Sara’s W100 Journal Week 7

Now that we’ve got our midterm paper topics, it’s up to us to decide which text to choose. In my decision process I’m trying to remember that I have to write at least six pages on one of these works, and the fact of whether I liked either one or not shouldn’t be the deciding factor. It’s tough for me though, because one of the reasons why I enjoy stories is complexity and analytical possibilities. I feel, personally, that both Charlotte Temple and The Tempest lack depth and complexity.

On one hand we have Charlotte Temple. On the surface it appears to be a very frothy piece of literature. The characters are extremely one-dimensional, the style of writing is fanciful but doesn’t seem concerned with stylistic elements on the whole. One could, if they needed to dig up six pages of analysis on this book, read the text as a subversive piece, as we talked about in class. Ms. Rowson, who makes many a guest appearance throughout the course of the story, could be seen as a pre-feminism feminist, playing the role of power in the novel as she directs the actions of the characters and the thoughts of the readers. Alternatively, Ms. Rowson could be read as a self-conscious female author who finds it necessary to interject in order to maintain credibility. While I find the former more appealing, I find the latter more likely.

On the other hand we have The Tempest. While I do admit that the play offers some delightfully analyzable characters, there is absolutely zero in the way of evolving them or even explaining a lot of them. At the beginning of the play the audience is introduced to Caliban, a pitiful slave under Prospero’s control. At the end of the play they watch Caliban exit stage right, sill a pitiful slave under Prospero’s control. In between? …Nothing happens. We see two failed treason attempts that never even get past a few lines of dialogue, a promise made and kept, a romance that isn’t thwarted or put through any suffering, and a revenge plot that is abandoned at the climax. All in all, I have no idea what is going on here. I can’t really say that Shakespeare was a subversive writer disguising great messages under poorly presented material. I know that isn’t true because I’ve read a lot of his other work and found it quite good. The explanation that I found most likely was what Drew proposed in class, that as one of Shakespeare’s final plays he felt like throwing everything he had done in his other works together into one, fun hodgepodge. (Some of that phrasing is my own.)

To sum up, I’m finding both of these texts extremely difficult, which I both enjoy and despise. I’m quite sure that if I can write a six page paper on either of these works, I can write one on anything.

ETA: Apparently, you have to hit the “Publish” button for this to work…

W100 Journal Week 6

Self-Insertion in Literature (Or Any Media Which Is Not Literature, But Follows a Similar Pattern Nonetheless)

While reading the first few chapters of Charlotte Temple I tried to keep in mind exactly what it was that made this book such a roaring success in the time when it was published. So far, my best guess lies with the preface written my Mrs. Rowson herself. She writes, “The circumstances on which I have founded this novel were related to me some little time since by and old lady who had personally known Charlotte, though she concealed the read names of the characters…” I believe that this preface, whether it was true or not, probably contributed very much to the book’s popularity. It seems to be the case even now that anything with the label “based on a true story” is automatically raised up a notch in the public’s opinion. Consider The Da Vinci Code, which was a huge best-seller just a few years ago, and probably still resides near the top of the lists. Would the book have been so popular had it not began with the very forthright first page stating, Fact Number 1… Fact Number 2…, ect? How many books followed explaining the mysteries of the Knights Templar, The Priori of Sion, or the hidden meanings in da Vinici’s paintings? Personally, I found that to be the most compelling part of the story, the idea that it could be proved historically.

As a prediction for my further reading of the book, I think that the author will probably use a least some refrences to places, people, or customs that readers will relate to, making the story and the characters seem that much more similar to their own experiences, and therefore much more compelling.

Another reason why Charlotte Temple may have held interest for so many readers is the author’s attempts to have the reader immerse themselves in the lives of the characters, and really, to try and become those characters while they are reading. Rowson encourages this mindset in the prolouge saying, “I may have children of my own, said I, to whom this recital may be of use…” By placing herself in the position of the reader, and then further into the position of an empathetic reader, she urges her audience to do the same. This tactic seems very well-executed, and also very effective. The ability of a story to lend itself to self-insertion, or the ability of the reader to imagine themselves in the characters places, is a key component of success.

Hello world!

To start, in true blogging style, a meme

Five in a Row

1. Name one thing you do everyday.

check my email

2. Name two things you wish you could learn.

aikido, great cooking

3. Name three things that remind you of your childhood.

dandelions, sailing, Mr. Bubble bubble bath

4. Name four things you love to eat but rarely do.

salmon, almonds, cinammon rolls, corn on the cob

5. Name five things that make you feel good.

cool showers on a hot day or hot showers on a cool day, arguing, buying books, musical theater, massages

…from Five on Friday