Unhappiness with the Status Quo

One of the interesting themes that pervades most of the works we have read in class is a profound unhappiness with the status quo of the author's society. This is clear in Schuyler's Black No More from the incessant satire of Black and White culture of the early 1930s. However, the most telling moment in the entire novel comes in the epilogue. While turning oneself white was the "thing-to-do" for the black community at the start of the novel, one everyone is white it is no longer so highly regarded. With a grass is always greener on the other side of the fence mentality, it becomes popular to have mulato children, and use creams to turn one's skin dark.

A few interesting points are raised by this scene. First, people will always change what they can physically to get ahead in the world. Early on the blacks feel discriminated against for impure blood. One everyone is found to have some non-white ancestor; everyone is placed on equal footing. Now, only by making oneself darker can one be separated from the mass of humanity. Secondly, necessity is the mother of invention. The machines and creams used to change physical appearance exist because of a significant demand for them within a certain community. These products never seem to offer a solution to the problem, only a shifting of the current paradigm. Nothing prevents the situation from reversing especially if the "cure" is carried too far. When black women are rare (at the end of the novel) they are highly desired.

Overall, I think the theme of a pervasive unhappiness with one's current situation pervades any literature concerning experimentation and change. However, the experiments merely change the situation but do not cure the underlying social structures that lead to the dissatisfaction to begin with

Kinsey: Let's Talk About Sex

Hey everyone!

Come watch Kinsey tonight at 6:30 in Kilgo House O Commons.
It's around 2 hours.

The movie came out in 2004 and was nominated for 3 golden
globes. I haven't seen it myself but I've heard that it's
quite an interesting movie. Odd, but good.

Let me know if you need directions to Kilgo House O Commons.
Email me at tiffyam@gmail.com.

Here is a Plot Summary of Kinsey (from About.com):
Liam Neeson stars in this biopic about American biologist Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), whose studies of human sexuality made him famous. The film chronicles Kinsey's career at Indiana University, including his early work with gall wasps and his controversial research into human sexual behavior. Also, the movie delves into his relationship with his puritanical father, his marriage to Clara (Laura Linney), and his exploration of his own sexuality.

Summer Plug

Hi all, if you or someone you know is looking for a course to take over the summer, I'm offering a class on gender and medicine through the Women's Studies department during Summer Session I. It should be a lot of fun; we'll be spending much of the class hearing from guest speakers from the local community, visiting the history of medicine archives and researching some local health intitiatives going on in the Triangle.
Feel free to e-mail or talk to me after class if you're interested.


Summer Session 1: "In Sickness and Health: Gender and Medicine"
Women's Studies 150.02

In this course, we will examine women and men. That is, we will be interested in figuring out how gender might matter to medicine, and moreover, how medicine shapes our understandings of gender itself. How does medicine treat different bodies differently? How are masculinity, femininity and other configurations of gender and sexuality defined in relation to health? What is the relationship between science and identity?And finally, what kinds of violences (physical, sexual and otherwise) are perpetuated under the protection of the legitimacy of medical discourses and practices?

The course is organized around several subtopics including: Histories of Medicine, Theories of the Body, Race and Medicine, Reproductive Technologies, Medical Visual Culture, Contagion and Illness, and Global Health. In addition to lively in-class discussions and film viewings, we will venture into the archives held at the Medical Library to learn a bit about the history of gender and medicine at Duke. We will also be welcoming some visitors to class including medical professionals, local AIDS/HIV initiative organizers and some other folks working on community health projects.

Readings: We will consider various perspectives on health, sickness and gender from feminist critics, theorists of science, and from the medical “authorities” themselves. Longer works from Audre Lorde (The Cancer Journals), Judith Butler (Undoing Gender), Muriel Lederman and Ingrid Bartsch (The Gender and Science Reader) and Dorothy Robertson (Killing the Black Body)plus excerpts from many others. In addition, we will read a couple of recent medical thrillers and science fiction by Octavia Butler and Samuel Delany.

Is there a conscience in science?

In discussing science and scientific research/discovery over some our past classes, there is an issue always raised pertaining to the difficulty of how much is too much. We addressed this in one of our recent classes in relation to current scientific areas that have become controversial. What lies at the heart of this discussion is a subject that we did not really breach and that is conscience.

Notably conscience contains the word science in it. On OED the two are compared as science being the theoretical perception of truth, while conscience is associated with moral conviction. This difference is important to note as we read stories like "Frankenstein", which both demonstrate an imperturbable connection between science and conscience. Frankenstein on comes to see gain real truth and understanding after his own theoretical perception of truth about man's ability to create life is overthrown by a crashing down of conscience upon his soul as he reaps the pains of his lack of judgment.

Similarly, in a story like "The Monster" we see a society in which the perception of truth is that Henry's character is no longer human and is in fact a monster, but he is sustained by those who have true moral conviction and realize the mistakes of past as well as those of society.

In most of our readings so far science has been mainly portrayed as easily abused and a forbidden fruit like temptation which ends up corrupting many of its practitioners. A second main theme is that science is unnatural, an artificial opponent of organic thought and human emotion. However, I believe that in the our recent reading "The Monster" both of these themes are contradicted, at least to some extent.

Crane's description of the fire to me suggests a contradiction of the second point mentioned above. Fire, which is about as natural an entity as they come, (in the old days it was thought of as one of the principal natural elements, its one of the prime ingredients used to make Captain Planet who is known to be a defender of nature, etc.) tears through Trescott's house. In most of the house the fire is simply a raging inferno, destroying everything in its path. However, when nature, (the fire), and science (the lab, and particularly the chemicals in the lab) meet, they form a surreal symbiosis, creating a fantastical garden of burning flowers populated by various ethereal woodland creatures. To me this differs from the depiction of the garden in Rapaccini's Daughter, in that Rapaccini's garden was depicted more as a perversion of nature rather than the fire garden in the lab which was simply the natural consequence of two different elements coming together.

In regards to my first point, most of the monsters or experiments we have thus far read about have been the product of an irrational or morally errant scientist and they have been abhorred by a rational moral society (Frankenstein, Rappacini's Daughter, Was He Dead, etc.). Conversely in "The Monster" the actions of Trescott and their subsequent negative repercussions in the town seem to be the effects of a rational morally grounded scientist working within an irrational society.

Just an Interesting Quote...

"The genius of poetry is not related to time. Poetry does not follow science. Poetry doesn't get better as time passes by. Science gets better, but poetry does not."

-Derek Walcott

Ginsberg's Science

The man himself. This was titled "Allen Ginsberg: On a Good Day". I wonder what way his bearding was pointing the night before.
I got a kick out of reading "Supermarket in California" today. My Writing 20 was on Walt Whitman and its always fun to see how he's interpreted trhiugh the years. Currently, we associate himself with homosexuality. Though Ginsberg obviously does so as well, he treats Whitman as a mentor figure, hinting at that Whitman was not only a very sensual being but a political one as well. At the time of Leaves of Grass' (whitman's lifelong work) printing, Whitman's politics and experimental poetic structure, an ancestor to Ginsberg's own deviance, were more intriguing than the poems' underlying homosexuality. Both Whitman and Ginsberg are experimental poets, whith poems featuring bold subject matter in creative structures. I found an interesting blip from a LIFE interview with Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, where Ginsberg explains his take on science.

"So it was then either a revival of an old consciousness or the search for a new consciousness.... I don't think we [Ginsberg and Kerouac] had it clearly defined, but we were looking for something, as was Burroughs, as a kind of breakthrough from the sort-of hyper-rationalistic, hyper-scientific, hyper-rationalizing of the post-war era.
Now it was not an assault on reason. That's been much misinterpreted. It was an assault on hyper-rationalizations, you know, this fake science, fake cover-up, quasi-logical reasoning. The best example might be the inadequate science of the nuclear era. Although, like the sorcerer's apprentice, [scientists] were able to conjure up the power of the bomb, they weren't able to take care of the detritus and the waste products of the bomb. They still have not been able to. It's a half-assed science. It's not a real science.... "

What's up with all this 'hyper-rationalization'? Though it could be explained by the Acid Tests Ginsberg attended, I'm surprised at Ginsberg seeming interest in bettering science. I want to ask him "What is real science?". It almsot seems like he's alluding to some forgotten or ignored scientific ideal. Earlier in the article, Ginsberg comments "mechanical assault on human nature" that occurred in the '50s, a view later to be espoused in the '70s by leftist punk group The Dead Kennedeys. Their infamous song, "Soup is Good Food" , touches on how the science behind modern mechanization actually degrades human life instead of enriching it, as machines that are supposed to aide our pursuit of leisure only destroy other's sources of income (I think we touched on some of this post-modernist stuff on Wednesday class...).

It just doesn't mesh well when I try to call a poet, or Jello Biafra, a scientist. I think it has to do with the baggage of a science's label of dispassionate, analytical, even uncreative. But somehow, to refer to a poet as an experimenter makes sense.

A Simple Life is NOT More enjoyable

Thoreau criticizes society’s advancement, and claims that humanity would be better off living a simple life style in the woods. Thoreau gives the impression that people do not enjoy their lives by making claims that, “He has no time to be anything but a machine,” and, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” While life may be hard at times, I would much rather live as I do now than in a shack in the woods! He says it’s so great owning your own house, not having to buy food, and having plenty of leisure time. I would agree with this if it was a nice house and good food, but that’s not what Thoreau had in mind.

His house was a shack in the woods. I don’t know about you, but I think that students are happy to be back in their dorm rooms and not have to spend the rest of the semester in K-ville. The shack in the woods would actually be less accommodating than a tent in K-ville, because at least you have easy access to food, where you do not in the woods. I would much rather sleep in a warm, climate controlled room, in a soft comfortable bed, instead of sleeping in a freezing cabin in a makeshift bed. You spend one-third of your life in bed, you better make it worth it. He says that people don’t enjoy life, but I’m sure that I enjoy sleeping in my dorm room much more than he did in a freezing shack.

I agree that it is possible to survive off of growing your own crops, but that really wouldn’t be enjoying life either. He lived off of corn, potatoes, peas, and turnips, that does not sound like an appetizing menu at all, especially if that the only thing you eat every single day. What if I want fruit, some pineapple, coconut, strawberries, and mango? What if I want a big juicy steak, or pasta, or anything else in world besides corn, potatoes, peas, and turnips? He has none of that, all of which are things that I enjoy. It seems that living simply is taking away things I enjoy in life instead of making me enjoy life more.

Another point he makes is that he could travel to any place in less time than another person and he would enjoy the trip more because he would get to experience the scenery better. In his example, he states that he could walk thirty miles in a day and arrive a new location, and would enjoy his trip because he got to experience many things along the way. He contrasts this against a person who would work the entire time Thoreau was walking in order to make enough money to pay for a trip that would take him the thirty miles, and the man would not enjoy the trip as much because he would be confined to a car or train. I agree with this, but what if the trip was longer than thirty miles, what if the trip was to Europe, Australia, or Brazil? This would take him years to get there and he would not be able to walk there either. I think I would be able to make enough money to but a plane ticket to any of these places, in a much shorter time than it would take him to get there.

He never mentions that he got sick, but what if he did? He would have no medicine to help him recover, and might even perish from a disease that modern medicine has a cure for. Increased life expectancy and better nutrition have come with advances in technology. In third world countries that are not very modernized disease is the cause of strife and hardship for the people who live there. Therefore, effective medicines that cure these diseases and help to alleviate the discomforts associated with them make life more enjoyable. The Black Death or Bubonic Plague killed millions; now medicine and technology has advanced beyond that, and found cures so that people do not have to suffer like that anymore.

I think that despite hectic schedules, bills, long work hours, and stress, our life style today is worth it, and so are all the advancements we’ve made as a result of all the work. The internet, electricity, cars, planes, phones, television, climate controlled houses, diverse food selection, and many other luxuries all make life more enjoyable.

In class today when we discussed "the science of poetry" I found the topic sort of oxymoronic. I'm not a poet or an especially artsy person, but I've never considered poetry to be at all scientific. I've been taught about the rhyme schemes of poetry, and the different meters, but I see them as literary devices to enhance the poem, and not really anything scientific. I feel like we were empirically trying to dissect poems; and like Britt said, they are written as performance pieces, and not particularly as literature to be picked apart and scrutinized. The linguistics of poems are perhaps not what readers should focus on, instead focusing on the "meaning," thoughts, and images meant to be evoked.

Also, I was wondering how long the concept of meter has been around and widely known. I looked it up on Wikipedia and although I could find no specific date of its origin, it has been around for a long time, at least since the 15th century. I guess when I think of poets writing their poetry, I don't see them emphasizing the meter as much as the actual content of the poem. Then again, as I said poetry is meant to be performed, so perhaps they're forced to do both at the same time.

There seems to lie a difference between structured poetry, filled with rhyme scheme and meter, and free verse type poetry, where poets just put feelings and thoughts on paper with no real structure. When I think of poetry the latter comes to mind first, before poetry with structure.

The Poetic Voice

I really enjoyed today's (Friday) class about poetic conventions. I think of poetry as an art form, expressing an idea in such a condensed manner is difficult and people that can do it well are truly literary artists. I never really think about the mechanics or science of poetry, such as meter. The device that fascinated me the most was the voice of the poet. Hearing a poetic piece straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is completely different than just reading to myself.

A Supermarket in California by Allen Ginsberg, which we listened to in class today is a perfect example of how reading a poem and hearing the poet read the poem aloud brings out two completely different interpretations. When reading the line, "I touch your book and dream of our odyssey in the supermarket and feel absurd" gave me the visual that Ginsberg was carrying around one of Whitman's books in the grocery store and wondering what Whitman would do in a supermarket. However, when I heard Ginsberg read this line aloud, his slightly creepy and stalker-ish voice gave the line a whole new meaning full of racy innuendos.

We Real Cool by Gwendolyn Brooks, which we also listened to in class was another surprising example. First of all, she explained her inspiration behind the poem before reading it so I understood that much. But, the jazzy voice in which she read the poem turned it into a piece that almost mocked the kids skipping school and trying to hard to be cool. This is something I did not pick up simply reading the short poem to myself.

I wonder if we could somehow hear classic poets, such as Shakespeare, preform their works today if they would take on a completely different meaning contrasting the way we interpret them today.

Science of Poetry

Today's class discussion was centered around the "science" of poetry--a title that I found interesting considering we focused heavily on the technical aspects of poetry and poetic forms. We related learning the scansion of poems to dissection because we separated the poems into different pieces and attempted to understand the meaning behind choices that the poets made. Lastly, we listened to a poem and tried to write down as much of it as we could, and realized that each time we heard something different as well as how important it is to realize what sorts of things stood out for each of us. After class, I wondered: do we consider science to be so technical? Would we consider any type of art that has a specific form or follows meticulous rules to be scientific?

As lover, reader, and writer of poetry, I have never really thought about the possible connection that it could have to the techniques of science. I would not consider it the same as creating a hypothesis or performing a scientific experiment; however, I can relate to the planning that occurs before the experiment and the possible length of time that passes before the experiment is completed. Scientists, like most poets or artists are observers--they comment on what is going on in the world around them and attempt to share this information with their peers and hopefully the rest of the world.

Although it is easy to believe that there is no connection between science and art, I am happy to see that the two have blended in a forum that interests me.

Stay in your Cupboard, Boy!

The Forbidden Experiment: Experimentation on Children. Rappaccini…Guilty.

When we turn on the television or surf the web, we often stumble upon some bizarre stories. CNN’s offbeat news, for example, presents lots of interesting stories that I know always entertain me. But what’s scary, however, is that at times, we stumble upon experiments that are uncomfortable to us, experiments that we do not agree with, experiments that terrify us.

Some news articles that I fell upon were about children who were test subjects of their very own parents. Who would be bold or even heartless enough to experiment on their own child? This is a one shot deal on your very own flesh and blood. What gives a parent the right to sacrifice their child in this way? (sorry…not a subtle reference to God’s sacrifice of Jesus…I don’t belive that that was an experiment, but anyway…) If you were their creator, does this give you the power to do as you please with your creation? Is this the case for Victor and the monster in Frankenstein?

The stories that I read about told of parents who locked their children at home in a basement/cupboard/bedroom for years just to see how they would react when thrown back into society. In my opinion, Rappaccini was guilty of conducting the “forbidden experiment” by using his daughter Beatrice as a means to compliment his experimentation on the fusion of plants and humans. What I was wondering though was where you think we can draw the line on experimentation? My guess is that most everyone would agree that experimentation on children can be regarded as the forbidden experiment, but what else would you consider “forbidden?” Yes, nowadays experimentation has led us to discoveries and advancements that life would be difficult without but what about the sacrifices that come along the way? Can we say that they were worth it or even necessary? Is the greater good always the best answer as long as the sacrifice is “small?”

Read about some offbeat news from CNN.com

What is science and where does God fit in the picture?

This week in my ecology and evolution recitation we discussed the contemporary tension between the theory of evolution and intelligent design (ID). So as preparation for class, we read excerpts of Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” and the Supreme Court ruling on Kitsmiller v Dover Area School District. For those of you who are not familiar with the topic of intelligent design, this is the idea that living systems are too complex to be explained by the theories of evolution because it is impossible that such that such complex systems could form from simple components. The only explanation is that a divine hand created all organisms. A Dover, PA school district required that ID be taught as an alternative to evolution. This was challenge by some parents as a violation to their first amendment rights. The book “Darwin’s Black Box,” as suggested by the name, is a pro ID and was the primary support for the Dover school district’s position.

When reading these pieces, I couldn’t help but think about our class discussions as an over riding theme is the conflict between god and science. In the end the court ruled that ID is not a science because the theory can not be tested as can evolution. The court determined that “science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena” and that it is “ruled by methodological naturalism.” “Science does not consider the issues of meaning and purpose in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.” I don’t find this definition at all satisfying as another vague term, nature, is used for clarification. In addition, science is defined by what realms it does not encompass. So far in class, we have associated god with nature. But in the courts interpretation, science seeks to explain nature. So is science really seeking to understand god? So if science is the opposite of nature and nature is the opposite of science, in which realm does god play a role? I’ve come to the conclusion that god and science don’t have to be mutually exclusive. The belief is that god created man and the universe. So if god created man, who is to say that god did not create evolution/science as well as the curious human to explore it? While ID can not be defined as science because it is not testable, that doesn’t mean that it can not explain the inner workings of creationalism. So I ask, do nature and science have to be mutually exclusive definitions or can they really be the same thing is disguised? Does there really have to be a “Black Box”?

Dinornis

The dinornis egg of "Was He Dead?" seems to me to be very symbolic of the mystery ascribed to science in many of our readings thus far. In the story the egg goes beyond mysterious to almost mystical. It hovers over the heads of the men when they meet, and at one point is even wreathed in smoke. Also, there is no greater symbol of birth than that of a giant egg, and what could be birthed out of such an unusually large egg besides something monstrous and unknown.

There is the same aura of mystery surrounding the two births we have encountered in our reading thus far namely the criminal in "Was He Dead?" and obviously the monster in Frankenstein. Both of these births are regarded as unnatural, in large part I believe because they enter unexplored territory, their outcomes are largely unpredictable until the experiment is actually carried out. Fear of the unknown is the most primal aspect of human emotion that an author can appeal to, and it is this that made stories such as Frankenstein so horrifying in their day. When characters such as Frankenstein or Purpel willfully dive into the unknown they, and by proxy their science, seem to us as unnatural.

The Horror of Science

After reading "Was he dead?", I like everyone else was surprised to discover that it was meant to be read (and was read when first published) as a a horror story. Then I considered other such stories and what genre they were typically put in. Stories like "Dracula", "Frankenstein", "The Island of Dr. Moreau", etc. are all considered part of either the horror or science fiction/horror genre. After realizing that this story really was what is generally considered horror, I began to wonder what characteristics were the "scary" parts in "Was he Dead?" as well as in some of the other stories just mentioned, specifically Frankenstein.

I have not entirely come up with a full answer but I believe in these specific science fiction type narratives the horror aspect is induced from the unexplainable elements of the stories and the "normal" characters inabilities to deal with it. That is the central character cannot control something that has been unleashed and it is the fear of what might happen as a result that scares us. Furthermore, the creation of the "unnatural" in itself is frightening particularly as we discover the inner workings of this "terrible" creature and how closely it resembles either ourselves or some element of our lives. For instance, in "Frankenstein" the monster's use of reason to take revenge frightens as its actions seem so justifiable. Similarly, in "Was he Dead?" the drive of Purpel to prove that an innocent man had been accused of murder drives him to forget the lessons of "Frankenstein" and what person is not concerned if the innocent get punished?

These are some interpretations of what causes "horror" in relation to these types of stories but I'm sure there are more. I think that it is also interesting to consider why were these types of Gothic fear-based stories were so popular during the 19th century and what was it about the times that made people fearful of such possibilities. Also, how much has changed in relation to the draw of the horror genre today, specifically in relation to science fiction?

A Bird with No Wings

On the topic of weird things, the dinornis was certainly one of them. Reaching up to 10 feet tall, the dinornis resembled an ostrich -- except it didn't have wings! It is this interesting tidbit, along with the fact that this species was hunted to extinction by humans, plays an important role in "Was He Dead?" (for more info on dinornis(es?) visit http://www.newzealandfauna.com/moa.php).

The dinornis lacked the ability to fly; however, in the story, Purpel suspends the egg from the ceiling, putting it in a state similar to that of "flight." The unnaturalness of this situation continuously pops up throughout "Was He Dead?," reflecting the rather ominous and bizarre nature of Purpel's experiments. Purpel puts the egg in a dangerous position, when at any moment it can fall and gush "ten pounds of lime" (Mitchell 222). His quest to bring a dead man back to life, too, places the beliefs of his friends and himself in a precarious situation -- when it backfires, they are all left with the terrible realization that they've sinned by defying the laws of Nature. So in a way, this "failed" experiment dashes any hopes the three friends may have had of discovering Nature's secrets about life and death; in other words, the dinornis egg (which represents some of the biggest mysteries science seeks to unveil) the will never hatch into a dinornis (a state of enlightenment and omniscience). In this story, man has in effect hunted the dinornis to extinction, just as was the case in reality.

Got Science?

After discussing Mitchell’s rest cure briefly in class on Wednesday, I became really interested and did some research on this process. After reading some of the text in which he describes the rest cure, it seems like much of what occurs is very random and unscientific. Statements like, “Usually, after a fortnight I permit the patient to be read to,-one to three hours a day” (Mitchell, Fat and Blood), seem entirely arbitrary and lack any scientific backing. This ‘”experimental” technique, in fact, has very little, if any, connection to any actual science. This got me thinking about the role of science in the experiments we’ve read about in literature thus far.

From Frankenstein to “Was He Dead?” to “The Birthmark,” a great deal of literature, as we are focusing on it in class, deals with the scientific experiment. But are these experiments exactly scientific? Our first reading, “The Birthmark” discusses Aylmer’s mystical potions and his long periods of study, but in fact, no science is ever discussed. In the end, the surgery is vaguely described, and only so to explain the outcome. In Frankenstein, much of the creation of the monster is left unexplained, including how the corpses are put together, what makes the creature so hideous, and mainly, what the “spark of life” is that he discovers. Most recently in “Was He Dead?” there is no science discussed when bringing a dead (or was he dead?) body back to life. Not even the scientific theory hinted at in the title is clearly explained. Yes, there are instances were some science is discussed, but never to the extent of theories that these devoted science researched.

A likely reason for this lack of science is this stories based on “scientific” experiments may be that the writers are “writers.” They spent their lives writing stories, not researching scientific theories. But then, why would such authors, who would have little knowledge of science, write these intricate stories about a subject they know so little about?

In class and in this blog, we’ve noted a common theme of literature from this period as expressing a fear of new science and resentment for its new methods. Thus, could the lack of actual science in these stories represent the authors’ views? Is it possible that these authors thought that contemporary science lacked backing as was just as mystical to them as these stories seem to us In stories were scientists bring butterflies to life or give girls plantlike poison authors may be trying to convey the foreign-ness of science as something almost magical and unhumanlike. Any thoughts or examples?

Information Age

Although we did not read past Economy from Thoreau's Walden, I wanted to bring up some of the thoughts he brings up in later sections of his work, especially in "Reading." One of the major issues he addresses is the focus on insignificant information. He criticizes society for reading the wrong books, discussing the wrong issues, etc.

Further, when he visits the nearby village, he begins to listen to some of the gossip and information exchange in the area. At one point, he describes the village as a "great news room." However, he questions society for focusing on information that is irrelevant to our lives and lacks any applications.

About a century and a half later, I feel that our society has become even more engrossed in information, mostly useless information. We have CNN News, a 24/7 news network. However, I feel that 90% of the information they cover is completely useless and a waste of time. For example, how does a high speed car chase have any important applications or implications for the rest of the nation.? Why do people care so much about the religious affiliation of Tom Cruise and his wife or how their wedding is planned? (no offense to CNN of course, they just put up what attracts viewers)

Thus, we have grown into a society concerned with the most useless of information. The "pursuit of dangerous knowledge" that we have talked about in class has taken on another form in present day, mainstream society. The knowledge that most of society seeks is dangerous not itself but more because of its lack of intellectual stimulation and applications--replacing knowledge that may actually be useful and helpful.

I feel that Thoreau would have been highly disgusted if he were to visit present day society, discovering that instead of moving towards simplicity, we have moved in the opposite direction--that is, our information communication network has grown remarkably (which can be though of an increase in complexity), but the content of the information has declined dramatically.

What is Natural?

One of the interesting themes that has been addressed in class, the works we've read, and the posts on this blog is the theme of nature. Whether it is as a restorative device, a contrast to the darkness of science, or the ideal living condition for man, nature has consistently been portrayed in a positive light. However, I have begun to feel that nature, and what is natural is often far different than what these authors, especially the transcendentalists, believe it to be.

Primarily, the Transcendentalists seem to idealize nature and the natural world. Thoreau identifies simplicity with nature. He feels that mankind’s purpose has been distorted. Man has become a machine. Thoreau identifies inheritance of a large plot of land as a curse rather than a blessing due to the extensive work that must be undertaken to survive in such a manner. However, I have been grappling with this idea of nature versus human nature. I believe that it is inherently natural for humans to construct houses, form societies and pursue technological advancement. Strictly from an evolutionary standpoint animals who are best adapted to their environment survive and reproduce. Humans, on the other hand, adapt the environment around them to survive. This reliance on rational thought and intelligence is the only reason humans, a relatively weak species, can survive in every climate across the globe. For the transcendentalists to demand a return to a primitive lifestyle, they are denying what is natural for humans. They are not supporting nature, but rather an ignorance of the human lifestyle.

Overall, I think this issue of nature and what is natural is one of the pervasive themes of not only literature, but also human existence. The questions raised in transcendental literature are certainly interesting, but overall I feel that the answers that are found are misguided. Does anyone else have an opinion?

On the Brighter Side...

If you're looking for some more "optimistic" tales from the nineteenth century, you might have a look at:
Edward Bellamy's _Looking Backward_
Charles Fourier's, _The Four Movements_
H. Bruce Franklin's _Future Perfect: American Science Fiction of the Nineteenth Century_ collects together many future-looking narratives of science and technology.

(Of course, since our class is on "weird science," we're focusing a bit more on the dangerous, the unethical, the bizarre, and the pessimistic...)

The Beauty of Nature

I’ve noticed a common theme of nature, and its restoring effects. In The Artist of the Beautiful whenever Owen is depressed and has given up on this creation, he goes back to nature and is revitalized and has a new vigor to complete his dream of putting spirit it machinery. He also devotes his life to this because he wants to create something that resembles nature. This project turns out to be a butterfly, something at exemplifies the beauty of nature

In Frankenstein, Victor turns to the healing effects of nature when he is troubled by the monster. Being alone in the outdoors relaxes him and allows him to feel at peace. In Rappaccini’s Daughter, tampering with nature is evil, the plants that Rappaccini created are evil.

The stories seem to convey the message that anything natural is good and anything unnatural is bad. However I believe that this idea has changed with the time. Unnatural things are no longer bad, in fact sometimes the unnatural is better then the natural. Tampering with plants is now very common; most of the things we eat have been tampered with. When did this change occur and what caused it?

Complicated Relations in Rappaccini's Daughter

I have never been a big Nathaniel Hawthorne fan. In 10th grade, I plowed my way through The Scarlet Letter despite my overly abhorrent attitude toward it. I complained until we took the final test, threw my book away and claimed I'd never read another Hawthorne work again. However, here I am, four short years later, reading multiple pieces by this very man; what is shocking is that of all the pieces we've read so far, his have been my favorite.


Rappaccini's Daughter was the first time I can say a Nathaniel Hawthorne work has persuaded me to keep reading. I was intrigued by the complicated relations between Giovanni and Beatrice, though from the outset I figured that the ending would be tragic. It seems interesting to note that Giovanni's desire to be with and possess Beatrice is complicated by the fact that a sexual relationship is not readily available. While a sexual relationship with Beatrice seems impossible due to her poisoned soul, it also seems to bother Giovanni that if there were in fact a possibility of such a relationship, Beatrice would be the dominant one. This would be a sort of "death" for Giovanni (or at least his ego). Therefore, Giovanni attempts to give Beatrice the antidote he has received, hoping it will transform her into the ideal woman he desires to fulfill his wants and needs. It seems that though Beatrice is literally "poisoned", Giovanni's mind is as well (we could also note this about Rappaccini and even Brenzo, who have their own issues).


Without his ability to dominate Beatrice, Giovanni is left with that only option of giving her that "potion"; it is his final drop of hope in this tragic tale; Giovanni's superficiality is Beatrice's ultimate downfall.

"Pheromones: The Chemistry of Attraction"

Last year, I heard about this intersting study on pheromones from a teacher of mine. In the study, men of diverse ethnicity wore the same T-shirt for two consecutive nights. Women from an isolated community then rated, while blind-folded, the smells of the shirts on familiarity, intensity, pleasantness and spiciness (spiciness?). The writers of the Nature Genetics article on the study do a better job summarizing it than I could, so I've copied their blip on it here. Just some paraphrased background info on the specifics: organisms have a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) which generates individual odors related to recognition, pregnancy, mating, and nesting. Human MHC's are called human leukocyte antigens (HLA).

"Here we show that women can detect differences of one HLA allele among male odor donors with different MHC genotypes. Notably, the mechanism for a woman's ability to discriminate and choose odors is based on HLA alleles inherited from her father but not her mother. The parents' HLA alleles that she does not inherit show no relationship with odor choice, despite exposure to these HLA-encoded odors throughout her life. Our data indicate that paternally inherited HLA-associated odors influence odor preference and may serve as social cues."

So women are attracted to men who smell like their father? Not quite. Odor preference seems to be "based upon a set of genes inherited from [the women's] fathers…women prefer the odor of men to whom they are genetically similar, but not identical, to the odor of men whose genes are nearly identical or wholly unfamiliar". These women didn't even know that it was human odor they were smelling, and rated the odors' pleasantness as a little above a 'household smell'. Its pretty amazing that a 'test' for propsective genes exists in our pheromones. With some really simplified evolutionary theory, you might argue that a female looks for a partner that will add some (but not too much, as the study shows) genetic diversity to her lineage and in the big picture, diversify the species population. With more genetic diversity come more chances for some nice and helpful new trait to pop up. A fortunate thing: through the HLA odors, the kissing-cousins custom is discouraged. Still, this discovery can't be narrowed to just mate preference. Researchers claim that this discovery also relates to social behavior and kinship ties. Such an example is a female baboon grooming her paternal half-sister due to her smell. Baboon society is highly promiscuous and using the MHC alleles received by their shared father, they can recoginze each other through odor.

Is Science A Poison?

In Rappaccini's Daughter a crazy scientist turns his daughter into a poison exhaling freak, and traps her in his garden of deadly plants. As she lies dying before him he lectures her on the merits of the amazing gift of being poisonous which he selflessly gave to her. Obviously Rappaccini has a screw loose, and would probably have been a psycho whether he had become a scientist or not. Throughout the piece Baglioni seems to be his rational counterpart, possessing all the moral integrity and respect for human life that Rappaccini lacks. However, in the final sentence of the text after Rappaccini's daughter has just died Baglioni shouts "in a tone of triumph mixed with horror, 'Rappaccini! Rappaccini! And is this the upshot of your experiment?'". In this instant Baglioni betrays his true nature, or at least a sinister side of his true nature, showing a callous disregard for the death of an innocent young girl as well as an all consuming triumph in the failure of his rival. To me this raises the question of whether or not science itself is something of a poison, taking a presumably decent man (Baglioni seems like he could've been a good guy at some point) and making him cold, calculating, and unsympathetic to his fellow human beings. Science as a poison is present in The Birthmark, and is blaringly obvious in Frankenstein as well. Why does this theme have such a strong presence in the literature of Shelley and Hawthorne? After all today some of the most pure heroes of our history are men like Einstein, Newton, Galileo, and other great scientific minds. However, in the period of time at which our texts were written learning was reserved for the privileged, and most scientific experimentation was performed behind closed doors, virtually unaccessible to the general population. Thus it is not too surprising that science may have seemed more like some kind of sorcery to be feared and mistrusted than a tool for the betterment of mankind.

The Danger of the 'Unnatural"

Today in class we discussed the complications of the hybridity and evil relationship in "Rappaccini's Daughter" through the binary of science and nature. These dual forces and the intricate concepts they represent have been in constant battle throughout our readings; whether it be in Frankenstein where the nature of man as a being is brought into question by the creation of a man in an "unnatural" way, or if it is woman who, through science, has been made part nature like in "Rappaccini's Daughter".

The central theme of these issues are the design of science to recreate natural occurrences, but in doing so the result is unnatural. And it is a fear of what is unnatural, what is not meant to be, that is at the heart of these stories. Particularly, as we think about the time period in which these were written, when the world was undergoing substantial technological advances and setting the stage for the technological franticness that is the world of today. The issue on the minds of all, it would seem, was how far would science push and would it be too far.

The story of "Rappaccini's Daughter" is a clear demonstration of that as we see Hawthorne elaborate on the dangers of going against nature and creating something that is not "meant to be". In making the daughter a mixture of the natural and human, by the use of science, he furthers expands on this binary and draws our attention directly to the dangers of such activity. The difficulty is that in our society this seems not to apply as such things as mixing plants is commonplace, but the dangers of these "unnatural" occurrences is still real as there continue to be scientific exploration in numerous areas and controversy still arises (like with cloning and stem cell research).

What makes us American?

When it comes to discussing the American political system, we simply can’t forget the everyday American citizen on whom the system is so dependent. Not surprisingly, with such a unique breed of democracy, America has a breed of citizen that almost defies definition. This is mainly because today’s continuous influx of immigrants is constantly changing the image of the American constituency.

So the question is, as posed by Crevecoeur (author of Letters from an American Farmer) in the 1780s, “What then is the American, this new man?” (http://www.jstor.org/view/00028762/di951255/95p00023/0) Interestingly enough, the American was originally defined primarily in terms of “whiteness”-- men who were white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant were considered to be citizens without a shadow of a doubt. When it comes to the modern day American, however, the term “white” is an outdated adjective. So, whereas in the past, the citizen was characterized by physical attributes – skin color, gender, such characterization today has moved into a more conceptual realm. What’s frustrating about this is that the characteristics that supposedly make a person American can’t really be measured: loyalty to the U.S., capacity to understand republican principles of government, willingness to get involved in civic activities…. Others, however, would argue that “American-ness” should be measured in economic terms: an ability to succeed in the capitalist system, the “can do” attitude that leads to successful acquirement of the American Dream, etc. This only goes to show that since different people have different perceptions of what makes an American an American, there is no one set of characteristics (just as those I listed above) that can be used to define the American. Is this simply because we as a people don’t have the same ethnic and racial roots, or is it the result of America’s “experimental” nature and upbringing? Also, any thoughts as to whether attempts to define the American are in vain?

A Modest Proposal!

After our discussions in class this week about the “American Experiment,” it made me think back to another very weird social experiment proposed by Jonathan Swift in 1792. Has anyone read A Modest Proposal? For those of you who haven’t here is a very quick summary of Swift’s suggested method “for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public.” In this satirical piece Swift proposes to fatten up the undernourished children of the poor and feed them to Ireland's rich land-owners. The children of the poor could be sold in the meat market after the age of one year old, this being sufficient time to fatten the babies. He argues that this would solve the problem of overpopulation and unemployment by sparing families the expense of child-bearing and providing them with a little extra income. The program would provide new delicacy for the wealthy and improve the overall economic well-being of the nation.

One way that Swift supports his argument is by saying “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...” I find this statement very interesting. What is it about the fact that the recommendation came from an American? Why were Americans viewed as being credible? We have seen through our readings that America was viewed as the land of experimentation and scientific development. Maybe being part of the “American Experiment” made Americans more credible?

Another interesting fact about is that, believe it or not, many of the wealthy people of Ireland actually supported trying out this “modest proposal” as a means of population control. The wealthy Protestants saw it as a way to control the poor Catholics. While Swift never meant the proposal to be taken literally but instead wrote it in order to make a statement about the social problems within Ireland, the fact that the public took it seriously and supported the proposal is very scary!

I feel that the response of the Irish population to Swift’s “modest proposal” just illuminates another angle on defining monstrosity. As was brought up when discussing Frankenstein in class, the common conception is that monstrosity is associated with animalistic behavior. What could be more “animalistic” than eating the young of your own species? Is Mary Shelley right? Do the real monsters truly lie within humans?

Colors of the Wind

Rumors of an unknown people were spreading throughout Europe. Who were these reddish brown skinned people that inhabited this new world? Tocqueville gave quite an interesting description of the Native Americans in his text, Democracy in America; he portrayed them as poor and ignorant savages, yet also mentioned their passion and dedication to life and God. At first, I thought that Tocqueville was harsh and ignorant himself to write about the Native Americans in the way that he did, but then I thought that he did give a very full description considering that communication between both peoples was difficult and therefore minimal. I suppose I was just hesitant with his use of ignorant and savage, but then I thought more about the meaning of those words and thought that they were quite appropriate. I guess people often just assume that these words have negative connotations because they’re more commonly used with that purpose. However, ignorance is not knowing and yes, the Native Americans were unknowledgeable about a lot of new things that the Europeans brought over. Plus savage, derived from the Latin word silvaticus simply means of the woods. But even though Tocqueville gave quite a well-rounded and “fair” description of the Native Americans, they were nevertheless very much misunderstood. Because people were ignorant themselves about the Indians, they feared them. Fear of the unknown causes many misconceptions AND this of course made me think about Pocahontas and how her tale was a good representation of the American experiment into the New World. But instead of retelling her story, which I’m sure you are all familiar with, I wanted to spend more time looking at the lyrics of Disney’s Colors of the Wind. It brings up a lot of good points about how Europeans could be looked at by the Native Americans in a similar light. To them, Europeans were just as ignorant; ignorant to nature, values, and certain traditions. To them, Europeans only saw nature as a means to profit from. They didn’t understand or appreciate it the same way. Although the explorers talked about the Indians as uncivilized people, I think that like Tocqueville said, they were indifferent to technology and the fancy clothes. I always thought that the Indians chose not to develop a more “civilized” life simply because tradition was such an important aspect of their lives.

Basically, in this post, I just want to make people think about the American experiment from two points of view, not only from the European side that we are used to reading about. Enjoy the Pocahontas video above and think about the lyrics and how the Indians felt about the Europeans that looked at them and their land as an experiment to be toyed with and claimed.

Was the Declaration of Independence Plagiarized?

After reading, really attentively reading the Declaration of Independence for class the other day I realized it was practically a rip-off of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. In the first paragraph the framers reference Locke's "Law of Nature" which is the idea that all men are born sovereign unto themselves outside of the jurisdiction of a governing system. One does not come under the control of the government without express consent. Consent being another of Locke's focal points. Even the most popular phrase in the Declaration, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a direct nod to Locke's three essentials, life, liberty, and property (for those that know Locke, property makes Locke very happy).

The very nature of the Declaration of Independence, as I have stated in class, is at its core, Locke's vision brought to life. Locke depicts a system of the government in which, "all power given with trust for the attaining of an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those who gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security" (Locke, 78).

I don't remember seeing a work cited page or even a footnote on the Declaration of Independence that mentioned that practically all of the background information was plucked from a 100 year old document. So not only did the authors of the Declaration of Independence commit treason but they also plagiarized one of the most important documents in American History.

The March of Democracy

I found it interesting that the spread of democracy was described as being willed by God, something perfectly natural. This should entail that the spread of democracy should be favorable for all, people should welcome democracy with open arms. I argue that this is not the case. If it is natural and willed by God, then why didn’t wasn’t it more prevalent in Europe way before America was even known to exist. I believe that the march of democracy is much more appropriate to describe democracy’s history of spreading. In America the spread of democracy was never peaceful, and it ruined the lives of many people, namely the Native Americans. First, this spread of democracy was initiated by a war between the colonies and Britain. A war is certainly not a “natural” and “God willed” way for democracy to start. As violent as the spread was at the beginning, it continued in such fashion till today. A perfect example is the war in Iraq. It seems as though every where democracy has spread to, it has needed to be implemented with war and bloodshed. This seems to me to be the opposite of a natural and peaceful spread democracy, rather a forceful entrance of something clearly unwelcome.