Passage:
Unless it can be proven to me—to me as I am now, today, with my heart and my beard, and my putrefaction—that, in the infinite run it does not matter a jot that a North American girl child named Dolores Haze had been deprived of her childhood by a maniac, unless this can be proven (and if it can, life is a joke) I see nothing for the treatment of my misery but the melancholy and very local palliative of articulate art.
Explained by Sparknote:
In this sentence, located at the end of Chapter 31, Part Two, Humbert clearly notes the tragedy of Lolita’s destroyed childhood. Until now, Humbert has been selfishly unconcerned with anything but keeping Lolita. He has also been blind to her as a person. Though he has provided the reader with many clues to her personality, he himself can see her as anything other than the object of his desire. Initially, he had some reservations about taking away Lolita’s “purity.” However, he overcomes these reservations, as he does in all instances where morality conflicts with his desires. However, Humbert does not clarify whether the “maniac” in the quote is himself or Quilty, suggesting the existence of a deeper layer of self-doubt and self-loathing. Though he does frequently allude to the fact that he was an inadequate and failed father, Humbert nonetheless points to Quilty as the real destroyer of Lolita’s innocence. Even in the face of self-awareness, Humbert does not take full responsibility for his actions.
In class notes:
( Ennui )
The defense of the dark arts class everyone.
Talk about Values in your response and discuss the quotation also. Be very specific and narrow in on the quotation. 
I chose this quotation for class because I believe it shows who Humbert truly is. It explains how he thinks and acts. It talks about his emotion other then the lust and passion he has for ‘lolita’. He doesn’t feel pity that he took her away from everything she could’ve been. The passion of desire is the strongest key when it comes to understand this character. He is selfish. He never really asks her what she wants until she is enrolled in a school play. Even so, he hesitated and they discussed the subject. He see’s her as a prize. A gold trophy. His obsession is all about prize, glory, and power. It’s an obsession. Luckily for him everything worked out. It drove him insane that he couldn’t have her when her mother was around. So she died. His thoughts about murdering her was, so to say, intense. Although fate did her in and he won his prize nothing was second guessed. You must also keep in mind that this entire story you’re believing is from him, the obsessed winner, the ‘crazy’. Can you believe him? Can you trust him? Although he sounds convincing, and it’s nothing too out of the ordinary you must keep in mind what he is capable of doing. He has convinced others before. Believing him I feel is like asking someone to stab me in the back. The story can be believed and yes, people do think like this (scary enough) but they are also masters of manipulation. Even though Lolita ran away with her ‘one true love’ and became pregnant she still called him for help and advice. He was still manipulating her even though she ran away so he couldn’t anymore. It’s human nature to go back to people that we know even if we think they are the scum of the earth. We are creatures who give second chances to those who we think deserve them even if they show no sign that they deserve it. He also had a huge impact on her. When a child is between the ages of 10-16 those are the most valuable times, especially for a girl. Humbert had ruined her perception on men. Look who she ran away with. A man who wanted to do pornography while she was pregnant and then left her before she gave birth. Doesn’t sound like much of a change. Manipulation had occurred again in her life. She was again a victim of a over powering male figure. Studies has shown that a father figure and a mother figure is the key role in any child’s life. She never had a solid one. Her mother married a maniac. A maniac kidnapped her and drove her around the country. Then lucky for her she finds one in the school play. Then he leaves her and she goes back to the only person she knows to get money. While he then kills the father of the unborn child and he was sent to jail. Then she dies while giving birth, and he dies in jail. It shows the power of humanity. It shows the circle of life. It also shows a spiritual belief. Maybe they were never suppose to live past the day the child was born. Maybe it’s a sign to show that they did enough damage to their selves and to each other that this child needs to start new. Even so, I still keep in mind that this is still being told by the man who manipulated plenty of woman and destroyed lives.
Revised:
I chose this quotation for class because I believe it shows who Humbert truly is. It explains how he thinks and acts. It talks about his emotion other then the lust and passion he has for ‘Lolita’. He doesn’t feel pity that he took her away from everything she could’ve been. The passion of desire is the strongest key when it comes to understand this character. He is selfish. He never really asks her what she wants until she is enrolled in a school play. Even so, he hesitated and they discussed the subject. He see’s her as a prize, a gold trophy. His obsession is all about prize, glory, and power. It’s an obsession. Luckily for him everything worked out. It drove him insane that he couldn’t have her when her mother was around. So she died. His thoughts about murdering her were, so to say, intense. Although fate did her in and he won his prize nothing was second-guessed. You must also keep in mind that this entire story you believe is from him, the obsessed winner, and the ‘crazy’. Can you believe him? Can you trust him? Although he sounds convincing, and it’s nothing too out of the ordinary you must keep in mind what he is capable of doing. He has convinced others before. Believing him I feel is like asking someone to stab me in the back. The story can be believed and yes, people do think like this (scary enough) but they are also masters of manipulation. Even though Lolita ran away with her ‘one true love’ and became pregnant she still called him for help and advice. He was still manipulating her even though she ran away so he ‘couldn’t anymore’. He also had a huge impact on her. When a child is between the ages of 10-16 those are the most valuable times, especially for a girl. Humbert had ruined her perception on men. Look who she ran away with. A man who wanted to do pornography while she was pregnant and then left her before she gave birth. Doesn’t sound like much of a change. Manipulation had occurred again in her life. She was again a victim of an over powering male figure. Studies had shown that a father figure and a mother figure is the key role in any child’s life. She never had a solid one. Her mother married a maniac. A maniac kidnapped her and drove her around the country claiming that it was for educational purpose. Then lucky for her she finds someone in the school play. Then he leaves her and she goes back to the only person she knows to get money. While he then kills the father of the unborn child and he was sent to jail. Then she dies while giving birth, and he dies in jail. It shows the power of humanity. It shows the circle of life. It also shows a spiritual belief. Maybe they were never supposed to live past the day the child was born. Maybe it’s a sign to show that they did enough damage to their selves and to each other that this child needs to start new. Even so, I still keep in mind that this is still being told by the man who manipulated plenty of woman and destroyed lives.

Passage:

Unless it can be proven to me—to me as I am now, today, with my heart and my beard, and my putrefaction—that, in the infinite run it does not matter a jot that a North American girl child named Dolores Haze had been deprived of her childhood by a maniac, unless this can be proven (and if it can, life is a joke) I see nothing for the treatment of my misery but the melancholy and very local palliative of articulate art.

Explained by Sparknote:

In this sentence, located at the end of Chapter 31, Part Two, Humbert clearly notes the tragedy of Lolita’s destroyed childhood. Until now, Humbert has been selfishly unconcerned with anything but keeping Lolita. He has also been blind to her as a person. Though he has provided the reader with many clues to her personality, he himself can see her as anything other than the object of his desire. Initially, he had some reservations about taking away Lolita’s “purity.” However, he overcomes these reservations, as he does in all instances where morality conflicts with his desires. However, Humbert does not clarify whether the “maniac” in the quote is himself or Quilty, suggesting the existence of a deeper layer of self-doubt and self-loathing. Though he does frequently allude to the fact that he was an inadequate and failed father, Humbert nonetheless points to Quilty as the real destroyer of Lolita’s innocence. Even in the face of self-awareness, Humbert does not take full responsibility for his actions.

In class notes:

  • ( Ennui )
  • The defense of the dark arts class everyone.
  • Talk about Values in your response and discuss the quotation also. Be very specific and narrow in on the quotation. 

I chose this quotation for class because I believe it shows who Humbert truly is. It explains how he thinks and acts. It talks about his emotion other then the lust and passion he has for ‘lolita’. He doesn’t feel pity that he took her away from everything she could’ve been. The passion of desire is the strongest key when it comes to understand this character. He is selfish. He never really asks her what she wants until she is enrolled in a school play. Even so, he hesitated and they discussed the subject. He see’s her as a prize. A gold trophy. His obsession is all about prize, glory, and power. It’s an obsession. Luckily for him everything worked out. It drove him insane that he couldn’t have her when her mother was around. So she died. His thoughts about murdering her was, so to say, intense. Although fate did her in and he won his prize nothing was second guessed. You must also keep in mind that this entire story you’re believing is from him, the obsessed winner, the ‘crazy’. Can you believe him? Can you trust him? Although he sounds convincing, and it’s nothing too out of the ordinary you must keep in mind what he is capable of doing. He has convinced others before. Believing him I feel is like asking someone to stab me in the back. The story can be believed and yes, people do think like this (scary enough) but they are also masters of manipulation. Even though Lolita ran away with her ‘one true love’ and became pregnant she still called him for help and advice. He was still manipulating her even though she ran away so he couldn’t anymore. It’s human nature to go back to people that we know even if we think they are the scum of the earth. We are creatures who give second chances to those who we think deserve them even if they show no sign that they deserve it. He also had a huge impact on her. When a child is between the ages of 10-16 those are the most valuable times, especially for a girl. Humbert had ruined her perception on men. Look who she ran away with. A man who wanted to do pornography while she was pregnant and then left her before she gave birth. Doesn’t sound like much of a change. Manipulation had occurred again in her life. She was again a victim of a over powering male figure. Studies has shown that a father figure and a mother figure is the key role in any child’s life. She never had a solid one. Her mother married a maniac. A maniac kidnapped her and drove her around the country. Then lucky for her she finds one in the school play. Then he leaves her and she goes back to the only person she knows to get money. While he then kills the father of the unborn child and he was sent to jail. Then she dies while giving birth, and he dies in jail. It shows the power of humanity. It shows the circle of life. It also shows a spiritual belief. Maybe they were never suppose to live past the day the child was born. Maybe it’s a sign to show that they did enough damage to their selves and to each other that this child needs to start new. Even so, I still keep in mind that this is still being told by the man who manipulated plenty of woman and destroyed lives.

Revised:

I chose this quotation for class because I believe it shows who Humbert truly is. It explains how he thinks and acts. It talks about his emotion other then the lust and passion he has for ‘Lolita’. He doesn’t feel pity that he took her away from everything she could’ve been. The passion of desire is the strongest key when it comes to understand this character. He is selfish. He never really asks her what she wants until she is enrolled in a school play. Even so, he hesitated and they discussed the subject. He see’s her as a prize, a gold trophy. His obsession is all about prize, glory, and power. It’s an obsession. Luckily for him everything worked out. It drove him insane that he couldn’t have her when her mother was around. So she died. His thoughts about murdering her were, so to say, intense. Although fate did her in and he won his prize nothing was second-guessed. You must also keep in mind that this entire story you believe is from him, the obsessed winner, and the ‘crazy’. Can you believe him? Can you trust him? Although he sounds convincing, and it’s nothing too out of the ordinary you must keep in mind what he is capable of doing. He has convinced others before. Believing him I feel is like asking someone to stab me in the back. The story can be believed and yes, people do think like this (scary enough) but they are also masters of manipulation. Even though Lolita ran away with her ‘one true love’ and became pregnant she still called him for help and advice. He was still manipulating her even though she ran away so he ‘couldn’t anymore’. He also had a huge impact on her. When a child is between the ages of 10-16 those are the most valuable times, especially for a girl. Humbert had ruined her perception on men. Look who she ran away with. A man who wanted to do pornography while she was pregnant and then left her before she gave birth. Doesn’t sound like much of a change. Manipulation had occurred again in her life. She was again a victim of an over powering male figure. Studies had shown that a father figure and a mother figure is the key role in any child’s life. She never had a solid one. Her mother married a maniac. A maniac kidnapped her and drove her around the country claiming that it was for educational purpose. Then lucky for her she finds someone in the school play. Then he leaves her and she goes back to the only person she knows to get money. While he then kills the father of the unborn child and he was sent to jail. Then she dies while giving birth, and he dies in jail. It shows the power of humanity. It shows the circle of life. It also shows a spiritual belief. Maybe they were never supposed to live past the day the child was born. Maybe it’s a sign to show that they did enough damage to their selves and to each other that this child needs to start new. Even so, I still keep in mind that this is still being told by the man who manipulated plenty of woman and destroyed lives.

Interview with the Vampire is the first novel in Rice’s Vampire Chronicles, and is actually narrated by the vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac to a reporter as he tells the story of how he became a vampire. Distraught over the death of his wife, Louis turns to Lestat to be released from his Hell on Earth missing his wife, and instead is taken to what is to him everlasting hell, life as a vampire. Louis leaves his home and follows Lestat, although he is unable to deal at many points with this life as a blood drinker, instead turning to rats and other small animals rather than humans for the blood he needs. Going through a section of town that is quarrantined because of the plague, they find a little girl, Claudia, sitting with her dead mother. Lestat does the unthinkable, creating a child vampire; a vampire who will gain the knowledge of an adult for eternity but lack the size and strength and body that she needs. Claudia, Louis, and Lestat live together as a tiny vampire family for decades, with Lestat treating Claudia as a small child, and Louis acting more as a surrogate father and then friend, though her maturity and intellect become that of an adult. Years of dolls given on her birthday, and her frustration at her fate leave her to turn against her Maker, and, with Louis’ reluctant assistance, Claudia attacks Lestat, and then Claudia burns Lestat’s house down, apparently killing Lestat. Louis and Claudia then journey to Paris with another vampire created to be a caretaker for Claudia, where they believe they will find another group of vampires, and encounter Armand and Santiago, vampires even older than Lestat who perform as a theater troup. Armand wants Louis all to himself, and incensed at the creation of a child vampire, has Claudia and her caretaker killed. Louis then kills all the vampires in the troupe as revenge for their killing of Claudia. Unlike many of the novels that follow this book in the series, Interview with the Vampire is a deep, philosophical book. In Louis’ recounting of his story to the skeptical reporter, he ponders the nature of good and evil, and his own role in how his life as a vampire has played out. Louis has a melancholy, a resignment to his fate, that makes him a very sympathetic character. We see his inability to take a human life, and turning instead to the rats rather than do what to him is abhorrent. In comparison to the demanding and evil Lestat, Louis functions as the force of good in the novel. His love and care for Claudia, following her reluctantly even as she decides to kill Lestat make him the most human of vampires, which even Lestat keeps pointing out. 
One thing most people agree on is that Interview with the Vampire isn’t a fast-paced book. However, Rice’s writing still makes it an easy and fast read, and her characterizations are excellent. The reason that many readers were disappointed when the movie was released was that the casting was all wrong. Armand is a young boy vampire, just skirting the edges of manhood when he was created. Lestat is a gorgeous and powerful vampire, but his evil is always simmering near the surface. The lush descriptions of the French Quarter and the back alleys of Paris when Armand and his troupe live are easily pictured in the minds of the readers. The main reason that the Vampire Chronicles have been so successful is because of the legion of fans that was created out of this one book. While I have read each novel in succession, none has ever struck quite the same nerve that this first tale did, and Louis still remains my favorite of the vampires. While many of the subsequent Chronicles are take-it or leave-it quality, Interview with the Vampire is still a must-read. 
Screenplay-Interview with a Vampire
Reading the screenplay on Interview with a Vampire brings me to see images of the film. It’s direct. You can see every fading scene that is mentioned. You see their facial expressions while you see their movement. I wouldn’t want a different cast nor ever suggest a cast other then the actors and actress who partakes in this film. I have never been attached to a ‘vampire film’ in all my years. I’ve watched the film when I was younger but haven’t seen it much since. I’ve read the book last year in class for the first time. I’ve now read the screenplay for this now. After reading the screenplay I went back and watched the film. All I could see was the words describing the stunning film. I’d rather read the screenplay then the novel. I like the idea of reading the parts where they fade in and out of scene’s, when the introduce a character, describing small details that are so important to the film. I wouldn’t change much of this. Actually, I’d rather keep it the same. I don’t understand why anyone would. Then again I am not a film major and I do not understand all the technical difficulties to creating a film from a award winning novelist. The theme of the novel, and the film go so well together. Describing it in the screenplay I was anxious to see. The settings of Louisiana in New Orleans is beautiful. It’s dark and gloomy. It’s sad, depressing, and exciting. The character’s that were used that were not main characters were perfect for the part. Overall everything meshed well together. After reading the following review from a critic (click on the image for the page) you can tell it is the best from the novelist. So the pressure must’ve been on for the director when creating the film. I am so happy it came out so well. After reading the novel and screenplay and then seeing the film it is one of the best well put together film. As I say that I mean it by connecting to the novel well. Usually they cut out a lot of the details and they didn’t do such a hacking job at this. They left a lot in. Which makes any novel fan happy. 

Interview with the Vampire is the first novel in Rice’s Vampire Chronicles, and is actually narrated by the vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac to a reporter as he tells the story of how he became a vampire. Distraught over the death of his wife, Louis turns to Lestat to be released from his Hell on Earth missing his wife, and instead is taken to what is to him everlasting hell, life as a vampire. Louis leaves his home and follows Lestat, although he is unable to deal at many points with this life as a blood drinker, instead turning to rats and other small animals rather than humans for the blood he needs. 

Going through a section of town that is quarrantined because of the plague, they find a little girl, Claudia, sitting with her dead mother. Lestat does the unthinkable, creating a child vampire; a vampire who will gain the knowledge of an adult for eternity but lack the size and strength and body that she needs. Claudia, Louis, and Lestat live together as a tiny vampire family for decades, with Lestat treating Claudia as a small child, and Louis acting more as a surrogate father and then friend, though her maturity and intellect become that of an adult. Years of dolls given on her birthday, and her frustration at her fate leave her to turn against her Maker, and, with Louis’ reluctant assistance, Claudia attacks Lestat, and then Claudia burns Lestat’s house down, apparently killing Lestat. 

Louis and Claudia then journey to Paris with another vampire created to be a caretaker for Claudia, where they believe they will find another group of vampires, and encounter Armand and Santiago, vampires even older than Lestat who perform as a theater troup. Armand wants Louis all to himself, and incensed at the creation of a child vampire, has Claudia and her caretaker killed. Louis then kills all the vampires in the troupe as revenge for their killing of Claudia. 

Unlike many of the novels that follow this book in the series, Interview with the Vampire is a deep, philosophical book. In Louis’ recounting of his story to the skeptical reporter, he ponders the nature of good and evil, and his own role in how his life as a vampire has played out. 

Louis has a melancholy, a resignment to his fate, that makes him a very sympathetic character. We see his inability to take a human life, and turning instead to the rats rather than do what to him is abhorrent. In comparison to the demanding and evil Lestat, Louis functions as the force of good in the novel. His love and care for Claudia, following her reluctantly even as she decides to kill Lestat make him the most human of vampires, which even Lestat keeps pointing out. 

One thing most people agree on is that Interview with the Vampire isn’t a fast-paced book. However, Rice’s writing still makes it an easy and fast read, and her characterizations are excellent. The reason that many readers were disappointed when the movie was released was that the casting was all wrong. Armand is a young boy vampire, just skirting the edges of manhood when he was created. Lestat is a gorgeous and powerful vampire, but his evil is always simmering near the surface. The lush descriptions of the French Quarter and the back alleys of Paris when Armand and his troupe live are easily pictured in the minds of the readers. 

The main reason that the Vampire Chronicles have been so successful is because of the legion of fans that was created out of this one book. While I have read each novel in succession, none has ever struck quite the same nerve that this first tale did, and Louis still remains my favorite of the vampires. 

While many of the subsequent Chronicles are take-it or leave-it quality, Interview with the Vampire is still a must-read. 

Screenplay-Interview with a Vampire

Reading the screenplay on Interview with a Vampire brings me to see images of the film. It’s direct. You can see every fading scene that is mentioned. You see their facial expressions while you see their movement. I wouldn’t want a different cast nor ever suggest a cast other then the actors and actress who partakes in this film. I have never been attached to a ‘vampire film’ in all my years. I’ve watched the film when I was younger but haven’t seen it much since. I’ve read the book last year in class for the first time. I’ve now read the screenplay for this now. After reading the screenplay I went back and watched the film. All I could see was the words describing the stunning film. I’d rather read the screenplay then the novel. I like the idea of reading the parts where they fade in and out of scene’s, when the introduce a character, describing small details that are so important to the film. I wouldn’t change much of this. Actually, I’d rather keep it the same. I don’t understand why anyone would. Then again I am not a film major and I do not understand all the technical difficulties to creating a film from a award winning novelist. The theme of the novel, and the film go so well together. Describing it in the screenplay I was anxious to see. The settings of Louisiana in New Orleans is beautiful. It’s dark and gloomy. It’s sad, depressing, and exciting. The character’s that were used that were not main characters were perfect for the part. Overall everything meshed well together. After reading the following review from a critic (click on the image for the page) you can tell it is the best from the novelist. So the pressure must’ve been on for the director when creating the film. I am so happy it came out so well. After reading the novel and screenplay and then seeing the film it is one of the best well put together film. As I say that I mean it by connecting to the novel well. Usually they cut out a lot of the details and they didn’t do such a hacking job at this. They left a lot in. Which makes any novel fan happy. 

Personal Response: I think it’s interesting that a bunch of art students read this. I mean, it’s a painter who gets a job in hollywood. A man who doesn’t do what he attended to do was now in hollywood making money on costume makeup while painting on the side. The irony from the title of the painting and how the novel ends it’s sort of hilarious. If you ever been to hollywood (speaking of the 1990’s-previous) you’d see that it was dirty, boring, not all the glamour that everyone thinks it to be. I wouldn’t know how it was back then, i’m sure it was nicer considering the circumstances on how people treated other’s. The Biblical allusions and the symbols, metaphor’s in this novel i really did enjoy. I wouldn’t like it as much if they weren’t inside the novel. I find Biblical allusions interesting. Overall I wouldn’t say it was my favorite novel to read thus far. It wasn’t boring, and I didn’t want to smack my head against anything either. So overall I’d say it was alright.

Review:

Welcome to Hollywood circa 1939, the land of the ones with dead eyes who wander the sunny streets and frequent the gaudy hotels while on the prowl for the decaying dream of Mae West, Shirley Temple, and Clark Gable.
Meet Tod Hackett, the narrator and painter who does work for one of the many studios in tinsel town. Like too many people, Tod came out to Hollywood to make some money and it big. So far, he’s hacking it. He likes to keep a distance from most people and he has a painting called “The Burning of Los Angeles” that he works on to keep sane.
Meet Faye Greener, Tod’s object of defection. She dreams of being in pictures and she’s forever read for her close-up, Mr. DeMille. Faye lives with her father, Harry, who sells overpriced, homemade polish to get into strangers’ houses and force them to watch his once-reviewed clown act. He’s a failed actor. One of Tod’s few successful friends is Claude, a screenwriter. Tod’s last friend is an arrogant dwarf.
Tod’s problems are Earle, a tall, handsome cowboy who Faye thinks is just dandy, and Earle’s henchman, a Mexican and a dedicated cock fighter who knows how to dirty dance.
“Go West, young man.”
Nathanael West died in a car accident in 1940, at the age of thirty-seven. The legend is that he was rushing to get to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s funeral.
Although not much appreciated in his lifetime, West’s novels began to gain recognition in the fifties. Today he is well regarded — The Day of the Locust appears on the Modern Library’s list of best novels as well as on Time magazine’s recent Top 100 — and considered a permanent part of America’s literary canon, but many people still don’t take warmly to his manic, modernist style.
I think West is one of the best writers I’ve read. His novels are short, inelegant and yet logical — in an Animaniacs kind of way. They’re crammed with ideas, witticisms, observations, and un-hackneyed emotion. They take big themes and express them through small, larger-than-life characters. They don’t preach.
Homer Simpson
One of the important characters in the novel is named Homer Simpson. I’m not sure if the Matt Groening had him in mind when creating the The Simpsons, but there are a few similarities between West’s book and the television show: both Homer Simpson characters are dumb, good-natured oafs; both have the peculiar quality of always being out of their elements; and both the novel and the cartoon have a sardonic, incisive flavour of funny.
Love is a Four-Letter Word
Whatever love may be, in West’s degenerated Hollywood, it’s quite simple. It’s often expressed as a fantasy, in a cheap restaurant, and alone. Sometimes the waiter interferes and there’s no climax; other times it works just swell.

If only he had the courage to wait for her some night and hit her with a bottle and rape her.

That’s Tod speaking. He’s the hero of the novel. He’s just being honest. And West, he’s just being cynical, brutal and honest — like always.


In class notes:
1939 
theatre is owned by the studios.
only a few that are independent.
giant organs inside theatre’s
news reel-companies filming events into the movie chains before the film
cartoons
60-90 minute shorts that are the B features
television destroys the theatre (1955)
theatre’s are the only one with air conditioning 
Nathaneal West
fake transcript in college
Nathan Weinstein 
Brown University
never could go into a fraternity for being jewish
worked as a hotel clerk
friends with Dorthy Parker
died in a car crash with his wife
The Dream Life of Balso Snell
 surrealist novel
A Cool Million
optimistic 
going through life losing parts of himself.
Miss Lonelyhearts
A guy that takes over a gossip column
Five Came Back
most famous movie he wrote
West and Eileen Mckenney
not a very successful novelist
no popular reputation
Eileen’s sister written a play about the adventures in new york
called my sister Eileen
car crash before things took off
The Day of the Locust
Story structure
beginning-middle-end
middle would be the exposition
beginning would be the introduction-setting,character
violates the rules
the painting starts in the beginning and comes back in the ending
Characters
Faye Greener
Tod Hackett
Homer’s House
the book is all about landscape.
the painting represents throughout the book
paintings can’t have story structure so the book doesn’t have story structure

Personal Response: I think it’s interesting that a bunch of art students read this. I mean, it’s a painter who gets a job in hollywood. A man who doesn’t do what he attended to do was now in hollywood making money on costume makeup while painting on the side. The irony from the title of the painting and how the novel ends it’s sort of hilarious. If you ever been to hollywood (speaking of the 1990’s-previous) you’d see that it was dirty, boring, not all the glamour that everyone thinks it to be. I wouldn’t know how it was back then, i’m sure it was nicer considering the circumstances on how people treated other’s. The Biblical allusions and the symbols, metaphor’s in this novel i really did enjoy. I wouldn’t like it as much if they weren’t inside the novel. I find Biblical allusions interesting. Overall I wouldn’t say it was my favorite novel to read thus far. It wasn’t boring, and I didn’t want to smack my head against anything either. So overall I’d say it was alright.

Review:

Welcome to Hollywood circa 1939, the land of the ones with dead eyes who wander the sunny streets and frequent the gaudy hotels while on the prowl for the decaying dream of Mae West, Shirley Temple, and Clark Gable.

Meet Tod Hackett, the narrator and painter who does work for one of the many studios in tinsel town. Like too many people, Tod came out to Hollywood to make some money and it big. So far, he’s hacking it. He likes to keep a distance from most people and he has a painting called “The Burning of Los Angeles” that he works on to keep sane.

Meet Faye Greener, Tod’s object of defection. She dreams of being in pictures and she’s forever read for her close-up, Mr. DeMille. Faye lives with her father, Harry, who sells overpriced, homemade polish to get into strangers’ houses and force them to watch his once-reviewed clown act. He’s a failed actor. One of Tod’s few successful friends is Claude, a screenwriter. Tod’s last friend is an arrogant dwarf.

Tod’s problems are Earle, a tall, handsome cowboy who Faye thinks is just dandy, and Earle’s henchman, a Mexican and a dedicated cock fighter who knows how to dirty dance.

“Go West, young man.”

Nathanael West died in a car accident in 1940, at the age of thirty-seven. The legend is that he was rushing to get to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s funeral.

Although not much appreciated in his lifetime, West’s novels began to gain recognition in the fifties. Today he is well regarded — The Day of the Locust appears on the Modern Library’s list of best novels as well as on Time magazine’s recent Top 100 — and considered a permanent part of America’s literary canon, but many people still don’t take warmly to his manic, modernist style.

I think West is one of the best writers I’ve read. His novels are short, inelegant and yet logical — in an Animaniacs kind of way. They’re crammed with ideas, witticisms, observations, and un-hackneyed emotion. They take big themes and express them through small, larger-than-life characters. They don’t preach.

Homer Simpson

One of the important characters in the novel is named Homer Simpson. I’m not sure if the Matt Groening had him in mind when creating the The Simpsons, but there are a few similarities between West’s book and the television show: both Homer Simpson characters are dumb, good-natured oafs; both have the peculiar quality of always being out of their elements; and both the novel and the cartoon have a sardonic, incisive flavour of funny.

Love is a Four-Letter Word

Whatever love may be, in West’s degenerated Hollywood, it’s quite simple. It’s often expressed as a fantasy, in a cheap restaurant, and alone. Sometimes the waiter interferes and there’s no climax; other times it works just swell.

If only he had the courage to wait for her some night and hit her with a bottle and rape her.

That’s Tod speaking. He’s the hero of the novel. He’s just being honest. And West, he’s just being cynical, brutal and honest — like always.

In class notes:

  • 1939 
  • theatre is owned by the studios.
  • only a few that are independent.
  • giant organs inside theatre’s
  • news reel-companies filming events into the movie chains before the film
  • cartoons
  • 60-90 minute shorts that are the B features
  • television destroys the theatre (1955)
  • theatre’s are the only one with air conditioning 

Nathaneal West

  • fake transcript in college
  • Nathan Weinstein 
  • Brown University
  • never could go into a fraternity for being jewish
  • worked as a hotel clerk
  • friends with Dorthy Parker
  • died in a car crash with his wife

The Dream Life of Balso Snell

  •  surrealist novel

A Cool Million

  • optimistic 
  • going through life losing parts of himself.

Miss Lonelyhearts

  • A guy that takes over a gossip column

Five Came Back

  • most famous movie he wrote

West and Eileen Mckenney

  • not a very successful novelist
  • no popular reputation
  • Eileen’s sister written a play about the adventures in new york
  • called my sister Eileen
  • car crash before things took off

The Day of the Locust

  1. Story structure
  • beginning-middle-end
  • middle would be the exposition
  • beginning would be the introduction-setting,character
  • violates the rules
  • the painting starts in the beginning and comes back in the ending
  1. Characters
  • Faye Greener
  • Tod Hackett
  1. Homer’s House
  • the book is all about landscape.
  • the painting represents throughout the book
  • paintings can’t have story structure so the book doesn’t have story structure
Review: "The book’s insights into issues like sexual abuse, infidelity, the corporate glass ceiling, drug experimentation and sexual double standards are surprisingly modern….This is a refreshing entry for the genre, mercifully devoid of the moralistic and cautionary elements common in much 1950s pulp." Publishers Weekly
Personal Response:
I honestly love reading pulp fiction. For the fact that it’s feminist based. Three girls moving to New York is inspirational. Especially around the time that was described int he novel. Many woman couldn’t just walk away and be dependent on themselves. Which in my case I think is sad. In today’s world many girls in the younger age feel the same which is crazy. Since I was young I have always been career driven. I never worried about a husband / boyfriend. I never worried about making a family or dying ‘alone’. It’s sad for the girls who need a man by their side. A lot of the readers find that the lesbian having one of the most happiest endings in the novel is the best part. Since people being homosexual is such a big thing even in today’s society it’s refreshing hearing a good tale. Unlike the broadway show rent where the only gay guy dies from STD’s. A lot fo people believe that pulp fiction can be uplifting and inspirational. Some may think that it’s crazy for people to believe that considering that sometimes it can get very depressing. I really enjoyed this. I rather have a list to pick from then a specific book to read. 

Review: "The book’s insights into issues like sexual abuse, infidelity, the corporate glass ceiling, drug experimentation and sexual double standards are surprisingly modern….This is a refreshing entry for the genre, mercifully devoid of the moralistic and cautionary elements common in much 1950s pulp." Publishers Weekly

Personal Response:

I honestly love reading pulp fiction. For the fact that it’s feminist based. Three girls moving to New York is inspirational. Especially around the time that was described int he novel. Many woman couldn’t just walk away and be dependent on themselves. Which in my case I think is sad. In today’s world many girls in the younger age feel the same which is crazy. Since I was young I have always been career driven. I never worried about a husband / boyfriend. I never worried about making a family or dying ‘alone’. It’s sad for the girls who need a man by their side. A lot of the readers find that the lesbian having one of the most happiest endings in the novel is the best part. Since people being homosexual is such a big thing even in today’s society it’s refreshing hearing a good tale. Unlike the broadway show rent where the only gay guy dies from STD’s. A lot fo people believe that pulp fiction can be uplifting and inspirational. Some may think that it’s crazy for people to believe that considering that sometimes it can get very depressing. I really enjoyed this. I rather have a list to pick from then a specific book to read. 

The mythical country of Freedonia is broke and on the verge of revolution. Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont), Freedonia’s principal benefactress, will lend the country 20 million dollars if the president withdraws and places the government in the hands of the “fearless, progressive” Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx). At his inauguration, Firefly shows up late, insults everyone in sight, and sings a song about how he intends to abuse his power. Naturally, the crowd cheers wildly. Meanwhile, Ambassador Trentino (Louis Calhern) of neighboring Sylvania schemes to oust Firefly and take over Freedonia himself. To gather enough evidence to discredit Firefly, he sends his most trusted spies, Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx). Five minutes after they show up in Freedonia, both spies become important members of Firefly’s cabinet, though Chicolini keeps his day job as a peanut vendor. Firefly eventually declares war on Sylvania, an absurd farrago with Firefly changing uniforms from scene to scene, Chicolini going to the other side because the food is better, and Pinky parading around the battlefield with a sandwich board reading “Join the army and see the navy.” ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

I didn’t follow this at all. I tried watching the film as long as reading the novel and it just didn’t go together for me. I was so confused with the characters names to the story line. I know that sometimes I have an issue with these situations and I’ve been doing good so far but this time I just completely lost it. I’m not sure where the story was trying to take me. I understood how there was war and secret documents but I didn’t understand the fact on why it was going on. I didn’t know when it was going on. I couldn’t describe where, what, why, who, how. I didn’t have enough clues. I wasn’t following the story. It drove me insane knowing that i couldn’t place the story anywhere. It wasn’t my favorite read. I wish that it was easier to understand. Maybe it’s just not a type of literature I can read. Sometimes you have that.

The mythical country of Freedonia is broke and on the verge of revolution. Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont), Freedonia’s principal benefactress, will lend the country 20 million dollars if the president withdraws and places the government in the hands of the “fearless, progressive” Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx). At his inauguration, Firefly shows up late, insults everyone in sight, and sings a song about how he intends to abuse his power. Naturally, the crowd cheers wildly. Meanwhile, Ambassador Trentino (Louis Calhern) of neighboring Sylvania schemes to oust Firefly and take over Freedonia himself. To gather enough evidence to discredit Firefly, he sends his most trusted spies, Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx). Five minutes after they show up in Freedonia, both spies become important members of Firefly’s cabinet, though Chicolini keeps his day job as a peanut vendor. Firefly eventually declares war on Sylvania, an absurd farrago with Firefly changing uniforms from scene to scene, Chicolini going to the other side because the food is better, and Pinky parading around the battlefield with a sandwich board reading “Join the army and see the navy.” ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

I didn’t follow this at all. I tried watching the film as long as reading the novel and it just didn’t go together for me. I was so confused with the characters names to the story line. I know that sometimes I have an issue with these situations and I’ve been doing good so far but this time I just completely lost it. I’m not sure where the story was trying to take me. I understood how there was war and secret documents but I didn’t understand the fact on why it was going on. I didn’t know when it was going on. I couldn’t describe where, what, why, who, how. I didn’t have enough clues. I wasn’t following the story. It drove me insane knowing that i couldn’t place the story anywhere. It wasn’t my favorite read. I wish that it was easier to understand. Maybe it’s just not a type of literature I can read. Sometimes you have that.

coffee. david bowie. monday?

yes, a great week is ahead of me.

Review:
“The philosophical thrust of Fritz Lang’s 1927 Metropolis has all the earmarks of a frenzied moment of “enlightenment” that one gets while under the influence of a hallucinogenic: it seems so PROFOUND in the moment, yet once the drug wears off, you may find yourself thinking, “God, it was so brilliant … why can’t I remember the whole of it? Something about… the heart needing to be the mediator … If only I could share the message I received, the entire world would be different!” It’s that damn Man from Porlock again. Why can’t he leave the inspired alone?”
“Adolf Hitler loved Metropolis, and methinks he might have missed the point that Lang was making: that this was a BAD image of the future, this is NOT where we want to go. Kind of like my friend Beth, who was telling me about a guy she knew, and how he “feltvalidated by Archie Bunker – like, he doesn’t understand irony.” Leni Reifenstahl’s stunningly beautiful-looking and creepy Triumph of the Will, from 1935, showing the events of the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, owes much to Metropolis, with its scenes of athletic events in giant stadiums, a glorification of the body (as in the human body, as well as the body politic), and its message that strength and youth and “togetherness” were the only things valued by Germany at that time. There is a scene in Metropolis that takes place in an intimidating giant stadium, with high unbroken walls surrounding the track and field area, walls that seem to touch the sky, walls topped by giant statues hearkening back to the ancient times, bodies contorted into beautiful alienating poses of athletic prowess. This is an actual set. The camera sits far back, so that the athletes running the race are dwarfed by their surroundings. This type of energy is par for the course in totalitarian and fascist architecture, which is designed to tell the populace: “The State is bigger than you are. Submit.””
http://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=10090

in class notes:
what he has is taken from others
imperialism-some central control and the production of the outline structure is about feeding the central

Review:

The philosophical thrust of Fritz Lang’s 1927 Metropolis has all the earmarks of a frenzied moment of “enlightenment” that one gets while under the influence of a hallucinogenic: it seems so PROFOUND in the moment, yet once the drug wears off, you may find yourself thinking, “God, it was so brilliant … why can’t I remember the whole of it? Something about… the heart needing to be the mediator … If only I could share the message I received, the entire world would be different!” It’s that damn Man from Porlock again. Why can’t he leave the inspired alone?

Adolf Hitler loved Metropolis, and methinks he might have missed the point that Lang was making: that this was a BAD image of the future, this is NOT where we want to go. Kind of like my friend Beth, who was telling me about a guy she knew, and how he “feltvalidated by Archie Bunker – like, he doesn’t understand irony.” Leni Reifenstahl’s stunningly beautiful-looking and creepy Triumph of the Will, from 1935, showing the events of the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, owes much to Metropolis, with its scenes of athletic events in giant stadiums, a glorification of the body (as in the human body, as well as the body politic), and its message that strength and youth and “togetherness” were the only things valued by Germany at that time. There is a scene in Metropolis that takes place in an intimidating giant stadium, with high unbroken walls surrounding the track and field area, walls that seem to touch the sky, walls topped by giant statues hearkening back to the ancient times, bodies contorted into beautiful alienating poses of athletic prowess. This is an actual set. The camera sits far back, so that the athletes running the race are dwarfed by their surroundings. This type of energy is par for the course in totalitarian and fascist architecture, which is designed to tell the populace: “The State is bigger than you are. Submit.”

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=10090

in class notes:

  • what he has is taken from others
  • imperialism-some central control and the production of the outline structure is about feeding the central
Review: “The love triangle is fairly standard teen-read stuff; what 16-year-old girl wouldn’t like to have two interesting guys to choose from? The rest of The Hunger Games, however, is a violent, jarring speed-rap of a novel that generates nearly constant suspense and may also generate a fair amount of controversy. I couldn’t stop reading, and once I got over the main character’s name (Gale calls her Catnip — ugh), I got to like her a lot. And although ”young adult novel” is a dumbbell term I put right up there with ”jumbo shrimp” and ”airline food” in the oxymoron sweepstakes, how many novels so categorized feature one character stung to death by monster wasps and another more or less eaten alive by mutant werewolves? I say more or less because Katniss, a bow-and-arrow Annie Oakley, puts the poor kid out of his misery before the werewolves can get to the prime cuts.
 
Collins is an efficient no-nonsense prose stylist with a pleasantly dry sense of humor. Reading The Hunger Games is as addictive (and as violently simple) as playing one of those shoot-it-if-it-moves videogames in the lobby of the local eightplex; you know it’s not real, but you keep plugging in quarters anyway. Balancing off the efficiency are displays of authorial laziness that kids will accept more readily than adults. When Katniss needs burn cream or medicine for Peeta, whom she more or less babysits during the second half of the book, the stuff floats down from the sky on silver parachutes. And although the bloody action in the arena is televised by multiple cameras, Collins never mentions Katniss seeing one. Also, readers of Battle Royale (by Koushun Takami), The Running Man, or The Long Walk (those latter two by some guy named Bachman) will quickly realize they have visited these TV badlands before.
But since this is the first novel of a projected trilogy, it seems to me that the essential question is whether or not readers will care enough to stick around and find out what comes next for Katniss. I know I will. But then, I also have a habit of playing Time Crisis until all my quarters are gone.”
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0„20419951_20223443,00.html
In class notes:
Binaries:
the districts themselves.
the districts vs the capitol
unofficial alligances within the games itself
mentors and stylists since their lives depended on them
the two main characters competing against one another - love 
they are being owned by the capitol- rebellion 
the sisters-same and different
Priviledge:
competitor in the games
districts have more sympathy 
game makers
author makes them into the victims
cares a lot about prim goes for everyone in the family
the poisonous berries at the end
Oppostions:
katniss Everdeen-Ahmig
president
Peeta
districts between one another
district 13 vs capitol
district 13 vs one another
man vs nation
What is privilege with the text:
one of those oppositions is seemed to be privilege is the most approved in the text
how the heroin is so apparel to her emotion
is that what we should admire about her?
Contradictions in the text:
what’s the effect? - we’re interested in the survival but then we are interested in the glamour. 
her actions from the beginning
game makers control over everything
Katniss & Peeta plays the game and takes that privilege away from them
game makers vs the audience 
Context:
1984
the most dangerous game
gladiator 
battle of royale
tron
brave new world
survivor 
Expectations:
how were they satisfied or reversed?
rebellion how it was expected to rise
justice against the ‘bad people’
none of it is focused on extreme detail
it was written more like a movie then a book
the ending
execution of the text
Suggestions for the book to relate to a movie:
Spartacus 
gladiator 
1984?
brave new world?
Where the privilege comes from?

Personal Response:
Apparently The Hunger Games is the new and upcoming Twilight and Harry Potter. Which as a Harry Potter. I didn’t find it addicting or wanting to read the rest of the novel. The conversation we had in class was a great conversation. The female role that was in place throughout this novel was great but it was terrible. It was a game for trickery. She played with his head and destroyed him. How could one do that? The hunger games reminds me of the Deadliest Catch. I feel it remakes the literature features from that novel in a more younger audience for them to grasp onto the story better. It is remodeled for someone of younger age to dream and wonder if there is a world like that somewhere. Just like how Twilight makes people want Vampires and Werewolves and how people think there are witches and wizard like Harry Potter.  

Review: “The love triangle is fairly standard teen-read stuff; what 16-year-old girl wouldn’t like to have two interesting guys to choose from? The rest of The Hunger Games, however, is a violent, jarring speed-rap of a novel that generates nearly constant suspense and may also generate a fair amount of controversy. I couldn’t stop reading, and once I got over the main character’s name (Gale calls her Catnip — ugh), I got to like her a lot. And although ”young adult novel” is a dumbbell term I put right up there with ”jumbo shrimp” and ”airline food” in the oxymoron sweepstakes, how many novels so categorized feature one character stung to death by monster wasps and another more or less eaten alive by mutant werewolves? I say more or less because Katniss, a bow-and-arrow Annie Oakley, puts the poor kid out of his misery before the werewolves can get to the prime cuts.

Collins is an efficient no-nonsense prose stylist with a pleasantly dry sense of humor. Reading The Hunger Games is as addictive (and as violently simple) as playing one of those shoot-it-if-it-moves videogames in the lobby of the local eightplex; you know it’s not real, but you keep plugging in quarters anyway. Balancing off the efficiency are displays of authorial laziness that kids will accept more readily than adults. When Katniss needs burn cream or medicine for Peeta, whom she more or less babysits during the second half of the book, the stuff floats down from the sky on silver parachutes. And although the bloody action in the arena is televised by multiple cameras, Collins never mentions Katniss seeing one. Also, readers of Battle Royale (by Koushun Takami), The Running Man, or The Long Walk (those latter two by some guy named Bachman) will quickly realize they have visited these TV badlands before.

But since this is the first novel of a projected trilogy, it seems to me that the essential question is whether or not readers will care enough to stick around and find out what comes next for Katniss. I know I will. But then, I also have a habit of playing Time Crisis until all my quarters are gone.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0„20419951_20223443,00.html

In class notes:

Binaries:

  • the districts themselves.
  • the districts vs the capitol
  • unofficial alligances within the games itself
  • mentors and stylists since their lives depended on them
  • the two main characters competing against one another - love 
  • they are being owned by the capitol- rebellion 
  • the sisters-same and different

Priviledge:

  • competitor in the games
  • districts have more sympathy 
  • game makers
  • author makes them into the victims
  • cares a lot about prim goes for everyone in the family
  • the poisonous berries at the end

Oppostions:

  • katniss Everdeen-Ahmig
  • president
  • Peeta
  • districts between one another
  • district 13 vs capitol
  • district 13 vs one another
  • man vs nation

What is privilege with the text:

  • one of those oppositions is seemed to be privilege is the most approved in the text
  • how the heroin is so apparel to her emotion
  • is that what we should admire about her?

Contradictions in the text:

  • what’s the effect? - we’re interested in the survival but then we are interested in the glamour. 
  • her actions from the beginning
  • game makers control over everything
  • Katniss & Peeta plays the game and takes that privilege away from them
  • game makers vs the audience 

Context:

  • 1984
  • the most dangerous game
  • gladiator 
  • battle of royale
  • tron
  • brave new world
  • survivor 

Expectations:

  • how were they satisfied or reversed?
  • rebellion how it was expected to rise
  • justice against the ‘bad people’
  • none of it is focused on extreme detail
  • it was written more like a movie then a book
  • the ending
  • execution of the text

Suggestions for the book to relate to a movie:

  • Spartacus 
  • gladiator 
  • 1984?
  • brave new world?

Where the privilege comes from?

Personal Response:

Apparently The Hunger Games is the new and upcoming Twilight and Harry Potter. Which as a Harry Potter. I didn’t find it addicting or wanting to read the rest of the novel. The conversation we had in class was a great conversation. The female role that was in place throughout this novel was great but it was terrible. It was a game for trickery. She played with his head and destroyed him. How could one do that? The hunger games reminds me of the Deadliest Catch. I feel it remakes the literature features from that novel in a more younger audience for them to grasp onto the story better. It is remodeled for someone of younger age to dream and wonder if there is a world like that somewhere. Just like how Twilight makes people want Vampires and Werewolves and how people think there are witches and wizard like Harry Potter.  

Marx and The Frankfort School:
material life determines consciousness
Economics is the chief form of human alienation
why are we so attached?
classical economics the worker becomes a commodity
Capital is accumulated labor.
If the worker puts his life in the object then it no longer belongs to him, it belongs to the object.
the externalization of the worker in his product means nto only that his work becomes an object an external existence.
"It is not consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness"
Eventually, he believes, capitalism collapses
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"(communist manifesto)
Ideology:
is a set of ideas that constitues one’s goals.
a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.
everything is ideology.
adherence to set of ideals where conformity already exists.
ideology is accepted by you by what is comfortable
it’s what you assume
how do you make it seen?
Antonio Gramsci
Arbereshe
became head of communist part of Italy
Imprisoned 1926
released 1934
poor health died 1937
idea of cultural hegemony as a means to preserve the capitalist state
gramsci suggest maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also ideologically through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeosie became the ‘common sense’ values of all.
Frankfurt School
Max Horkeimer and Theodor Adorno
Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main
Critical of western capitalism and soviet communism favored an alternative path to social development
Critical Theory
aimed to change
began to critic american culture
Dialectics
uncovering the contradictions in presently predominant ideas 
Althusser
ideology has no history: while individual ideologies have histories, interleaved with the general class struggle of society, the general form of ideology is external to history.
practice it.
"Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individual to their real conditions of existence."
middle class- covers up who benefits

Marx and The Frankfort School:

  • material life determines consciousness
  • Economics is the chief form of human alienation
  • why are we so attached?
  • classical economics the worker becomes a commodity
  • Capital is accumulated labor.
  • If the worker puts his life in the object then it no longer belongs to him, it belongs to the object.
  • the externalization of the worker in his product means nto only that his work becomes an object an external existence.
  • "It is not consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness"
  • Eventually, he believes, capitalism collapses
  • "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"(communist manifesto)

Ideology:

  • is a set of ideas that constitues one’s goals.
  • a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.
  • everything is ideology.
  • adherence to set of ideals where conformity already exists.
  • ideology is accepted by you by what is comfortable
  • it’s what you assume
  • how do you make it seen?

Antonio Gramsci

  • Arbereshe
  • became head of communist part of Italy
  • Imprisoned 1926
  • released 1934
  • poor health died 1937
  • idea of cultural hegemony as a means to preserve the capitalist state
  • gramsci suggest maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also ideologically through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeosie became the ‘common sense’ values of all.

Frankfurt School

  • Max Horkeimer and Theodor Adorno
  • Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main
  • Critical of western capitalism and soviet communism favored an alternative path to social development

Critical Theory

  • aimed to change
  • began to critic american culture

Dialectics

  • uncovering the contradictions in presently predominant ideas 

Althusser

  • ideology has no history: while individual ideologies have histories, interleaved with the general class struggle of society, the general form of ideology is external to history.
  • practice it.
  • "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individual to their real conditions of existence."
  • middle class- covers up who benefits
In class notes:
characters represent another metaphor.
personal relationship to ‘Dorthy’
text contradicts one another
not happy with the moral perfection 
they don’t see that they are already brave, heartfelt, and intelligent.
Symbolism-
The tinman and his heart.
the heart represents his emotions to his lover
the scarecrow and his brain
Personal Opinion:
When reading the wizard of Oz I was told that there would be a lot of political and symbolism located throughout the novel. Although when I was younger I never really appreciated the movie. The whole singing and dancing and “Oh no!” moments really get on my nerves. Even when I was reading the book I was just waiting until she met the scarecrow and the lion and the tin-man. I wasn’t expecting such a different aspect between the two. I thought the movie depicted the story to the fullest extent and when I was reading it didn’t at all.
We talked in class on how Frank Baum gets himself into trouble by contradicting himself. I believe that’s what kept my interest. I loved the fact that he explained how the scarecrow couldn’t eat any of Dorthy’s food because he was made of straw but somehow he was able to talk. Then when the lion said he was a coward he jumped across the ditch to save his friends from the Kalidahs. We all know the story of the Wizard of Oz is to show that anyone, even if you doubt you are, are everything you could be. For that to say, I was never into sappy lesson stories that were heartfelt. I found it to be obnoxious even to this day. 

In class notes:

  • characters represent another metaphor.
  • personal relationship to ‘Dorthy’
  • text contradicts one another
  • not happy with the moral perfection 
  • they don’t see that they are already brave, heartfelt, and intelligent.

Symbolism-

  • The tinman and his heart.
  • the heart represents his emotions to his lover
  • the scarecrow and his brain

Personal Opinion:

When reading the wizard of Oz I was told that there would be a lot of political and symbolism located throughout the novel. Although when I was younger I never really appreciated the movie. The whole singing and dancing and “Oh no!” moments really get on my nerves. Even when I was reading the book I was just waiting until she met the scarecrow and the lion and the tin-man. I wasn’t expecting such a different aspect between the two. I thought the movie depicted the story to the fullest extent and when I was reading it didn’t at all.

We talked in class on how Frank Baum gets himself into trouble by contradicting himself. I believe that’s what kept my interest. I loved the fact that he explained how the scarecrow couldn’t eat any of Dorthy’s food because he was made of straw but somehow he was able to talk. Then when the lion said he was a coward he jumped across the ditch to save his friends from the Kalidahs. We all know the story of the Wizard of Oz is to show that anyone, even if you doubt you are, are everything you could be. For that to say, I was never into sappy lesson stories that were heartfelt. I found it to be obnoxious even to this day.