How is Dos used?

Every time when we type anything at the Dos prompt, and press enter, we are telling Dos to run a program. Also, it will first look to see if there is an internal command program which has that name, and if it does not find one, then it will look to see if there is a file on disk with that name. When we finds an external file with the extension. COM ( command), or EXE (executable), then the program is loaded and run. In this case Dos looses control of the computer until the program has ended.

how we write dos files named?

When we write dos files named we have to have 1 to 8 letter name, period, 3 letter extension eg:

How does Dos organise disks?

When dos work within a file, directory and disk drive structure. Also, this all program and data files are named, and grouped together in named diectories on disks.

What is Dos?

DOS is a "Disk Operating System". That means it is simply: "a System for Operating the Disks". We use Dos to organise data files, load and execute (run) program files, and control the input and output devices attached to the computer. There are other brands of DOS besides the most well known "MS-DOS", ie: PC-DOS, DR-DOS/OPENDOS. Generally speaking, they will all function in the same way, especially at the most simple level.

Marxism & White Teeth

Marxism & White Teeth basically talk about same theme, such as culture, society and Religion. When I was reading Marxism I found some connection between white Teeth. In the Novel we can see “Samad” is a character who came from Bangladesh and his religion is Muslim. He came from a very strong Muslim family. No matter what he can never change his religion. So, we can see Bressler also talk about the same issue in article it says “reality itself can be defined and understood” (P 191). In this line Bressler try to explain religion is a very important part of our life.

On the other hand according to Marxism, “Engels and Marx call this negative sense of ideology false consciousness, which describes the way that the dominant social class shapes and controls each person’s self-definition and class consciousness” (P 194). In this line Bressler try to explain we divide people by race, color and gender. But also, in our society we can divides people as a class, such as high class, middle class and low class. In the novel we find two characters one is a middle class and one is a high class.

As an example we can say Samad is a middle class person. He was a scientist in his home country but now he is a waiter in England. Also, he always tries his best to keep his culture and to teach his son same culture value. We can count Chalfen’s as a high class person. Because both parent s have college degree.

Samad Manifesto

Bressler’s segment “Marxism” really conveyed an interesting depiction of what a Marxist critique of a work truly encompasses. Interestingly enough, the critique itself includes a smorgasbord (I’m very happy I could use this word effectively) of styles and ideas that appear to have evolved over time since Marx’s The German Ideology, and Marx’s and Engel’s more popularly recognized The Communist Manifesto. Most importantly in Bressler’s article is his basic summation of the underlying link between all of the schools of though from origin to present date. As he states, “Common to all these theoretical positions is the assumption that Marx, no matter how he is interpreted, believed that change for the good in society is possible if we simply stop and examine our culture through the eyes of its methods of economic production” (Bressler 201). Even further Bressler goes on to add “Marxism is not primarily a literary theory that can be used to interpret texts…it is a cultural theory that embodies a set of social, economic, and political ideas that its followers believe will enable them to interpret, and more importantly, change their world” (Bressler 201-202). In these few sentences, when related directly to Smith’s White Teeth, one could almost see Samad’s name written in parenthesis next to Bressler’s statements. Samad, a working class citizen, fully believes in the separation of his son’s on the grounds that by sending at the very least one of his children back to his native land he could invariably instill Eastern culture into their lives and establish a morally just individual and create that “change”. Though Samad obviously is not seeking to push a communist agenda, to what extent does anyone agree or disagree that such a demand for “change in their world” as Bressler defines it, applies to the character Smith created in Samad?

Where you belong in society and White Teeth

Marxism points out that the literary works of the author is not different from the issues taking place in society because “Marxism expands the traditional, historical approach to literary analysis by dealing with sociological issues that concern both the characters in a work of fiction as well as the authors and the readers (Bressler, 195).” people are divided by race and gender yes but what truly divides them is class. An area of a life that determines where you stand in society based on your possession/standing. Take Samad for example a scientist (middle class) in his past country but a waiter in is new country. He is a husband looking for outside fulfillment and father disappointed in his son for wanting change and getting change. This change shown by Magid represents what Bressler points out as “false consciousness, the way that the dominant social class shapes and controls each person’s self-definition and class consciousness (Bressler, 194).” Magid and Millat’s refused to be repressed, they wanted out of the ideology that once you’re in a certain class you’re stuck there and you’re to follow in his father’s footsteps. Magid represents the striving class wanting more than what is in front of them.

Marxism and The Chalfen's

Charles Bressler explains that in Marxism "Consciously and unconsciously, the ruling class forces it ideology on the working class(Bressler p195)." This is demonstrated in the text through the Chalfen's. Through out the novel they are trying to spread their version of "Chalfenism." They are the upper class family out of the novel, both parents have college educations, which none of the other adults in the novel have. They "had no friends. They interacted mainly with other Chalfens (Smith p261)" and only because they are considered to have "good genes." They judge Irie's and Millat's families. They speak down to Irie calling her a "Brown Stranger (Smith p271) and speak about Millat's family as if they dont know how to raise their own children. The Chalfen's take the children and let them spend time at their house with their own children. Over time they try to make Millat and Irie understand and follow their own point of view. We see this even more when Magdi returns from Bangladesh. The two brothers do not want to speak but Joyce Chalfen is insistent that they do speak. She actually goes to the Iqbal's home and harasses Alsana into listening to her idea of the two children meeting because "Sometimes people don't know what they want. They don't know what they need (Smith p.358)." She states this as if she knows what is best for them and forces her ideas on the Iqbals until they decide to have Samad speak to Magdi. The Chalfens are the bourgeoisie of the novel.

Marxism in WT

Reading the section on pg 198 of Marxism devoted to the ideas of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, connections to White Teeth come to mind.

Gramsci uses the term hegemony to define the assumptions that define reality for the people of a particular culture. He says, "The working people themselves give their consent to the bourgeoisie and adopt bourgeois values and beliefs. As sustainers of the economic base, the dominant class enjoys the prestige of the masses and controls the ideology - a term used synonymously with hegemony - that shapes individual consciousness" (198).

Reading that made me look back in the text to Samad's breakdown to Irie about his complete disappointment with his sons. Not being able to identify culturally with his sons destroys Samad inside, as he wanted only the best for him and their choices in life disappoint him on different levels. He says, "These days, it feels to me like you make a devil's pact when you walk into this country. You hand over your passport at the check-in, you get stampedlllbut you mean to go back! Who would want to stay... it drags you in and suddenly you are unsuitable to return, your children are unrecognizable, you belong nowhere" (336). Samad equates England with the force that ruined his plans for his sons' futures, and would understand Gramsci's idea that "the majority of people forget about or abandon their own interests and desires and accept the dominant values and beliefs (of the country) as their own" (198).

Culture: A Fundamental Concept

"What we believe, what we value, and even what we think are direct results of our culture and society, not our religion, our supposed philosophy of life, or our worldview" (Bressler, 202).

When I read the above line (and the entire paragraph it was within), I could not help but think that this could be the theme of White Teeth. Each character evolves throughout their years and prove this above point to be true. Although Samad may deny it, even religion can not be considered to be the ultimate mold from which much of our characteristics and interests are formed. This is why Marxists believe that the ideas within Marxism are "inseparable from modern civilization" (Eagleton, qtd. in Bressler, 191). I think that this may be a difficult idea to accept, especially for those who are fighting assimilation. However, I believe if Samad were to understand that this concept is universal to all people and not inherently negative, he would accept the changes of his sons more easily.

Questioning of Perspectives

In penning White Teeth, Zadie Smith was attempting to illuminate the multitude of perspectives that we have in this world while also legitimizing each. By allowing each character’s perspective to take precedent at some point in the novel we are able to take a third person view to all these first person narratives. Writing the novel this way allows Smith to make the reader reflect upon their own perspective on the world and examine where the roots of that perspective lie. This relates to Marxism because this literary theory asks the reader, “to investigate the intricate web of social relationships not only within the text itself but also outside the text and within the world of the author. In adding this sociological dimension, Marxism expands the traditional, historical approach to literary analysis by dealing with sociological issues that concern both the characters in a work of fiction as well as the authors and the readers” (Bressler, 195). This makes White Teeth a primarily Marxist novel because as a reader one cannot ignore the numerous perspectives but must begin questioning their own.

MARXISM AND WHITE TEETH

In the novel White teeth (2000) by Zadie Smith, Marxism plays an important role. According to Marxists, “Reality itself can be defined and understood; society shapes our consciousness; social and economic condition directly influence how and what we believe and value” (Bressler, 192). This quote can be related to the novel. First principle is “reality itself can be defined and understood” (Bressler, 192); reality means a person’s religion, its roots and its ethnicity which cannot be changed. In the novel we can notice different kind of people from different religion and they have their own roots which are unchangeable. For example, Samad is Bangladeshi and from Muslim religion, we can never forget that he is from Muslim religion. His roots are from Muslim religion. So as the gender of the person is the reality of the person and can be understood. Society also shapes the gender roles. Second principle is that “society shapes our consciousness” (Bressler, 192) which can be related to the situation in the novel, when Archie’s boss showing his desire that Archie’s presence is not required in the official dinner, is shaping Archie’s self-consciousness. In this situation Archie’s economic condition is not good which enforces him to take the Luncheon Vouchers from his boss and agrees to the deal that he will not attend the official dinner. His boss does not want Archie and his wife to attend the dinner with the Sunderland team; we can notice Archie’s boss desire in this line “we put down the names in a hat and yours came out” (Smith, 62). Archie replied to his boss that “Right you are, Mr. Hero” (Smith, 62). As we can notice that he prefers to take the food stamps which mean Archie has realized his low economic condition and responsibility towards his wife and his new born baby. Thus, social and economic condition directly manipulates Archie’s judgment and importance of things.

Marxist Theory and White Teeth

There are definate traces of the social hierarchy Marxist theory speaks of in Zadie Smith's White Teeth. It first appears when we meet the Chalfens in previous chapters. Their condescension to the working class Irie and Magid as well as their assumption that the children come from inadequate homes because of their social standing strongly reflects the ruling class's elitist attitude towards the proleteriat in our society. Mrs. Chalfen's need to fulfill the "duty of intellectuals"to help the disadvantaged plays out this condescension as well.
In the Magid, Millat and Marcus section, the upper class oppressor role is interestingly played by Millat. Millat, university ready and heavily influenced by Marcus, is a quintessential snob who is belittling to Mickey when he is with Samad at the pub. Like the ruling class that Marx speaks of, Magid pushes a pamphlet on Mickey to urge him to go to an academic luncheon on Marcus's work. Magid mimics the ruling classes tendency to push their beliefs on the working class through literture, as discussed in the article.

Marxism in White Teeth

In White Teeth, Zadie Smith really does represent the theory of "traditional historical approach", because of her representations of not only the historical aspects of what it was like to me an "immigrant", but slang that is used during these times. I tried to look up more specific quotations of slang used in the novel, but I did not find much. I think that a lot of the slang used is not only British slang, but also Caribbean slang (which most likely originated from British slang anyway.) As I mentioned in my journal, Irie's grandmother calls her "pickney" which is really racist and insulting. I think that Zadie Smith really does portray the reality of what was/is like for immigrants in not only England, but around the world.

*I use the term loosely, Clara and Irie are not really immigrants but descendants of immigrants.

* Also- if anyone is working on the paper … please email me I am in dire need of finding an article related to Casino Royale… sera.ramlal@gmail.com Thanks.

Week #11: White Teeth & Marxism.

Last posts of the semester. Finish White Teeth and read the article on Marxism. As was briefly mentioned tonight, Marxism has significant influence in literary theory, so you should think about how some of the other theories work through Marxist ideas. Additionally, how might Marxism play a part in the novel?

Please think about your paper topics over the break and e-mail me with your ideas. I'm not sure what my internet access will be like during the break, but I'll make an effort to sign on when I can. I won't be on campus again until Tuesday, 4/29, but you're free to stop by during my office hours then and chat about your ideas with me.

I'll talk about the final portfolio next time.

Have a great break!

White Teeth

In White Teeth Zaddie Smith explains about two different cultural and religion. Also, in the story author explains how the immigrants and second-generation immigrants as they are confronted by a new, and very different, society. In this book we can see Zadie Smith also delves into the concepts of human relationship. In this novel smith explains very deeply about female characters. All women are different different personality.
We know Samad’s wife Alsana. They both came from Bangladesh and their religion is Muslim. In Bangladesh Muslim religion is the strongest religion. In Muslim religion, Male are always stronger than women. They have all power on their hand. Therefore, in Bangladesh women couldn’t say anything. In White Teeth we can find same issue between Alsana and Samad’s. They have twin boys, Magid and Millat, who are the same age as Irie. Samad is continually sees as the effects of this cultural conflict upon his own moral character, therefore Samad wants to send his son Magid to Bangladesh because he wants his son can learn Islam religion. Alsana still stay with him but they have less communication.
Alsana think now she doesn’t love any more Samad. She has less feeling for him. At last I want to say smith shows us in her novel basically most women are very traditions person.

Samad and Alsana

I'm finding a lot of sympathy for Samad in the proceeding chapters. I myself am from a different country and often times feel a loss of culture and become devastated by it. When you are a foreigner in a country, you feel a tremendous loss of identity. Samad is struggling with this loss of identity and feels that sending Magid to his native country will "save" him from the corrupt world of England. These past chapters have really opened my eyes to how I have felt in the past about identity. However, I believe that Samad might be doing more harm than good. I believe that Millat is acting out so much because he misses his brother and does not have his guidance. Btw, I know Alsana is now overweight but was that what the Professor was talking about when she mentioned a physical problem Alsana was having?

Greatly appreciate the comments.

Only the way a Woman can say it.

In White Teeth it is the female characters that are being repressed. It possibly could be because Smith is the author and she is trying to convey a specific message to the reader. There are certain parts in the novel where she physically describes the physical characteristics of Irie. Which I do certainly believe that she could have only done so as a woman. I think it this was a male author and describing Irie it would be more offensive. But coming from a woman, and a woman of the same racial background, it softens the blow of the obscene comments.

Sorry for the post being late guys, my internet was going in and out last night and it would not let me get online.

Female Oppression within White Teeth

In White Teeth there is definitely a tone of oppression amongst its female characters. Through out the novel all the women are oppressed in one way or another. It is demonstrated through Aslana. Though she yells at Samad and physically fights with him she still stays with him. Even after he sends one of her sons away, she still stays married to him, though she barely speaks to him. We also see oppression demonstrated through Irie. She is a young girl who is biracial and feels as though she does not fit in. She describes wanting to "merge" with the Chalfens. "She wanted their Englishness...To Irie, the Chalfens were more English than the English
(p 272)." This proves her feelings of opression. She feels so different she describes going into the Chalfen house as "Sneaking into England; it felt like some terribly mutinous act, wearing somebody else's uniform or somebody else's skin (p 273)." Another way in which we see this in Irie after she gets her hair done. She thinks that her hair now looks beautiful and cannot wait to show Millat. When she gets to his home his two cousins are there and basically tell her that it looks horrible. As they are trying to fix her hair, they explain to her that Millat does not like her as he likes other girls because she is his friend and she truly knows him. They call her different and her internal response is "Sometimes you want to be different. And sometimes you'd give the hair on your head to be the same as everybody else (p 237)." This shows almost a level of desperation in her attempt to fit in and just be what she considers "normal."

Anything she can do, would he do differently?

Though I apologize for stealing Barry’s quote from White Teeth, I think he touches on a very important topic with that particular scene of Alsana, Clara, and Neena sitting on the park bench discussing marriage. Appearing a few lines prior to Barry’s quote is the line, “The truth is, for a marriage to survive you don’t need all this talk, talk, talk…you do not want to know what is slimy underneath the bed and rattling in the wardrobe” (Smith 65). This message provides an easy transition into the following lines of Alsana, in which she states, “when you are from families such as ours you should have learned that silence, what is not said, is the very best recipe for family life” (65), which relates directly into both the Authorship and Feminist styles of criticism. As Showalter addresses in her work “Feminist criticism in the wilderness”, “Feminist criticism has gradually shifted its center from revisionary readings to a sustained investigation of literature by women. The second mode of feminist criticism engendered by this process is the study of women as writers, and its subjects are the history, styles, themes, genres, and structures of writing by women” (335). Within the work Zadie’s own undertones become hinted and suggested at, conveying her comments on the males and females in the British society. At the same time though, contrary to what it appears Barthes suggests, the “genius” of Zadie emerges as opposed to just the “performance” she gives, to which Barthes appears to suggest the opposite. My question is therefore, how would the story differ had the author been in fact a man writing on the same situations in the same time period?

White teeth

In White teeth, Zadie Smith, give you an idea about a great theory of feminist criticism. We can see that Zadie Smith portrayed all the women from different religion. Alsana, who is Samad’s Wife, both are Bangladeshi and from Muslim religion. In Muslim religion, Male is the dominant one and has the power of speech. The men decide something to be done. It does not matter to men whether his wife agrees to him or not. Samad makes a decision which is that he wants to send his son Magid to Bangladesh because he wants his son to grow properly under the teachings of the Islam. Alsana is still with him but there is a loss communication between both. This helps us understand the idea of feminist criticism which is that “Our belief in our self is so potent that we decline communication with the networks of power and respectability we say we want to change” (Showalter, 332). The network of the power and respectability is Samad and I mean definitely Alsana would like to change the way Samad is. Alsana when having a conversation in the park with her friend Clara and Neena, she mentioned about her wedding incidents and all. She was telling her friends that “ [she] thought he had a good face, a sweet voice, and his backside was high and well formed for a man of his age. Very good. Now, every time I learn something new about him, I like him less” (Smith, 66). She likes Samad less now. Thus it shows that Feminine behavior varies with the cultural traditions.

Recurring Themes in SAMAD - White Teeth

There are a lot of symbols and themes that keep circling around, spialing throughout the text of WHITE TEETH. The overriding metaphor seems to be the dominance of English culture and ideals on all of the characters - on 120-1, Samad claims, "I have been corrupted by england, I see that now - my children, my wife, they too have been corrupted... Maybe I have been frivolous. Maybe I have thought intellect more important than faith." The ideal of intelligence over religious devotion is a Western one, as Samad realizes that he cannot be fully religious in England, constructing a system of "allowances" for himself to drink, masturbate, and ultimately have an extramarital affair. On 124, he admits it all to himself - "I swear. I eat bacon. I regularly slap the salami. I drink Guinness. My best friend is a kaffir nonbeliever... But oh it does count. It all counts on the great counting board of He who counts." Even though he tries to convince himself otherwise, Samad knows that the things that he does are wrong, but he does them anyway. The "Western" ways that he adapted as his own have come to dictate his actions more than his heritage, which he eventually throws aside, comparing heritage and religion to drugs(161). Samad's two mantras appear a number of times too, often when he feels like he needs to justify something to himself.

Female Opression and Finding a Voice

The feminist criticism piece, "Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness", by Elaine Showalter is an appealing read and has significant relevance to Zadie Smith's White Teeth.
The idea that British feminist criticism is concerned with female oppression in literature is intriguing and parallels with some of the female character's experiences in White Teeth. Alsana is an interesting character because because some may stereotypically perceive her as a submissive, Muslim
woman is under her husband's rule. In actuality, she is a fiery, independent thinker, who according to Archie, wears the "lovely, silken trousers in the family" (Smith, P.127). Smith cleverly combats the idea of the fragile,oppressed female in literature that feminist critics battle against, by delivering a refreshingly, bold character like Alsana.
Showalter's article also discusses women's need to find their voice in literature.
Zadie Smith delivers to us a female voice dying to be heard in Irie. Irie is the quintessential, overweight, adolescent girl who is the symbol of teen angst in the novel. The reader sees her struggle through the cruelty of adolescence as a dejected girl who falls below the beauty standard. The issues of feminine ideals coupled with race that Irie deals with in the text are issues of much concern to feminist critics.

Zadie Smith and the Quest for Identity

Roland Barthes claims that. "The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture"(146). As a woman born to an English father and a Jamaican mother, Zadie Smith was brought up to see the world from the eyes of both the dominant culture as well as that of the oppressed. Being of English descent she is part of a culture that became legendary for its domination of other cultures that it deemed inferior. But as the daughter of a Jamaican woman she is also part of a culture that has been oppressed by the English. Lastly, as a woman she is oppressed once again by the old world ways of white English men. We see this in the Showalter essay with the quote, "I consider women's literature as a specific category, not because of biology, but because it is, in a sense, the literature of the oppressed". All these issues are at play within White Teeth because they are all in play within the author herself. In this way I disagree with the Barthes idea that "it is language which speaks, not the author"(143) because so much of this author's struggle for identity is what is allowing that language to speak.

Respectable Or Repressed?

At the risk of unfairly conflating religious or cultural beliefs with moral values, I would like to pose the following question in order to obtain a more in depth understanding of the feminist critique. Alsana says to Clara and her "niece-of-shame", Neena: "You should have learned that silence, what is not said, is the very best recipe for family life" (Smith, 65).
Elaine Showalter, in her essay "Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness", attacks this exact type of expressive repression stating, "The problem is...that women have been denied the full resources of language and have been forced into silence, euphemism, or circumlocution" (Showalter, 241).
The tricky area is how to view Alsana's servility. Is she expressing her own personal beliefs that she is comfortable with or is she blinded by her upbringing, taught by those who only wish to continue and further the unchallenged obedience of women? Does the feminist critique make such distinctions or are they inevitably intertwined? What do you feel about Alsana's remarks, are they respectable or repressed?

Week #10: White Teeth & feminism & the return of authorship.

No class next week, as I'm otherwise engaged. In terms of assignment due dates: journals are due 4/17 and your first posts should be in by 4/14 and your two responses by 4/16. Certainly you can post earlier and more often. But you need to post; if you're only doing one set and not the other, I consider you as having done only half the assignment. Be warned.

As you have plenty of time to complete all readings, you should consider both theory readings in light of White Teeth. We've discussed feminism in relation to gender studies and about authorship from the perspective of Foucault (who was actually responding to Barthes), so make sure you can differentiate between feminism and gender studies and between Barthes and Foucault. There are similarities, but there are also places where they diverge.

Final note: from about Tuesday to Saturday of next week, I'll be checking e-mail only sporadically, so it may take me a little while to get back to you. I will be having office hours, however, both weeks.

Have a good weekend and I'll see you in two weeks.

Post Colonization and White Teeth

The essays, "Post Colonialism: The Empire Writes Back" and "Crisis in Orientalism" discuss postcolonial theory as related to literature. These works are related to White Teeth because their themes of postcolonial and orientalist theory are played out in its text. This is both an interesting and dissapointing finding in such a humorous and clever book. The first time postcolonialist theory and the prejudice that it speaks of rears its ugly head is in the scene in which Archie meets Sarah. He comments that she is "beautiful in all senses except, maybe, by virtue of being black." (Smith, P. 15) The view that British colonialists had that regarded Africans as inferior beings plays itself out in this scene. Such a scene can remind someone of the racist views of such colonialist works as Kipling's White Man's Burden.

Postcolonization

During the first part of white teeth you’re introduced to different people, who seem to be dealing with post colonization on one level or another. On one level the commune where Archie finds refuge, represents what Bressler describes as the ‘other’ the ones who are being “watched for the reason that they are different because each person represent colonization from Clara the Jamaican to Wan-si the Chinese. And on the other hand you have Archie who from a gender perspective Archie suffers “a collapse of [his] ego” (239) when his wife divorced him and not knowing what to do any more he intentionally keeps going back to the house he once shared with her to be verbally abuse by the maid and his in-laws. It’s as if Archie was being colonized by his wife because he stayed married to a woman he did not love, because to him “marriage [was] like buying a pair of shoes, taking them home, and finding they fit [but] for the sake of appearances he put up with them” (white teeth, 7), in a sense being the master or the colonizer while his wife was the colonized who was eventually driven insane because she like other “women [were no longer] daylight in Archie’s life” (white teeth, 7). As Bressler points out one of the main concerns of post colonialism is that it “highlight[s] the struggle that occurs when one culture is dominated by another [causing the] colonized to be removed from history” (Empire writes back, 238).

Bressler believes that “only after colonization occurs and the colonized people have had time to think and then to write about their oppression and loss of a cultural identity does Postcolonial theory comes into existence. It is born out of the colonized peoples’ frustrations; their fears, hopes, and dreams about the future and their own ideas (Bressler 238).” This occurs with Clara. Clara’s mother is a strict Jehovah Witness and tries her best to instill these values in her daughter even though they are in Britain. It differs though because instead of Clara being upset about people not accepting her religion, she was to be released of it herself. She is forced to hand out Bibles to people at her school and go door to door to spread the word of her religion to strangers. Clara, though wanting to be relieved or being a Jehovah Witness, still holds on to some of her previous beliefs. This is displayed on page 39 of White Teeth when she sates, “By February 1975, Clara had deserted the church and all its biblical literalism for Archibald Jones…Clara felt deep down that her mother would prefer her to marry and unsuitable man rather then live with him and sin.”

Who's to Blame?

In my opinion, the supplementary readings by Charles Bressler and Edward Said on Postcolonialism are the closest match with White Teeth as compared to the other texts and their supplements. The story is clearly a struggle between cultures, and as both essays make clear, also a matter of racism. We see innumerable amounts of examples where one character has an odd or uncomfortable feeling of another and some blatant instances of superiority of the British (especially in Archie's office) which cause what Postcolonialists would call the "alternity" of "Others", including Clara (Bressler, 236). An interesting point, as Said discusses, is on where to place the blame of such stereotypes. He suggests that it is within texts that people first learn these prejudices and because the "text [purports] to contain knowledge about something actual, [it] is not easily dismissed" (Said, 296). Perhaps then, would Said say, the only true way to know the reality of different races and cultures is through personal experience, an empiricist and scary (and perhaps incorrect) conclusion?

Reversed Roles?

Both of the works, Bressler’s “Postcolonialism: ‘The Empire Writes Back’”, and Said’s “Crisis [in orientalism]”, really convey an interesting method for addressing works in the postcolonial era. In particular I liked two things about the two articles as a whole. The first was Said’s metaphor about the study of lion’s and their fierceness. As he states and I paraphrase, “Understanding the lion in literature is a one-sided conversation until the lion writes back”. I think this idea is immensely powerful since it shows the neglect the other sided suffers when its voice is unheard. It also gives way to the clichéd, “you don’t know a man until you’ve spent a day in his shoes” which helps to try and put the perspective of the observer in the shoes of the “Other”. Also, Bressler’s addressing of Said in particular, providing the background information of Said, gave a more personal feel to what Said writes in his article. Now relating to the text there are infinite amounts of relationships that can be draw onto, the juxtaposition of Archie with religion, society, and personal relationships. In particular the Jehovah’s Witness theme throughout the work gives a sense of religious backlash as the Witness’s try to convert people in Britain, a thought often portray in the opposite manner with an international superpower converting the “Other”. On a side note, Microsoft Word detects Postcolonialism as a misspelling, does that imply that Bill Gates supports Post-colonialism instead, as Bressler suggests varies from Postcolonialism?

Ancillary Characters and Imperialism

Postcolonialism (or post-colonialism) deals with the study of people and cultures who have been the victims of oppression through imperialism. In White Teeth, we have characters from all different backgrounds who are juxtaposed with the plain, white man from London, Archie. Archie's wife, friends, and mere acquaintances all hail from countries that at one point or another were victim to the cultural conflict that results out of imperialism, namely: which culture is superior. Those in the inferior culture are then left to either assimilate into the dominant culture or live out their existence as a dying breed. Whereas the dominant culture can take things it likes about the other such as their food or customs (as is the case with the large number of Indian eateries in London), the inferior culture does not have the same opportunity. As a colony they must give the dominant culture what it wants of them simply because the dominant culture has more sophisticated weaponry behind it.

Orientalism is stereotypical

Orientalism in White Teeth by Zadie Smith, appears to have typical stereotypes. I have just started the book (I need to get my blog up early because I wont be near a computer!) and there are already references to a Indian boy who is being abused by the restaurant staff. “Get-your-fat-Ganesh-Hindu-backside-up-there-Elephant-boy”, what is that! Being Hindu myself, I have to say I was a tad offended at this. But again it accurately represents the Orientalism in that the “derogatory” terms used to speak to this boy are really what I feel most “Western Societies” associate with the Hindu culture. All this was missing was a reference to Gandhi. What I have gotten from the Said article is basically the views of “Americanized” cultures on basically any other culture to the East, seemingly leaving out European cultures.

Postcolonalism seems to be similar to Orientalism in that it is a division of cultures. When Clara meets Archie we learn that she has a past, as she give up her religion to be with Archie, she leaves behind much more. We can see a “postcolonalism” view from Smith’s character that Clara is changing and straying away from the “normal” way of her life. As she meets Archie she abandons much of her old ways.

In White Teeth, one can notice that writers show all the literary theories. Smith put down much of theoretical frame work of different theories and methodologies. One can notice psychoanalytic criticism and gender criticism (sexuality). According to Bressler, “Marxism, post structuralism, feminism, African-American cultural studies, and psychoanalytic criticism (usually of the Lacanian variety) are all identifiable influences on postcolonial theory” (Bressler, 241). For instance in the text, Archie Jones, the 47 year old guy, who is divorced and never enjoyed his married life at the fullest. He has a lot of desires, which shows that the writer himself somewhere has desires. In the text, when he entered Merlin’s house, he can suddenly notice all the atmosphere of the house. The first thing he notices is the body fluid which shows that some sexual and physical acts have taken place there in the corners. He has a highly desire to drink and feel the bare breasts of the girls there, all this shows that he too has a inner –conscious desire. The writer shows the above statement in the text
And it turned out Archie was the first man over forty ever invited to join the commune; it turned out there had been talk for some time of the need for an older sexual presence to satisfy come of the more adventurous women, “Great,” said Archie. “Fantastic. That’ll be me, then” (Smith, 18)

Week #9: White Teeth & postcolonialism.

You're reading White Teeth this week alongside postcolonialism.

I suggest that you read Bressler's article first, since it provides an overview of the field, and then move on to Said's piece, which is more complex, but worthwhile. I want your posts (and your journal) to work with both essays, not just the (easy) one. You may want to consider the relationship between postcolonialism and the umbrella-like nature of reader-response and cultural criticism. And, of course, please don't forget the other methodologies we've discussed all semester.

The last blog posts were the best of the semester. I like that there's more development and dialogue, less summary and agreement in your responses. More of that!

Have a great weekend.

Reader- Response Criticism
And
Cultural Criticism


When I was reading this two article I found they both talking about same issue (Heart of Darkness). In this paper I will explain this to article what are Cultural Criticism and Reader- Response Criticism?
The article Cultural Criticism writer tries to explain when we think about cultural what do we think? Cultural means dress, food, religion, and exc. Some young people wear jeans and T- shirts and some people also think to wear sixties dressed means cultural. In the article writer say’s “Cultural studies should abandon the goal of giving students access to that which represents a culture”. (P 260) In my own opinion Cultural critics have been especially critical of the departmental structure of universities, which help student to know about history, arts, films, television, advertising and journalism.
In the article Reader- Response Criticism writer try to explain when student read the same book but they all have different opinion. Some student they really enjoy the novel but some are not, such as “Casino Royal”. In my class now we are reading Casino Royal nobody likes this book. Last time when I had conversion with my classmate everybody said the movie was better than this novel. When reader read the novel if he or she doesn’t understand than how it will make them to continue the novel. Therefore, on page 115 writer say’s “in addition to posing provocative question, reader- response criticism provides us with models that aid our understanding of texts and the reading process.”

I am so sorry because I am late. I am very very sick that's why.

Ding dang, the bitch is dead!

So I have to admit I'm very disappointed with the ending of Casino Royale. I expected a car chase, a murder scene, bodies everywhere, or a bomb scene of some sort. The ending really leaves you hanging and lets Ian Fleming produce more Bond novels. If I ever meet Ian Fleming in an after life, I'd probably hit him with his own book. I really do hate the way male authors portray women in their novels. Why is it that most women authors will write love stories while male authors bash women? Reader-response critics argue that some authors tend to write towards a certain response from an audience. In my eyes, this novel was intended for men only. It also was intended for the upper class society. I think cultural critics would argue that one though. I'm not too sure. I really don't understand why anyone would say women want Bond between their bed sheets. I have to admit, I'm a bit appalled after finishing this novel.

Personal Interpretation

Reader-response criticism is the way in which a person interprets a work. The interesting thing about reader-response criticism is that it is different for every person. Every persons own situations and experience effect how they interpret something that is read. Casino Royale is a very detailed book. Though we all do not have experience being spies it draws you into Bonds world and does not leave too many gaps. This is good in this particular novel because we all do not have experiences such as those that Bond has. Unfortunately this also persuades our reader response because we can truly only go on the information we have been given, because of this there is no struggle to understand or make sense of the work.
Also, because there are no "gaps" the reader is not as active as we would like to be. According to Wolfgang Iser, "the 'unwritten aspects' of a story draw the reader into the action...the reader's imagination in turn influences the way in which 'the written part of the text" is read.

Reader Response Criticism and the Feminist Perspective

I think the reader response criticism according to the feminist perspective very interesting. According to reader oriented feminists like Patrocinio Schwickart who argue, " that literature written by men tends to immasculate women" , some authors can immasculate women by not giving them a voice by having only male characters in their stories. I correlated this thought to James Bond, where our main character, Bond, is obviously male, as well as most of the major characters. Vesper is not given a significant voice and is condescended to by James Bond. It is evident that the book has a male, slightly chauvanistic perspective. This is illustrated in the scene in which he hears that his new partner will be a woman in the lines: "Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings..." (Flemming, P. 55) Obviously, Bond does not hold women in high regard in a professional sense.

Reader-Response Criticism is up to the Reader!

Reader-Response Criticism allows the reader to not only interpret a work in their own way but read it that way. There are so many factors that will affect a persons reading of a novel, and their interpretation of it. In Casino Royale many of us (in class) disliked the novel Casino Royale, but found the film much more amusing. This does not pertain to only this book, however normally you do find the opposite (where people prefer the book over the novel). But, I think that it depends on the person to read into the novel and decide what the are more interested in. In the novel, we are use the excitement and intrigue of 007 from films, and not the novels. In this case we will find the novel boring. But with the right perspective it will find different responses to it.

By the way, sorry if this is late, I got home pretty late this evening!!!

"[T]he reader-response critic once again locates meaning in time"

In the essay about Reader Response Criticism, the author gives us this: "By redefining meaning as an event rather than as something inherent in the text, the reader-response critic once again locates meaning in time: the reader's time. A text exists and signifies while it is being read, and what it signifies or means will depend, to no small extent, on when it is read" (119).

The example given with this is that a 17th century Puritan and a 20th century atheist would both read Paradise Lost differently (119). In relation to the Bond novel, there are definite things that we read differently today than how they were read when it was first published. The most obvious and probably the most meaningful difference that today's reader of the Bond novels has that past generations didn't have is the library of Bond movies that have shaped our perceptions of what Bond is and/or should be. Although I've never seen the movies myself, I feel like I understood the character Bond from hearing other people talk about him, from seeing pictures and from playing GoldenEye on N64 with friends back in Middle School. Without the movies and without Bond as a cultural phenomenon, I have a feeling that the book was read in a completely different manner in the past. Bond seems more human and more fallible in the book then he is portrayed to be otherwise. He's often emotional, he bleeds, and his thoughts on women are misogynistic to say the least. Feel free to respond - are there any specific passages or ideas that you think would be read differently today then they were when the book was first published?

Response as a reader

Reader-response criticism allows the reader to approach literary works on a different level. We are to look deeper into what the author is saying on the page and view their work as “an incomplete work of sculpture: to see it fully, we must complete it imaginatively [taking] into account what [already] exists” (Reader-Response Criticism, 115) on the page. As readers, we are entitled to respond to what we have read, in many ways and it’s our “struggle to make sense of a…work (Reader-Response Criticism, 118). We are allowed to become detectives and decipher the writer’s work and voice our opinions because “a work can have as many meanings as we have responses to it” (Reader-Response Criticism, 115). Reader-response allows us each reader to have different a reaction and opinion about the text they have read. For example, one reaction I have to Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale is that as a writer he seems to be a sexist, who tries to live his life through his main character- James Bond.

Halarious ending? I think so. you think (........)?

This week both the two styles of criticism, Reader-Response and Cultural criticisms portray very compelling arguments for their relation to Casino Royale. In particular though, Reader-Response criticism really struck a chord with me when reflecting back on the book. With the stress of Reader-Response being, as Murfin states, “on what pages do to the minds (and what minds do in response)” (118), an interaction between the reader and the writer becomes established. In particular I felt drawn to this critique because it allows for an emotional interaction when reading the text. For example the final passage of Casino Royale states, “Yes, dammit, I said “was”. The bitch is dead now” (213). Within the boundaries of Reader-Response critique I’m allowed to find this statement absolutely hilarious in both its literal sense, (forgive me fore being juvenile and finding humor in curses still), and the ironic sense with Bond’s life coming to an abrupt change. Simultaneously, someone could argue their hatred for Bond, Vesper, or even Global warming if such a response is invoked. I pose this question then, what effect did the final lines of Casino Royale have on you as you read them?

Casino Royale & Cultural Criticism

In Casino Royale, one can notice many situations which can be read culturally and also can be connected with the reader criticism. In Murfin's 'Cultural Criticism', "Foucault refused to see power as something exercised by a dominant class over a subservient class. Indeed, he emphasized that power is not just repressive power, that is, a tool of conspiracy by one individual or institution against another"(263). We can see the dominating power in the Casino Royale. SMERSH is one Major dominating organisation in the text. Smersh forces its employees to fulfill the jobs assigned to them in a very disciplined and strict manner. Disciplined and strict manner mean that if their employees fails to accomplish the goals of the organization or if they cheat their organization in some way and make any mistake then the employee will be killed. Smersh will find that employee from anywhere and shoot him/her without asking or listening to any kind of explanation.

A Different Approach

It is great to finally learn of a new theoretical perspective that looks at narratives from a different angle. When looking at any theory we have learned thus far, we have tried to understand the biases which caused the author to describe things in a certain way or even pick apart the underlying structure upon which the text is built. Reader-reponse criticism on the other hand "turns the tables", whereby we analyze how the author wrote specifically with his reader in mind and how the audience might respond. What makes this fascinating, is that when we look back at Dracula or Casino Royale, and suggest (and even criticize!) an author for their sexist, old-fashioned, and closed-minded remarks of situations and characters, we may have missed the main point and must question, which, perhaps, should be a prerequisite to premature judgment: Does the author really have an unfair viewpoint of the subject in question or rather, did the author purposely inject the narrative with this seemingly controversial instance for a specific purpose and response?

The Mystery Novel and Lowbrow Culture

Cultural critics seek to dispel the myth that culture is something static and all things can be classified as a part of a given culture, or not. They would argue that institutions like Queens College have been accomplices in that mission, claiming, "For that is where the old definitions of culture as high culture have been most vigorously preserved, defended, and reinforced" (Murfin, 261). When making the distinction between what is culture or art, and what is not, the university has time and again set the genre of the mystery novel as not a part of culture. The only reason that we are reading an Ian Fleming novel in a university setting is because the films have become a part of American culture. Had the movies not created the franchise that exists today, Fleming's novel would be written off as another somewhat well-written, mystery/spy novel and would not be on any syllabus across the country. Hopefully the cultural critics will be able to finally break down the man made barriers between highbrow and lowbrow culture and we'll get to read a lot more mystery novels in college.

Week #8: Casino Royale & cultural studies & reader-response theory.

Forgot to mention yesterday: if you don't have White Teeth already, you'd better get on it, since we're reading it right after this.

But for this week, we're finishing up Casino Royale. Both of the discussions on Foucault will still be relevant here; the panopticon has obvious and subtle influences on the second half and his notion of authorship is something to keep in mind when looking at reader-response criticism.

To remind you: you must post a first response by Monday and two comments to your classmates by Wednesday. As always, feel free to post beyond that and really create a discussion that's not just "I agree" and "Yeah, me too." I was really pleased with the quality of your posts last week--let's keep it up.

And the Turnitin box is already up for this week--I checked twice!

Have a good holiday and I'll see you next week.

PANOPTICISM AND CASINO ROYALE

In this novel until mid chapters one can understand that James bond is an agent working under British Secret Service. He is asked to ruin Le Chiffre, who is a member of secret organization called SMERSH. They both have a thing in common which is the Game Poker. Bond is expert in Poker game whereas Le Chiffre lost a lot of money of his organization in the game and is coming back in the summer to gain back all the money that belongs to SMERSH. In this novel of fiction, one can see that it is kind of a detective and hero type novel. It does have the rules of the law and the top organization keeping an eye on their people’s work, to make sure nothing goes wrong. Bond and Le Chiffre works for a Secret organization. The word Secret resembles top secret thing and whenever some work is handed to the workers of the Secret organization, there are some people who are watching on the others person’s work and reporting back to the organization.

Focault

I really loved Focaults essay on the author. He makes great points on why close reading is very important to readers. It is more about the written work than trying to find those relationships between the work and the author. The reason that I find close reading important is because of this statement Focault makes "Writing unfolds like a game that invariably goes beyond its own rules and transgresses its limits". This pertains mostly to fiction work. A novel is a fantasy world that is created. In a fantasy world, certain things just are not meant to make sense. Trying to find reality in a fantasy is almost impossible. Focault almost makes great points in his essay about the author and the validity of the word "work". Is an authors published work just his only work we should consider? Is that giving the author too much authority over literature?

Bond and Fleming

As an author Fleming draws the reader into his novel. He causes us to pay attention with his many uses of details, details and more details. Fleming brings about a sort of discipline in his writing as Foucault points out “a type of power, a modality for [his] exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures [and] levels of application” (Panopticism, 206).” Fleming gives James Bond a sense of individuality in the sense that James Bond as mostly anything to his disposal like money and is not necessarily bound by law as he somewhat represents the law as due to his regulation as a government agent. On one level Fleming uses Bond to represent the government and the people in the sense that Bond “constitute[s] the same type of law on a different scale” (Panopticism, 212), as a regular person without judicial power by taking the law in there own hands but on another level he (Bond) as the right to because he is backed by the power of the law and his own desires.

An Authors Functions

The author function is a the characteristics of which an author is known for or as Foucault states “[the] characteristic of the mode of existence, circulation, and functioning of certain discourses within society.” (p108) Text always has signs that would remind us of the author and relate the text to the author while still being able to separate themselves from the writing itself. Though I have no read much of Casino Royal yet (I’m only on chapter 3) I have read the authors biography and I can see “signs” that can relate the Fleming to the text without him actually being in the novel himself. When he describes information about his missions he shows his experience as a commander in the Navel Intelligence unit at Admiralty. Another way this is demonstrated is not through the text of this particular book but by the fact that Fleming was able to have the same character (James Bond) as the base for ten books.
This is demonstrated in Dracula once we discovered that his mother was a feminist we understood why Bram Stoker portrayed Mina as such a strong women. He understood this from his life and personal relationship with his mother.

Casino Royal
By: Ian Fleming
Chapter 1 – 13


The book Casino Royale is writer Ian Fleming’s first James Bond Novel. Which was first published in 1953. The plot of the book is based on a Casino called Casino Royale in Royale-Les-Eaux, France.

The main character of Casino Royale is James Bond. Who is an agent working for British Secret service, under code name 007. In this book James bond is shown as an expert poker player. Bond has experience from an early assignment. He took down a team of Roumanian who cheated using invisible ink in a casino in Monte Carlo. In Royale-Les Eaux bond is disguising as a millionaire business man from Port Maria Jamaica who is in Casino Royale to gamble with his family’s money. In this book James Bond’s main mission is to stop Le Chiffre from winning a poker tournament.

Le Chiffre is a member of a secret organization called SMERSH baser in USSR. The name is a conjunction of two Russian words, Smyert and Shpionam which means Death to Spies. And he is controlled by SMERSH’s Leningrad Section III, which is based in Paris. While working for SMERSH Le Chiffre used organizations money for person use. In times he lost a big sum of money on his expensive bad habits and also in a failed brothel business. Now that his bosses want the money back, his plan is to recoup his losses at the casino on a poker tournament. He is a very dangerous man who carries three razor blades and two armed body guard with him all the time. He is also a very skilled poker player. He is running a baccarat game in the casino at Royale-Les-Eaux, France, in order to recover SMERSH’s money he lost

In this mission James Bond is facilitate by another agent named Rene Mathis. Mathis job is to protect James Bond and to supply him with all necessities. British Secret agency also assigned Vesper Lynd to accompany James Bond. Felix Leiter is a CIA agent working for US government, based in Fontainebleau. Who also lend a helping hand to James Bond to complete this mission.

In his first game in the tournament against Le Chiffre Bond looses all his money. He almost came close to fail his mission. Felix Leiter the CIA agent managed to give thirty-two million francs to Bond in order to continue his involvement in the tournament. At the end Bond manage to win all his money back and have Le Chiffre loose the tournament and cause his opponent’s financial ruin.

Double 0 Fleming

Well seeing how you've made it clear that "seeing the movies" isn't sticking with the novels I guess i find myself fortunate enough to say this is the one Bond movie I haven't seen yet (I had a thing against Bond being blond). With that said I am a huge fan of the Bond movies. Now ironically unlike my normal tradition I started reading the book first, prior to the blurbs and critiques that usually shower the covers and book jackets. In finding myself at completion of the reading I decided to read the inside cover page with the comment on the life of Ian Fleming. As the "What is an Author?" article addresses, "What does it matter who is speaking", the quite obvious answer in this regards is Fleming's personal history. Regarding in particular his time as, "Personal Assistant to the Director of Naval Intelligence at the Admiralty", to which he rose, "to the rank of Commander", the suave, heroic, debonair characteristics produced by Bond build upon the seemingly factual, "that could really happen" events obviously suggest a large chunk of Fleming's life married to the character of Bond. Questions I've been pondering, though no real answers can truly come about, regard if such events actually have some factual basis, and even more equally important, is the character of Bond a projected version of what Fleming wished his life had been or is it truly an actual portray of Fleming in his earlier years?

Richness in Description

Throughout the text so far, Fleming has filled a lot of pages with specific descriptions. The narrator, expressing Bond's thoughts and feelings to the reader, uses a lot of very specific description of characters, settings and events. As a secret agent, the reader is to understand that Bond must be incredibly perceptive and must be able to pick up on even the smallest of details, and that mindset comes through strongly as almost every situation is described down to minutia. There are paragraphs upon paragraphs describing Lynd (38-9), Leiter (55-6), and Bond himself (58-9). A similar attention to detail was to be noticed in Dracula as well, as Stoker includes detailed and repeated descriptions as to enrich the text, as well as put the reader as close to the action as possible. This technique makes for more interesting reading and helps the author to share his vision through text as faithfully as possible.

Fleming the Founder

In his essay, "What is an author," Foucault states that, "[In] the course of the nineteenth century, there appeared...[a] kind of author...we shall call..."founders of discursivity," which he explains as a work which serves as the framework which in future authors and artists base there work (Foucault, 114-115). I think it would be fair to categorize Fleming as one of these "founders" because of the clear impact his works have had on others that came after him. A simple online search of "James Bond" (specifically) will show results (movies, TV shows, comics, and other books based on Fleming's) which far outnumber the original work.
As a side point, I found it interesting that the panopticon can explain the situation Bond is in. He does not know where his enemies are and must always be ready for someone who is trying to kill him. This seems to resemble the panopticon which is based on the idea that the prisoner will be disciplined because he does not know if and when someone is watching.

Fleming and Bond: One in the Same?

Michel Foucault's essay, "What Is an Author?" deals with the question of how we as readers should handle the issue of how present the author is in any of their works. This then led me to think about the relationship between Ian Fleming as the author of the novel and James Bond as its debonair protagonist. In our analysis of Dracula it was commonplace on the blog to claim it was the ideas of Stoker that were bleeding into the work when analyzed by gender critics. The same connection is true between Fleming and Bond. While I am sure that the author and his greatest creation are very different in some regards, I think that Bond mirrors some of the anxieties of Fleming in his actions. Bond's world is preoccupied with the fear of Communism much the same as Fleming's is. However, since Fleming is no secret agent all he can do to allay his fears of the reds is to create a fictional Englishman who was a member of her Majesty's secret service will save the day and get the girl every time.

An author is remembered in their works...

Death plays a large role in Casino Royale; the prospect of death is constantly looming over James Bonds' head. So far there have been two instances which he has come close to death, the explosion, and the shot to the back (which was a little unclear if he did get shot or not to me!) But it also seems that’s why he is a “secret agent” There is a reason that James Bond is such a popular character, besides the sexual appeal. I think that Fleming is aware of what readers want, and the idea of the main character dying is thrilling. Death is an important aspect to look at in a novel as well as “within” (does that make sense?) I think that it is important to that an author is not only writing a book just for the sake of writing a book. He has something to say, even thought it may not be evident immediately, it is still there. Realistically everyone knows that they will not live forever, this makes the work of literature much more meaningful if you really think about it then, this is a way of the author to preserve his legacy, so to speak. In these words that he/she writes people will view them as what they have written.

Week #7: Casino Royale & Foucault.

This week, you're reading Casino Royale alongside two pieces by the critic Michel Foucault. I've included an image of the panopticon, a disciplinary innovation in architecture proposed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, for your reference.

Please don't forget the other methodologies we've discussed with Dracula. Consider how they, as well as Foucault's ideas, might work in conjunction with Casino Royale. Also, as tempting as it is, please discuss Fleming's novel rather than the 20+ Bond films that have been made.

As I mentioned last class, your first original posts need to be in by Monday at midnight. And replies to your classmates' posts need to be in by Wednesday at midnight.

Have a great weekend.

Question

Hey everyone. I am trying to zero in on a clear and concise definition of "Deconstruction". Does anyone have any ideas of how to sum it up?

It seems from the readings (the first actually seems to be the technical and historical aspects of the theory) to be the process where the contradictory and multiple meanings of words, phrases, statements, and even characteristics/relationships of the characters are analyzed (I picked this up mostly from context and application of the theory in Riquelme's essay, rather than the first). Does this make sense?

This seems to be the most difficult and in depth theory of them all so far? Agree?

Thanks for all your help in advance.
Barry

The Unconscious

The Unconscious

What is unconscious? Psychoanalytic criticism is a form of applied psychoanalysis, a science concerned with the interaction between conscious and unconscious processes and with the laws of mental functioning. It should not be confused with psychotherapy, which is concerned with treating mental illness and behavioral problems. The reason I am talking about this topic because now I will explain how this topic related with In Bram Stoker’s Dracula. In the story, I noticed that there were times when writer mentioned about an incident where a character was in unconsciousness and dreaming of imaginary things, which can be compared to the psychoanalytic criticism.

In the book, Freud’s directly or indirectly concerned with the nature of the unconscious mind. He had believed that writer wrote out their unconscious thoughts onto paper as a way of coping with the thoughts. I agree with Freud when he talk’s about unconscious mind. Also, I think this topic is very interesting and it’s related to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the part where Mina Harked was not being able to sleep and was dreaming in state of an unconscious mind, which I guess was happening in reality.

In the middle chapter’s I found something exactly like this situation was faced by Lucy, when she was afraid that she would get weak if she fall asleep, which proves that in the novel, many times we noticed the unconscious mind situation of the characters, which shows that somewhere Stoker is closely in relation to this characteristics of mind.

Week #5: Dracula & deconstruction.

No blog as such this week, since you should be preparing your essay outlines. However, if you have questions about Dracula and/or the theory readings, please post them here. Deconstruction can be difficult, so don't despair if you can't work it out immediately. But ask questions--I can't help if you don't ask.

Hint: The correct way to refer to this week's theory is "deconstruction," rather than "deconstructionism" or "deconstructionalism." Be sure to get it right in your journals.

Also, just for kicks and in keeping with this week's theory, here's the song "Jacques Derrida" by British band Scritti Politti.

Have a good weekend!

Dreamy state of desire?

Regarding the psychoanalytical perspective, a distinct moment in Stoker’s Dracula sticks out in my mind as one of the most important moments in which as Foster states, “The ambivalent experience of desiring something that will terrify us [which] can be understood psychoanalytically” (483). This moment appears distinctly in the very beginning of the novel when the captive Jonathan ventures into a closed but not locked room in Dracula’s castle. Literally giving that, “‘Don’t, don’t open that door’” effect that Foster relates to, Jonathan finds himself forcing open the door through which he makes his encounter. Relating back to Freud’s, “theory of repression” which according to Murfin, “goes something like this: much of what lies in the unconscious mind has been put there by consciousness…that it deems unacceptable” (468), Jonathan appears to fall perfectly into this scenario upon encountering the three vampire brides. As Jonathan, “lay quiet, looking out under [his] eyelashes in an agony of delightful anticipation” (61), images of repressed sexual desire arise within his seemingly dreamlike state of mind. The final line for Jonathan of that evening uses the choice word of, “unconscious” to display his feeling as the “horror overcame [him]” (63), adding to that imagery of the dreamlike state. Further, Stoker's use of words such as, "dim, shadowy and faded away" (63), help to add to this illusion of the dreamy state in which Jonathan himself is seemingly not capable of distinguishing from.

unconscious psyche

In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, we noticed that there were times when narrator mentioned about an incident where a character was in unconsciousness and dreaming of imaginary things, which can be compared to the psychoanalytic criticism. I agree to Freud when he mentioned about unconscious mind and all.I find it interesting and related it to Bram Stoker's Dracula, the part where Mina Harker was not being able to sleep and was dreaming in state of an unconscious mind, which I guess was happening in reality. And if we go in the middle chapter’s something exactly like this situation was faced by Lucy, when she could not being able to sleep because she was afraid that she would get weak if she fall asleep, which proves that in the novel, many times we noticed the unconscious mind situation of the characters, which shows that somewhere Stoker is closely in relation to this characteristics of mind.

Psychoanalytic

All of the characters in Dracula fight battles within themselves. There seems to be a struggle with the characters to behave "accordingly". For Johnathan, this was shown when he had an urge to be with the three vampire women who bestowed upon him. Dr. Seward fought very hard to hide his urge to be affectionate with Lucy at her darkest hour. Even Van Helsing fought his urge when he found the three coffins with the vampire women in it. He wanted to fall under their beautiful spell but had to fight the urge. As Freud points out, everyone has an unconscious desire or urge that is repressed. Freud had believed that writers wrote out their unconscious thoughts onto paper as a way of coping with the thoughts. One thing that I would like to point out is the child-like behaviour that Count Dracula displays. When the Count realizes he is being hunted, he resorts back to a familiar ground: his first Castle. Often when a person is fearful, they will resort to a familiar environment for shelter of the mind and body.

Double psyche

Psychoanalytic criticism allows us to believe it is our “uncanny self who stands behind us but casts no reflection in the mirror of [our] unconsciousness” (484) that draws us to crave for something we want, like “Dracula [who] knows what he wants and moves relentlessly towards it” (489). In some sense psychoanalytic criticism provides a ‘scapegoat’ for adults to relieve ourselves of the consequences of our actions by allowing us to believe we are not to blame for our actions in life because it’s the repressed child of our unconsciousness that is desiring these cravings that wouldn’t be displayed by our “adult, rational self” (476). Take Mina Harker for example, a very rational adult woman with her head on her shoulders. Why would she fall under the influence of the monster her rational mind sought out to destroy? Was it because her unconscious “bad child” (476) longed or craved for the desire to be kissed by Dracula himself as Lucy was or to become superior as a man un-caged by restrictions because of their gender. Or was it as Dennis Foster pointed out, she wanted to “enjoy the pleasure normally reserved for the vampire” (489) – her true desire.

Dracula's self-definition

There is an interestingn passage that Foster starts his article with - "We become who we are - we take on our subjective identities - by denying, refusing, or negating the other person we might have been: the male or female we are not, the sibling we envy, the bad child who has all the fun. (483)" This is interesting because as we define ourselves in life, it seems that according to the novel we also define ourselves in death - or more specifically, un-death. The reading exposes that as a living mortal man, Dracula was learned. In his un-dead state, he is redefined by accepting "...the other person [he] might have been" and becomes a slightly feminine, orally-fixated monster. Lucy underwent similar transformation, turning from a Victorian-era "girly-girl" into a bloodthirsty child attacker with a deep manly voice. Her good nature turned to pure evil as she became undead, until her soul was reclaimed in death.

Rational Self and the Bad Child

In Foster’s essay he describes Freud’s theory that we are “fundamentally divided on a psychic level,” by simply stating that “we contain an adult rational self and another self, a bad child.” (p. 483) We bury this child deep in the unconscious. This child is the side of us that Freud describes as “Not me” but “another child who becomes the wild, perverse, desiring, violent creature of our nightmares.”
This is demonstrated in Dracula when Jonathan Harker is sleeping in the Counts castle and the three female vampires came to visit him. The three vampires seem to appear from the moonlight. Though Harker’s journal we know that he describes his feelings as “uneasy, some longing and at the same time some deadly fear. I felt in my heart a wicked, burning desire that the would kiss me with those red lips.”(p. 61) Though Jonathan is engaged to Mina and we knows that he loves her, he is intrigued by them. His rational side is fearful of this women because he has never seen them before and knows that they have materialized in front of him out of moonlight. Though in his head he knows that something is wrong with this situation, the “bad child” within him wants to know what they are going to do to him. He describes his longing for them to kiss him as “ an agony of delightful anticipation.”(p.61) As the passage moves on we see how Jonathan fights with his own thoughts and describes that though he is scared he can not bring himself to stop the women which is the side of the “bad child.”

Psycho Derivations

Dennis Foster states that "[a]t the heart of Dracula is hunger, that blindly mechanical oral impulse that each of us discovers in the first days after birth"(484) and that Jonathan's primary "duty seems to be to chatter (yet another oral task)" (490) as examples of Dracula's psychoanalytical imbuement. The issue with such statements, which threaten the psychoanalytic approach in general, is the problem of creating a situation and explanation from the words which are just not present. If desired, one could argue that almost any action is rooted in "the pleasures of childhood" (490) or in some way connected to a child's actions that was written with a deeper meaning, where it really was not. If Stoker meant to line his story with psychoanalytic meaning, he would have done so more clearly and openly, as seen in our analyses from the Gender Criticism and New Historicism approaches.

Dracula as a Child

In the essay, "Psychoanalytic Criticism and Dracula" the postulation is made by Freud and others that infantile sexual desires are often repressed due to social taboo but can surface from the subconscious in literature. We see this again in the Foster essay, "The Little Children Can Be Bitten", in which he says, "At the heart of Dracula is hunger, that blindly mechanical oral impulse that each of us discovers in the first days after birth."(484) Here the association between the oral fetish that is present in Dracula is with the oral stage of child development. Van Helsing even goes so far in his own psychoanalytic criticism of Dracula to say, "In some faculties of mind he has been, and is, only a child"(300). Whether or not this comment is in direct correlation to Dracula's oral fascination is unclear but it does lend itself to this type of criticism, especially when you consider the fascination with food as well.

“They don’t realize we’re bringing them the plague”

In Foster’s essay on psychoanalytic criticism I thought the quote “They don’t realize we’re bringing them the plague” by Freud was interesting. I thought that this represented the story of Dracula perfectly in more ways than one. Firstly the obvious and a topic that we previously discussed, Dracula is “invading” London and infecting the population. I like how this quote applies to the story because at the beginning Jonathan and his employer are so insistent in helping Dracula with his acquisition, and move to London. It is only till it is too late do they realize what sort of trouble they created.
The other way this quote can be interpreted according to the novel, is they topics touched in the novel, the hidden desires that come through the book in the characters. Being that the time period is still during Victorian times, the topic of sex is somewhat taboo, and obviously a big deal. I think that the quote (above) definitely represents the novel as the ideas of the novel spread like a plague amongst the readers.

Week #4: Dracula & psychoanalysis.

[Saturday: I just noticed that this never went up on the blog, so here it is, a bit late.]

This week, I'm looking for two things in your blog postings: your close reading skills and your understanding of psychoanalysis. Parts of psychoanalysis may be difficult, while others may be familiar--we live in a post-Freud world, after all--but do your best to work through the essays.

Part one: Rather than me give you questions you might apply in a psychoanalytic reading, I'd like you to generate them yourself, based on what Murfin explains and how Foster (he's definitely male, by the way) approaches the theory in his essay. What do you think a psychoanalytic critic might ask of a text? What kinds of symbols or patterns might s/he look for? Could it intersect with other methodologies we've discussed? What might be problematic about psychoanalysis?

Part two: Choose a psychoanalytic element that interests you. (Review Murfin and Foster for ideas.) Find a passage or two from Dracula that reflects this element and explain how it reflects it. Remember, general rule of thumb in literary criticism: claim --> evidence to support that claim --> explanation of why you chose this evidence to support that claim.

Also, as I mentioned yesterday, focus on just 1-2 ideas rather than unleashing the tidal wave of your genius thoughts out at me. I'm only one person! Seriously, though: developing a few ideas with close reading and in-depth analysis leads to a much stronger argument than just a laundry list of ideas.

Enjoy the snow--and I'll see you next week.

P.S. As the paper's coming up, you should start giving it some consideration. Please e-mail or come to my office hours if you want to discuss it or need help. You can also visit the 150 tutoring sessions or Writing Center for outside help, as well.

Schools of Thought in Gender Criticism

In the pieces, "Gender Criticism and Dracula" by Ross C. Murfin and "Corruption of the Blood and Degeneration of the Race: Dracula and Policing the Borders of Gender" by Sos Eltis, bot readings play off each other very well in regard to the role of gender in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Murfin's reading sets the stage and gives an explanation of the essentialist point of view in gender theory and Sos Eltis's article plays it out by giving valid examples of its presence directly from the text. I agree with Eltis's opinion that Stoker's Dracula expresses a clearly essentialist point of view by presenting its male, supporting characters as "manly men" or what society deems as having characteristics that are typically masculine. This essentialist school of thought is very old fashioned and typical of the society that Stoker writes about in Dracula, but it is also present in our present day society.

GENDER CRITICISM

In the Dracula, middle chapters, Bram Stoker spoke about the manly power and the women's helplessness, which we all noticed while we read the text. When Dr. Van, he said to Arthur, the man, who has young, strong blood and Lucy , as an sweet , weak girl which shows the gender difference and In " Kiss me with Those Red Lips" , Christopher Craft, mentioned about Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu , who observed in Carmilla 1872 that "the vampire is prone to be fascinated with an engrossing............."by the gradual approaches of an artful courtship" and recognized " the analogy between monstrosity and sexual desire that would prove, .......future readings of vampirism". I kind of connected Crafts acknowledgement to Stoker's Dracula, when count ( the vampire) , in the form of a bat, always goes to the windows of Lucy's room and make noises through his flapping. I was thinking that why did he pick Lucy, why didn't he pick her mother, i guess may be because Lucy is young and beautiful girl, with pink cheeks which shows that she have a lot of blood. This specifies that the evil(vampire) loves blood and on the other hand sexual desire, can be noticed in Dracula, where Arthur wanted to kiss Lucy, but Dr. Van stopped him, as he did not wanted Arthur to kiss Lucy’s red Lips. The reason why is that, i guess because he had an idea that there is something wrong.

Defying Gender Roles

Two characters that defy gender roles in Dracula are Mina Harker and Van Helsing. The classic women of the 19th century were expected to fit into a certain stereo type. Throughout Dracula, Lucy seems to fit this mold best. As we read her letters we learn she is mostly concerned with parties and marriage proposals. Mina on the other hand is very different. Though she is described as a “Sweet faced and dainty looking girl,” she emerges to be a more complex character. She helps to define the term “New Woman” described by Sos Eltis. We come to learn that she is a former school mistress. She reads and keeps up on current events, as well as travels alone, can read and write short hand as well as us a typewriter. Van Helsing himself even admits that he, a doctor and a lawyer, can not read shorthand. This shows that this is an accomplishment especially for a women in this particular time.Men’s roles in gender even seem to be blurred through out Dracula. Though men are supposed to be considered tough we see a lot of emotion displayed by them throughout the reading. When Mrs. Westenra opened up Lucy’s windows and Van Helsing find out he “ breaks down….Putting his hands before his face, (begins) to sob, with a loud, dry sobs that seemed to come from the very racking of his heart.”(p.149) His emotional side is displayed again after Lucy’s death. We read in Dr. Seward’s diary that Van Helsing breaks, “He laughed till he cried… the he cried till he laughed again; and laughed and cried together, just as a woman does. I tried to be stern with him, as one is to a women under the circumstances.” (p.185) This display of emotion blurs the line because though men can have an emotional side it is rarely displayed. Van Helsing is an educated man who is a strong character in the story. When he shows an emotional side of himself he is becoming more vulnerable and “as a women.”

Gender and Dracula

Although gender defines the masculinity and femininity of a person it also constrains and sets boundaries on a person due to their sex as it somewhat did during the Victorian era. A period where women were seem as the fragile of the sexes and men were the more governing sex in the sense that they were the “the doer, the creator, the discoverer, [and] the defender” (kiss me with those red lips, 108). But the gender barrier of the Victorian era was slowly breaking because women were being to challenge the limits of their gender by “crossing borders and redefining categories (450),” as Mina Harker did by working to help support herself and her soon to be husband. She and Bram Stoker were challenging the rules (or changing the rules if you may) by showing that they are not the weaker of the sexes who “prefer emotions to reason” (453) and should be at home running their homes and adhering to the customs and norms associated with their gender and not worrying their ‘pretty little heads’ with matters beyond their control such governmental issues or the cargos on a incoming ship.

In SoS Eltis essay he mentions the term "New" woman. We can see in his essay he talks about New historic background into the time surrounding the penning of the novel. Eltis say's in the second sentence, " As numerous women fought for a larger role in public life and challenged the traditions that defined women's nature as naturally submissive, passive, self-sacrificing and domestic, so the debate inevitably extended to include masculinity and men's natural role."(450)". Also, we can see Van Helsing is the main character who shows a victorian viewpoint of gender. Not only does he say that men are vital to women, he even takes it one step further saying," we men are determined---to destory this monster, but it is no part for a woman,"(240)". In my opinion women may have some power to do something but they should not use it because is not fit for them.

Ambiguity?

Within this new context of gender roles and the feminist idea, a few new ideas arise regarding Stoker’s Dracula, portraying a different light to the work when compared with the related essays of defining gender criticism, Craft’s “Kiss Me With Those Red Lips’”, and Eltis’s “Corruption of the Blood and the Degeneration of the Race”. Each one, addressing various levels of the feminist idea, begins to add depth the multiple layers of Victorian feminism, sexual energy and gender roles, as portrayed throughout the novel. The interesting thing though, as portrayed by Stoker’s comments, is his somewhat ambivalent state regarding the feminist position within the work. On one hand Stoker represents Lucy as for the most part, a submissive, weaker, well kept, young proper Victorian lady, who when in times of distress needs the “strength” of four men’s blood to keep her alive. This is juxtaposed with Mina, the working woman, who with her own strength plays the stronger support to Jonathan as he struggles with his position within Mr. Hawkins home post his traumatic experience. As Mina states it is, “my belief in him [that] helps him to have a belief in himself” (Stoker 170) representing a complete role reversal from the “norm”. Craft’s work brings the imagery of sex one step beyond in discussing the “wicked desire” as portrayed earlier with Jonathan’s run in with the 3 vampire brides. So does it, for the moment it seems that Stoker appears to perpetuate this ambiguity?

It is obvious that Stoker was writing from a perspective relating to the issues of the day regarding gender roles, specifically women, and their changes to "New Women". It seems that throughout the text, Stoker is against this "revolution" and thinks it will have an affect on society overall. Dracula is the "evil" which is coming over the late nineteenth century England which is affecting not only the women, but also the men who, when interacting with them, will "rub off" on their morality as well. An allusion to this in the story is the sequence of transfusions which are given to Lucy in order to revive her. Dracula, who attacked Lucy after each transfusion, is now linked to the men as well. This is also portrayed in the scenes where Harker almost wanted to be attacked by the three women or when Holmwood is almost drawn in by Lucy when she tries to reenter her grave. Stoker may be stressing that the idea of the "New Woman" is more dangerous than originally thought.

Gender Criticism

It seems that while writing Dracula, Bram Stoker was making a huge statement about the roles of men and women in his society. Throughout the chapters, I noticed how many times Lucy was referred to as "sweet, little, poor, miss, etc", making her seem like a very helpless character. Then, arrives the three brave men to save poor little Lucy from her illness! Often enough, Dr. Helsing refers to Arthur as a man, a real man that will save the day. Stokers portrayal of Lucy enraged me a bit because of how weak she was and how strong these men were claimed to be. Even the women servants who were summoned to help rescue Lucy proved to be of no help because of the drugs they accidently ingested (pg 159). Sos Etis was correct in saying that "The manliness of these men is frequently asserted and emphasized throughout the text" (pg 458). Many times, when the men began to break down and sob, they were viewed in a feminine demeanor. Dr. Seward comments many times about his lack of masculinity at Lucy's ailing side. It's very interesting to read Stokers Dracula as not only a horror story, but as a story that can open your eyes to the male and females struggles of today and yesterday.

Eltis and the "...androgynous mixture"

Eltis' article makes valid points, and in reading it I realized a few times that he was saying things that I was thinking while reading. His claims that certain characters embody both male and female traits is dead on, and he offers a lot of textual proof to back it up. He focuses mainly on Mina Harker and Dracula as the characters with the most evidence of possessing both masculine and feminine traits. He remarks on p. 456 at the top about how Dracula embodied certain female characteristics, namely his "...red lips, long pointed nails, and his housekeeping skills - making Harker's bed and preparing his meals with invisible ease - [which] are suggestively effeminate." On the other hand, he also says that "Mina is the character who most clearly subverts traditional gender categories" (459). She is repeatedly said to have the appearance of a woman, but the brain of a man. She is a learned and skilled protector whose contributions are vital to the eventual conclusion of the story. On page 463 of the essay, it becomes clear that the androgyny exhibited by both Dracula and Mina is a good thing - "...a fusion of masculinity and femininity is viewed admiringly as an ideal for men and women."

The New Women In Dracula

In Eltis’ essay he mentions the term “New” Woman. We can see representations of the “New” woman in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. With the introduction of the “Brides of Dracula”, who are the opposite of the “traditional” Victorian woman, who are pulsing with sexuality, something normally unheard of in this time. Although this introduction is brief, it does allude to the behaviors of Lucy who later becomes a victim of Count Dracula, also possess these qualities. Although Lucy does not have the qualities to the extent of the brides, as she has not completely turned into a vampire thus far.

The “new” woman described in the novel strays from traditional roles and has no regrets. As Eltis states “Vampirism infects women with masculine sexual aggression and perverts their maternal instincts…” Although I do agree that the women who are turned into a vampire, I would not necessarily say that it turns them into a masculine state per se; I think that it unhinges hidden or oppressed feeling of sex and violence. Essentially it undoes what makes us human, the capability to know what is right and wrong.

Masculinity in Stoker and Eltis

Sos Eltis introduces his essay by giving an almost New Historic background into the time surrounding the penning of the novel. He says in the second sentence, “As numerous women fought for a larger role in public life and challenged the traditions that defined women’s nature as naturally submissive, passive, self-sacrificing, and domestic, so the debate inevitably extended to include masculinity and man’s natural role.”(450) It is evident in Stoker’s writing that some of the men are concerned with the masculinity of the others when it comes to dealing with such grave events. First we see Van Helsing using the term ‘man’ as a compliment to Quincey Morris before the transfusion when he tells him, “A brave man’s blood is the best thing on this earth when a woman is in trouble. You’re a man, no mistake. Well, the devil may work against us for all he’s worth, but God sends us men when we want them.”(162) In these lines Van Helsing is falling into a misogynistic view of the role of man as being necessary for saving woman, claiming that man is a Godsend when woman is in trouble.

Week #3: Dracula & gender criticism.

On with Dracula!

This week, you're reading about gender criticism. Make sure you're clear on what is meant by "gender" in these essays. Think about gender in light of the Victorian era's gender issues, rather than from your modern perspective. (I know it's hard not to be judgmental about it, but keep in mind historical context, eh?) Also, note any questions you have about either the theory or Dracula.

Some useful questions to ask in gender criticism that you may want to apply here:

How does this text encode/construct a cultural standard of femininity and masculinity?

How does this text subvert contemporary cultural standards of femininity and masculinity?

How do the genders or sexual orientations featured in the text intersect with social status or ethnic identity or national identity?

In what ways is gender performed in this text, both consciously and unconsciously?

One thing I'd like to see more of, both in your posts and in your journals, is the use of textual evidence. When you make a point about the novel and/or the theory, back it up with a quote or example. Follow that up with analysis of your evidence--in other words, how does it illustrate the point you were trying to make? Don't just assume that your reader will understand automatically what you're talking about.

I expect everyone to come in on Thursday prepared for discussion of Dracula and of the criticism! Have a great weekend and I'll see you next week.