I'll not send you alone. But your father says it is impossible for him to take the journey at present..."
In The Wide, Wide World we understand the maternal role is the guiding light. The mother teaches the child to how to act as a proper lady, or gentlemen, manners, obedience, respect, ect. "And if you ever go an hour with a hole in your stocking, or a tear in your dress, or a string off your petticoat, I hope the sight of your work-box will make you blush." It is Mrs. Montgomery's duty as a mother to show Ellen how to conduct herself as a lady.
Ellen knows the different roles her parents have. She never asks for her fathers whereabouts; doesn't ever seemed concerned when he will be home from work; whines if he is gone long hours of the day, "But after breakfast it seemed to Ellen that her father never would go away. He took the newspaper, an uncommon thing for him, and pored over it most perseveringly, while Ellen was in a perfect fidget of impatience."
Mr. Montgomery is more concerned with trying to get out of the country because of the lawsuit then with his family, "...said he must himself go speedily to France, and that now was her best opportunity; assuring her, however, that his circumstances would not permit him to take Ellen with them...". The Captain doesn't seem too much concerned with the responsibilities of fatherhood. He shows no signs of remorse for the inevitable separation between his daughter and wife.
Mrs. Montgomery on the other hand can not stand the idea of leaving Ellen, "She had at first absolutely refused to leave Ellen, when her husband proposed it; declaring that she would rather stay with her and die than take the chance if recovery with such a cost." Mrs. Montgomery, ultimately, is concerned that she may never she her daughter again. She realizes she could leave for Europe and not come back.
The context of the novel seems to portray the idea that parenting relies on maternal teachings. The father is the bread winner and the mother stays home to raise the children. Now, this theory is typical even today, but not to the extent of this novel. "The breakfast-table was still standing, and her father gone, when Ellen went down stairs..." Gone, gone, gone. He is never there. He can't even escort his daughter, whom he is about to abandon for quite some time, to live with his sister, "No my daughter. I'll not send you alone. But your father says it is impossible for him to take the journey at present..."
In The Wide, Wide World we understand the maternal role is the guiding light. The mother teaches the child to how to act as a proper lady, or gentlemen, manners, obedience, respect, ect. "And if you ever go an hour with a hole in your stocking, or a tear in your dress, or a string off your petticoat, I hope the sight of your work-box will make you blush." It is Mrs. Montgomery's duty as a mother to show Ellen how to conduct herself as a lady.
Ellen knows the different roles her parents have. She never asks for her fathers whereabouts; doesn't ever seemed concerned when he will be home from work; whines if he is gone long hours of the day, "But after breakfast it seemed to Ellen that her father never would go away. He took the newspaper, an uncommon thing for him, and pored over it most perseveringly, while Ellen was in a perfect fidget of impatience."
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Construction of Childhood Prompt
I have choosen two ideas of childhood/children from Dependent States and three from Children's Literature for a New Nation, 1820-1860.
One of the three distinct ways children appear in Sanchez-Eppler's study is, "They are forces of socialization: ideas about childhood and the innocent figure of the child evoked in a wide range of cultural and political discourses in attempts to reform, direct, or influence the nation." Adults during the 19th century had a sense of urgency to instill moral and "appropriate" attributes in children. This was partly due to the fact America was faced with an era of turmoil--an identity crisis if you will. We, as a nation, were struggling to find our place in the world. Our Government was corrupt and we were fresh out of the American Revolution. To guarantee a "civil" America we looked to the future, our children
Sanchez-Eppler also mentioned ,on several occasions, the idea of idenifying childhood with dependency rather than age, "...childhood is better understood as a status of idea associated with innocence and dependency than as a specific developmental or biological period." This idea still s puzzles me, but made me think, nonetheless. I feel this rational stems from the idea that at some point in the adult life, you can revert to your childhood. Some sort of circumstance in your adult life will make you remember a moment from your past, be it a happy moment, a sad moment. A situation will occur that will make you reflect. These moments could bring back emotions of dependency that any age can identify with. Age would not be an issue at that moment.
MacLeod implants the idea that 19th century literature was geered towards morality. It was ment to teach a lesson to children. One of the "classic" lessons was that of obedience. "Obedience was the most fundamental virtue for a child to acquire: few stories closed without at least one salute to its importance." he writes. Children must own this quality or all teaching would fail. Children were molded to absorb adult knowledge like sponges.
'"Again and again, the stories tell of children who were "for the most part good," but who were "possessed of one great fault": a mix, in other words, of good and bad; imperfect, but not beyond hope of redemption." You have to belive that no matter what your flaws are you can change. There would be no hope in the world unless people felt this way. We also have to feel it is okay to have a few imperfections. No one is perfect, not even characters in books. We identify with the heroin and the villian.
Selflessness, charity, usefulness, self-control--these character traits were all used to guide children towards contentment. A materialistic child is not a happy child authors would write. "To live "for others," children were often told, was the only sure way to contentment." MacLeod states. This way of thinking also ties into the Christian ideology that was so important to a proper childhood up bringing. It serves as the basis for adults to create the "perfect citizen."
One of the three distinct ways children appear in Sanchez-Eppler's study is, "They are forces of socialization: ideas about childhood and the innocent figure of the child evoked in a wide range of cultural and political discourses in attempts to reform, direct, or influence the nation." Adults during the 19th century had a sense of urgency to instill moral and "appropriate" attributes in children. This was partly due to the fact America was faced with an era of turmoil--an identity crisis if you will. We, as a nation, were struggling to find our place in the world. Our Government was corrupt and we were fresh out of the American Revolution. To guarantee a "civil" America we looked to the future, our children
Sanchez-Eppler also mentioned ,on several occasions, the idea of idenifying childhood with dependency rather than age, "...childhood is better understood as a status of idea associated with innocence and dependency than as a specific developmental or biological period." This idea still s puzzles me, but made me think, nonetheless. I feel this rational stems from the idea that at some point in the adult life, you can revert to your childhood. Some sort of circumstance in your adult life will make you remember a moment from your past, be it a happy moment, a sad moment. A situation will occur that will make you reflect. These moments could bring back emotions of dependency that any age can identify with. Age would not be an issue at that moment.
MacLeod implants the idea that 19th century literature was geered towards morality. It was ment to teach a lesson to children. One of the "classic" lessons was that of obedience. "Obedience was the most fundamental virtue for a child to acquire: few stories closed without at least one salute to its importance." he writes. Children must own this quality or all teaching would fail. Children were molded to absorb adult knowledge like sponges.
'"Again and again, the stories tell of children who were "for the most part good," but who were "possessed of one great fault": a mix, in other words, of good and bad; imperfect, but not beyond hope of redemption." You have to belive that no matter what your flaws are you can change. There would be no hope in the world unless people felt this way. We also have to feel it is okay to have a few imperfections. No one is perfect, not even characters in books. We identify with the heroin and the villian.
Selflessness, charity, usefulness, self-control--these character traits were all used to guide children towards contentment. A materialistic child is not a happy child authors would write. "To live "for others," children were often told, was the only sure way to contentment." MacLeod states. This way of thinking also ties into the Christian ideology that was so important to a proper childhood up bringing. It serves as the basis for adults to create the "perfect citizen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
