I find that in McCarthy's The Road, the descriptions he gives and the metaphors he uses to portray the scene are wonderful- specifically the diction and imagery used to give the mood and description. On the first two pages of McCarthy's novel, he introduces the environment that will be continued throughout the story. The imagery of darkness give a depressive mood- I imagine an entirely grey world- more like the moon than the earth. Describing the sky as "Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before" shows that the future seems only to get worse. The entire first paragraph is dark and black- the father's "stinking robes", traveling with his son "like pilgrims in a fable swallowed up and lost among the inward parts of some granitic beast". At first the world McCarthy is introducing us to is lonesome and hopeless- but the use of the word "pilgrim" shows us that the father and son are good, and that they have a goal and hope for themselves.
The second paragraph, however, is more of a white color than a darker one. Speaking about the father's dream of a creature, it is described as having "eyes dead white", "pale and naked and translucent", and having "alabaster bones". All of these things are of light color, in contrast with destroyed reality. Talking it over with others, none of us could decide what the creature represented- the good guys or the bad guys. We all agreed that we got a sorrowful and lonesome feeling from the creature, but the words and descriptions used can be construed as a creature with a wild nature. Made from the earth, the creature could represent the land that represents the bad guys- burned, destroyed, and unhelpful to people. Also, it has a "dripping mouth", and stares into the light with sightless and white eyes. These are all elements that an animal would have- perhaps even the cannibals within the novel- and the creature seems to be blind to the light. Light is often a good and holy thing- perhaps the creature does not understand the 'fire' that the boy carries with him and the morality it represents. Also, it has a "brain that pulsed in a dull glass bell", which kind of shows that it isn't too smart. However, the words "pale and naked and translucent" can have a double meaning: it could be sickly and unhuman, but also innocent and defenseless- not something of a cannibal at all.
I have been going back and forth between the idea that the creature represents the good guys or the bad guys. What do you think?
I quite appreciate the diction and imagery used to create and show the scene- however it also has its drawbacks. Although the writing contains a lot of inner meaning- fascinating and descriptive- there lacks a connection with the character. The writing style seems impartial and separate from the reader (which has its own advantages and meanings as well), which causes the reader to not be as engrossed in the novel. Although we are exposed and empathize with the father and boy and the world that they live in, we, as readers (or at least I) do not feel as much. This in itself has its own purpose (like showing how the father and boy must live and survive by living without as much emotion and ignoring some things, and stressing the importance of different things), but takes away the things that draw a reader in. There is not as much suspense, mystery, or intrigue. Despite all this, I find it a very good book- I just had to learn how to read it before I could entirely enjoy it. As the story progressed, I learned how to read it and how to take it all in. Different from the books I usually read, I still like the plot and the themes that McCarthy has done.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Fiction is an Art
The chapter Narrating, in James Wood's How Fiction Works speaks on the cons and pros of third person verses first person. They each have their own benefits and negatives: according to Wood, first person narrative, while seeming to be unreliable, can be "reliably unreliable", as we get to know the character and learn what is true and what is not. Third person omniscient narration, on the other hand, while covering many characters, portrays an author more than the character of whom he/she is describing.
Of this I have to agree. First person narrative often gives more character and personality to the protagonist- not only do we see the character's actions and expressions, but his thoughts- all with a certain pizazz and closeness. In third person, novels take a removed point of view, and, if the author is not an excellent one, a less exciting relationship with the characters, story, and themes of the novel. However, third person can also cover a lot more- creating a different mood for a different kind of book. I have to say that it depends on the author, story, and novel- at times first person is needed, and at others third. There is not black and white way to write fiction- it is an art.
In this aspect Wood seemed to agree with me. He continued on to say that solely third person is not possible: a good author will combine the two, in what the author calls "free indirect speech or style". The narration still is in third person- yet in manages to include the voice of the characters. One example that Wood gives is in What Maisie Knew, by Henry James. The last sentence in the excerpt- "Mrs. Wix was as safe as Clara Matilda, who was in heaven and yet, embarrassingly, also in Kensal Green, where they had been together to see her little huddled grave" Wood analyzes to show the diction James uses to portray both himself and Maisie. The word "embarrassingly" is Maisie's word, a word that conveys Maisie's embarrassment "for a child to witness adult grief, and embarrasing that a body could be both up in heaven and solidly in the ground", as well as the adult opinion of Mrs. Wix. However, the word "huddled" is written by the author for the reader- giving us a picture of the scene and the atmosphere that Maisie need not give.
Wood continues with examples of free indirect speech- and the points he makes are good. It is excellent to mix both first and third person together, but I have to disagree with one thing Wood has said. When he says that specific words are at times the author's when it should be the character's, I can agree with him. However, I do not think that the author and the character should be entirely separate. Cannot the author be the character, or the scene, or the animal? I think any book, whether it is fact or fiction, contains an element of the author- and it should. Some good authors become a part of the story- and without them there, the story would not seem as real. There is no "correct" style to write fiction: like art, it depends on interpretation.
McCormick, in The Road, uses free indirect style quite well. Mixing descriptions of actions and the scene with the thoughts of the father, images are created both by the author as well as the development of the characters. One example I think brilliantly portrays this is on page 256.
"He looked at them. He looked at the boy. He was an outcast from one of the communes and the fingers of his right hand had been cut away. He tried to hide it behind him. A sort of fleshy spatula. The cart was piled high. He'd taken everything."
Here, a father and his son find the thief that stole all of their belongings. While this is clearly third-person, with everything being described by the author- "He was an outcast from one of the communes...", giving a context to who the thief is, McCormick also manages to describe the thief's hand as "a sort of fleshy spatula". Not only is this absolutely repulsive, and stomach-churning, but a word that seems to be the character's. While further discussing the thief's hand, it is a word chosen by the father- and reveals not only who the thief is, but the father's. I have to say, upon seeing a hand without any fingers, "a sort of fleshy spatula" are not the first words I would think of. By thinking of these words first, the father is shown that things considered absolutely repulsive and stomach-churning are not in The Road.
All of this intricate web of alternating third-person and first narrations brings together a whole story, mood, and way of reading. One thing is for sure: what McCormick does- or all fiction writers, for that matter, is an art.
Of this I have to agree. First person narrative often gives more character and personality to the protagonist- not only do we see the character's actions and expressions, but his thoughts- all with a certain pizazz and closeness. In third person, novels take a removed point of view, and, if the author is not an excellent one, a less exciting relationship with the characters, story, and themes of the novel. However, third person can also cover a lot more- creating a different mood for a different kind of book. I have to say that it depends on the author, story, and novel- at times first person is needed, and at others third. There is not black and white way to write fiction- it is an art.
In this aspect Wood seemed to agree with me. He continued on to say that solely third person is not possible: a good author will combine the two, in what the author calls "free indirect speech or style". The narration still is in third person- yet in manages to include the voice of the characters. One example that Wood gives is in What Maisie Knew, by Henry James. The last sentence in the excerpt- "Mrs. Wix was as safe as Clara Matilda, who was in heaven and yet, embarrassingly, also in Kensal Green, where they had been together to see her little huddled grave" Wood analyzes to show the diction James uses to portray both himself and Maisie. The word "embarrassingly" is Maisie's word, a word that conveys Maisie's embarrassment "for a child to witness adult grief, and embarrasing that a body could be both up in heaven and solidly in the ground", as well as the adult opinion of Mrs. Wix. However, the word "huddled" is written by the author for the reader- giving us a picture of the scene and the atmosphere that Maisie need not give.
Wood continues with examples of free indirect speech- and the points he makes are good. It is excellent to mix both first and third person together, but I have to disagree with one thing Wood has said. When he says that specific words are at times the author's when it should be the character's, I can agree with him. However, I do not think that the author and the character should be entirely separate. Cannot the author be the character, or the scene, or the animal? I think any book, whether it is fact or fiction, contains an element of the author- and it should. Some good authors become a part of the story- and without them there, the story would not seem as real. There is no "correct" style to write fiction: like art, it depends on interpretation.
McCormick, in The Road, uses free indirect style quite well. Mixing descriptions of actions and the scene with the thoughts of the father, images are created both by the author as well as the development of the characters. One example I think brilliantly portrays this is on page 256.
"He looked at them. He looked at the boy. He was an outcast from one of the communes and the fingers of his right hand had been cut away. He tried to hide it behind him. A sort of fleshy spatula. The cart was piled high. He'd taken everything."
Here, a father and his son find the thief that stole all of their belongings. While this is clearly third-person, with everything being described by the author- "He was an outcast from one of the communes...", giving a context to who the thief is, McCormick also manages to describe the thief's hand as "a sort of fleshy spatula". Not only is this absolutely repulsive, and stomach-churning, but a word that seems to be the character's. While further discussing the thief's hand, it is a word chosen by the father- and reveals not only who the thief is, but the father's. I have to say, upon seeing a hand without any fingers, "a sort of fleshy spatula" are not the first words I would think of. By thinking of these words first, the father is shown that things considered absolutely repulsive and stomach-churning are not in The Road.
All of this intricate web of alternating third-person and first narrations brings together a whole story, mood, and way of reading. One thing is for sure: what McCormick does- or all fiction writers, for that matter, is an art.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Love: Women's Bane
In this excerpt, Offred talks about the ups and downs of love. Talking with the Commander, Offred has already accepted her position as a handmaid, before the Commander's wife has found her out. Atwood describes the love that women feel, and how obsessive they get that has lead to their position in society. Using diction, irony, and tone, Atwood reveals that love is the cause of women's downfall.
Using diction, Atwood has shown that women have now lost all of their love, and are in that we vs. them position. For instance, she uses "we" a lot, and never mentions who "they" are- although with the context, the reader can assume that Offred is talking about men. Also, at the end of the excerpt, Offred asks questions, one after another, repeating: "Who knows what they do, on their own or with other men? Who knows what they say or where they are likely to go? Who can tell what they really are?" Here, throwing questions out like gunfire, Atwood illustrates that there is a deep fear that women will lose men, and because of this, they are in a lower position in society. Men are surrounded by words like "who"- and even if women love them, they still don't trust them. Also, Atwood even more specifically describes the downfall women take because of their love for men: "Falling in love, we said; I fell for him. We were falling women... this downward motion: so lovely, like flying, and yet at the same time so dire, so extreme, so unlikely". Here, Atwood uses the word flying to give both a fantastic and terrible feeling- much like flying itself. This compares love to a drug- it can feel wonderful and lovely, but in the end they know it is extreme. (I'm not saying this is true, but) Women in this society have fallen for men- not in the traditional sense, but a literal one. All of these words, repeating and stressed, have shown the reader that the fallen position they have- that "we vs. them" has been because of the almost obsessive love that women have for men.
The irony used also contrasts the love that women feel with the reality of their situation. Many similes are used to do this- at first comparing love "like heaven", then "like pain", and showing that women would feel "like a mutant" if they were not married. This contrast of heaven and pain further enhances the idea that women's love is their happiness and their bane. Because of love, women are degraded- but because of their lack of love, women are unhappy. Love made women stop fighting, since they love men, and do not want to fight their love- but in doing this, they have lost men. They do not have any love anymore- from men, friends, or parents. Like in the real world, love is a mystery.
Tone throughout the passage also reveals the emotions that women have on love. At first happy and full of praises with love, the excerpt gradually becomes panicked, hateful, and hard. Offred strongly supports love- "It was the central thing; it was the way you understood yourself". Women's entire being exists for love- "so lovely, like flying". Yet later on, Offred's voice becomes harder and gritted: "You'd wake up in the middle of the night, when the moonlight was coming through the window onto his sleeping face, making the shadows in the sockets of his eyes darker and more cavernous than in daytime". Women have found that love brings them nowhere- and have begun to hate men. Much like their history, women at first trusted men, and thought the fight was over- but now, as they begin to realize, their love and trust is misplaced. Like love, the women at first trusted their new role in society- but now know that their place is not as safe and happy as they thought it was.
Just to add some further thoughts on this, looking at people's opinion of love, it varies, just like Offred does. On this website, blurtit.com, people have literally blurted out what they think. Some love love, and some hate love. However, reading all of the comments, of which there are many, I can conclude (although one is never sure) that love is both good and bad- beautiful, but can cause pain and suffering, as Offred says in the passage. Several of the rather good quotes from the website are:
"It's evil. RUN !!!!" by Mrpiggy
"Love is blind its not good thing it destroys our studies and etc............... And not good too bad................and destroys all things and it makes that he and she alone in this world is no t nice and all knowlege of ours will go off .............." by Anonymous
"Love is so.......good" by Tejeswar
So we can see that love is both good and bad- but I think it's interesting that all these people who commented seemed to have experienced love. Despite the somewhat lack of good communication from many of the commentators, love is a rather interesting question- and is both good and bad. This is the central idea of what Offred is saying in this passage- it feels wonderful, but once it is gone, life is horrible. This could be contrasting the past and the present, with love being Offred's love for Luke, and the present her lack of love from anyone.
Using diction, Atwood has shown that women have now lost all of their love, and are in that we vs. them position. For instance, she uses "we" a lot, and never mentions who "they" are- although with the context, the reader can assume that Offred is talking about men. Also, at the end of the excerpt, Offred asks questions, one after another, repeating: "Who knows what they do, on their own or with other men? Who knows what they say or where they are likely to go? Who can tell what they really are?" Here, throwing questions out like gunfire, Atwood illustrates that there is a deep fear that women will lose men, and because of this, they are in a lower position in society. Men are surrounded by words like "who"- and even if women love them, they still don't trust them. Also, Atwood even more specifically describes the downfall women take because of their love for men: "Falling in love, we said; I fell for him. We were falling women... this downward motion: so lovely, like flying, and yet at the same time so dire, so extreme, so unlikely". Here, Atwood uses the word flying to give both a fantastic and terrible feeling- much like flying itself. This compares love to a drug- it can feel wonderful and lovely, but in the end they know it is extreme. (I'm not saying this is true, but) Women in this society have fallen for men- not in the traditional sense, but a literal one. All of these words, repeating and stressed, have shown the reader that the fallen position they have- that "we vs. them" has been because of the almost obsessive love that women have for men.
The irony used also contrasts the love that women feel with the reality of their situation. Many similes are used to do this- at first comparing love "like heaven", then "like pain", and showing that women would feel "like a mutant" if they were not married. This contrast of heaven and pain further enhances the idea that women's love is their happiness and their bane. Because of love, women are degraded- but because of their lack of love, women are unhappy. Love made women stop fighting, since they love men, and do not want to fight their love- but in doing this, they have lost men. They do not have any love anymore- from men, friends, or parents. Like in the real world, love is a mystery.
Tone throughout the passage also reveals the emotions that women have on love. At first happy and full of praises with love, the excerpt gradually becomes panicked, hateful, and hard. Offred strongly supports love- "It was the central thing; it was the way you understood yourself". Women's entire being exists for love- "so lovely, like flying". Yet later on, Offred's voice becomes harder and gritted: "You'd wake up in the middle of the night, when the moonlight was coming through the window onto his sleeping face, making the shadows in the sockets of his eyes darker and more cavernous than in daytime". Women have found that love brings them nowhere- and have begun to hate men. Much like their history, women at first trusted men, and thought the fight was over- but now, as they begin to realize, their love and trust is misplaced. Like love, the women at first trusted their new role in society- but now know that their place is not as safe and happy as they thought it was.
Just to add some further thoughts on this, looking at people's opinion of love, it varies, just like Offred does. On this website, blurtit.com, people have literally blurted out what they think. Some love love, and some hate love. However, reading all of the comments, of which there are many, I can conclude (although one is never sure) that love is both good and bad- beautiful, but can cause pain and suffering, as Offred says in the passage. Several of the rather good quotes from the website are:
"It's evil. RUN !!!!" by Mrpiggy
"Love is blind its not good thing it destroys our studies and etc............... And not good too bad................and destroys all things and it makes that he and she alone in this world is no t nice and all knowlege of ours will go off .............." by Anonymous
"Love is so.......good" by Tejeswar
So we can see that love is both good and bad- but I think it's interesting that all these people who commented seemed to have experienced love. Despite the somewhat lack of good communication from many of the commentators, love is a rather interesting question- and is both good and bad. This is the central idea of what Offred is saying in this passage- it feels wonderful, but once it is gone, life is horrible. This could be contrasting the past and the present, with love being Offred's love for Luke, and the present her lack of love from anyone.
Monday, November 8, 2010
A Backlash against Women- in the novel and in our lives
Susan Faludi's Blame it on Feminism brings up the idea of backlash against feminism- how many are saying that feminism are responsible for the lack of equality and happiness, while those who accuse are actually the ones to blame.
I think this is one of the main ideas in The Handmaiden's Tale. Throughout the novel, women are constantly to blame for all the problems- infertility, crimes, ect. This all probably stems from the religion the government is based on, and how from the very beginning, Eve ate the apple, thus betraying God. Women are told that they are the problem, and must pay the consequences.
For example, the problem of infertility worries the minds of the handmaidens. When the protagonist has an appointment with the doctor, he tells her the truth: "'Most of those old guys can't make it anymore,' he says. 'Or they're sterile.' I almost gasp: he's said a forbidden word. Sterile. There is no such thing as a sterile man anymore, not officially. There are only women who are fruitful and women who are barren, that's the law" (Atwood, 61). Although men are to blame for the lack of children, the problem is blamed on the women. Not only is it common thought, but the law: women are put on the bottom of the pyramid. This is a classic example of backlash- much like the lack of children and unhappiness of women are blamed on the females in the real world, in the novel it is much the same.
When Janine tells everyone that she was gang-raped at fourteen, it is not the fault of the men who raped her but hers: "But whose fault was it? Aunt Helena says, holing up one plump finger. Her fault, her fault, her fault, we chant in unison. Who led them on? Aunt Helena beams, pleased with us. She did. She did. She did. Why did God allow such a terrible thing to happen? Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson" (72). Not only are women themselves taught that everything is their fault, but that God condemns them too. If Janine's case were in real life, it would seem ridiculous to accuse and humiliate her. Yet in the novel's society, this is what happens. Apparently, women are the cause for every horrible event.
Women are told that they are the cause of problems- and some of them believe it. The backlash in the novel retracted "the handful of small and hardwon victories that the feminist movement did manage to win for women". Although women are more protected, have duties, and are safer overall, they still have not won- far from it.
Reading Julie's reaction to the article, in Equality: Achievable?, I'm not sure how I'd answer the question if inequality will always exist. Julie points out the hypocritical thinking of equality yet self-interest, and how optimistic we could be, thinking that equality will become reality, but I have to say that equality should exist. At any rate, we will constantly be progressing towards equality- we've already improved so far: who's to say that won't continue. There will always be those who wish to oppress and have power (shown by the many dystopian novels that are out there), but the fact that the idea of equality exist means that humanity has a conscience. Unlike Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory, I believe something a little bit different: the world will continue to progress into something better- not only physically stronger but mentally and morally as well. It is not only about power, but the society. Although those who are stronger and smarter do usually run the world, I think humanity works together not to make a better individual, but society. Right now, as Julie said, equality seems to be against the most basic human instincts- but the fact remains that despite our instincts we see equality as a good thing- and so this latter idea will prevail and become a part of reality.
I think this is one of the main ideas in The Handmaiden's Tale. Throughout the novel, women are constantly to blame for all the problems- infertility, crimes, ect. This all probably stems from the religion the government is based on, and how from the very beginning, Eve ate the apple, thus betraying God. Women are told that they are the problem, and must pay the consequences.
For example, the problem of infertility worries the minds of the handmaidens. When the protagonist has an appointment with the doctor, he tells her the truth: "'Most of those old guys can't make it anymore,' he says. 'Or they're sterile.' I almost gasp: he's said a forbidden word. Sterile. There is no such thing as a sterile man anymore, not officially. There are only women who are fruitful and women who are barren, that's the law" (Atwood, 61). Although men are to blame for the lack of children, the problem is blamed on the women. Not only is it common thought, but the law: women are put on the bottom of the pyramid. This is a classic example of backlash- much like the lack of children and unhappiness of women are blamed on the females in the real world, in the novel it is much the same.
When Janine tells everyone that she was gang-raped at fourteen, it is not the fault of the men who raped her but hers: "But whose fault was it? Aunt Helena says, holing up one plump finger. Her fault, her fault, her fault, we chant in unison. Who led them on? Aunt Helena beams, pleased with us. She did. She did. She did. Why did God allow such a terrible thing to happen? Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson" (72). Not only are women themselves taught that everything is their fault, but that God condemns them too. If Janine's case were in real life, it would seem ridiculous to accuse and humiliate her. Yet in the novel's society, this is what happens. Apparently, women are the cause for every horrible event.
Women are told that they are the cause of problems- and some of them believe it. The backlash in the novel retracted "the handful of small and hardwon victories that the feminist movement did manage to win for women". Although women are more protected, have duties, and are safer overall, they still have not won- far from it.
Reading Julie's reaction to the article, in Equality: Achievable?, I'm not sure how I'd answer the question if inequality will always exist. Julie points out the hypocritical thinking of equality yet self-interest, and how optimistic we could be, thinking that equality will become reality, but I have to say that equality should exist. At any rate, we will constantly be progressing towards equality- we've already improved so far: who's to say that won't continue. There will always be those who wish to oppress and have power (shown by the many dystopian novels that are out there), but the fact that the idea of equality exist means that humanity has a conscience. Unlike Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory, I believe something a little bit different: the world will continue to progress into something better- not only physically stronger but mentally and morally as well. It is not only about power, but the society. Although those who are stronger and smarter do usually run the world, I think humanity works together not to make a better individual, but society. Right now, as Julie said, equality seems to be against the most basic human instincts- but the fact remains that despite our instincts we see equality as a good thing- and so this latter idea will prevail and become a part of reality.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Know What You're Fighting For
The Beauty Myth article played along the similar lines of the other feminism articles that we have been reading. Society places constraints upon women by creating that image of the "perfect woman" who must be beautiful. Instead of women knitting and cooking all the time, now it's face painting and hair brushing that occupies their time.
While this concept is true, I am not sure that it can ever be totally erased- society always has a "norm" that we all try to attain. Although I agree that women are overly dehumanized and beautified, variations of the "beauty myth" can apply to all ages, genders, and people. Of course, not everyone has to be beautiful, as women are expected to be, but society has a place where a perfect person should be. Men usually are expected to be strong, tall, macho, and whatever. On television they are often shown to watch the sport games and drink beer... Just as women are expected to look pretty and be successful- for some reason, the two are connected. Children are supposed to be polite and calm, yet active and healthy- any child who dislikes socializing will automatically be looked down upon. What I'm trying to say is that society tries and labels every person within the community- not just women.
Despite these facts, I have to agree that the "beauty myth" is stronger among women. The author keeps relating the war for women earlier to now, and how we (us females) shouldn't lay down our weapons just yet. I have to agree. There is still much to be done to equalize women- not just in action, but mentally. Often times people, both men and women, see and perceive women in a certain way- the idea of that "perfect women" has not quite changed yet, and the media and other corporations are not helping any. At the end of the article, however, the author brings up an important point- that women have to start to change. For that idea of what women should be is all in our heads- if we women stop caring about our looks, so will everyone else. The image of a woman is being carried on through our minds and how we see women. If all of us stop dressing ourselves up and spending hours in front of a mirror, the media will stop portraying women in a certain light- because we won't care so much, and therefore not buy so much. Us women, if we change our ideas, can continue the fight against inequality.
The fight that happened before, winning equal jobs and voting rights, still exists now, but must be fought in a different manner. There is no physical wrong, but a mental one- and so, if we are to overcome this problem, we can fight mentally.
And this is where the idea connects to The Handmaiden's Tale. I think we can take the author's concept in The Beauty Myth, about women taking up the fight again, and connect it to the women in the novel. For one thing, many women have stopped fighting, because they have already fought one battle, and won- and have fallen into a false victory, thinking that their fight was over. Like the real world, their problem was not solved. While women stopped being in pornography magazines and clothing became not so revealing, among many other crimes ended, women are now being put into a different, yet equally oppressive society in the novel. If women stop accepting the society they are in and limitations they have, all of them, then they could pose a successful threat against their societal limitations. Much like in the article, men have given new and old things to the women to keep them busy, doing menial labor. Serena makes millions of those scarves for those outside of the community- whom the protagonist does not even know if they exist. The main character herself does not know what to do with free time- if she has it, she is uncomfortable and unused to the idea. Always these women have duties to keep them busy- duties that aren't so important in the first place. Serena's scarves are most likely not needed, nor the protagonist's physical exercises, to keep her healthy and fertile. The women may be oppressed and unhappy, but before they fight back they have to realize that first.
While this concept is true, I am not sure that it can ever be totally erased- society always has a "norm" that we all try to attain. Although I agree that women are overly dehumanized and beautified, variations of the "beauty myth" can apply to all ages, genders, and people. Of course, not everyone has to be beautiful, as women are expected to be, but society has a place where a perfect person should be. Men usually are expected to be strong, tall, macho, and whatever. On television they are often shown to watch the sport games and drink beer... Just as women are expected to look pretty and be successful- for some reason, the two are connected. Children are supposed to be polite and calm, yet active and healthy- any child who dislikes socializing will automatically be looked down upon. What I'm trying to say is that society tries and labels every person within the community- not just women.
Despite these facts, I have to agree that the "beauty myth" is stronger among women. The author keeps relating the war for women earlier to now, and how we (us females) shouldn't lay down our weapons just yet. I have to agree. There is still much to be done to equalize women- not just in action, but mentally. Often times people, both men and women, see and perceive women in a certain way- the idea of that "perfect women" has not quite changed yet, and the media and other corporations are not helping any. At the end of the article, however, the author brings up an important point- that women have to start to change. For that idea of what women should be is all in our heads- if we women stop caring about our looks, so will everyone else. The image of a woman is being carried on through our minds and how we see women. If all of us stop dressing ourselves up and spending hours in front of a mirror, the media will stop portraying women in a certain light- because we won't care so much, and therefore not buy so much. Us women, if we change our ideas, can continue the fight against inequality.
The fight that happened before, winning equal jobs and voting rights, still exists now, but must be fought in a different manner. There is no physical wrong, but a mental one- and so, if we are to overcome this problem, we can fight mentally.
And this is where the idea connects to The Handmaiden's Tale. I think we can take the author's concept in The Beauty Myth, about women taking up the fight again, and connect it to the women in the novel. For one thing, many women have stopped fighting, because they have already fought one battle, and won- and have fallen into a false victory, thinking that their fight was over. Like the real world, their problem was not solved. While women stopped being in pornography magazines and clothing became not so revealing, among many other crimes ended, women are now being put into a different, yet equally oppressive society in the novel. If women stop accepting the society they are in and limitations they have, all of them, then they could pose a successful threat against their societal limitations. Much like in the article, men have given new and old things to the women to keep them busy, doing menial labor. Serena makes millions of those scarves for those outside of the community- whom the protagonist does not even know if they exist. The main character herself does not know what to do with free time- if she has it, she is uncomfortable and unused to the idea. Always these women have duties to keep them busy- duties that aren't so important in the first place. Serena's scarves are most likely not needed, nor the protagonist's physical exercises, to keep her healthy and fertile. The women may be oppressed and unhappy, but before they fight back they have to realize that first.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Children are so gullible
Both klaus barbie, and other dolls i'd like to see and Teen Mags: How to Get a Guy, Drop 20 Pounds, and Lose Your Self-Esteem address an idea that does not only apply to girls: the impact of things (socially-accepted/enforced) on a child.
Both barbies and teen magazines create preconceptions and images in a child's mind that stick for life. First ideas and memories are important for anyone, and thus a child is particularly susceptible to creating stereotypes and false preconceptions when they are young. Children are known to be innocent and trusting- so they'll believe what anyone (including magazines) say. In early life, the objects that surround a child are telling them what image is perfect, what they should be, and what is wrong. Barbies, like Susan Jane Gilman says, are particularly stereotypical and just plain horrifying. I never thought about this before , and since my access to barbies is severely limited (I am proud to be able to say that I've never owned a barbie), I am not sure as to what extent the ideas a barbie creates effect a child's mind. According to this article, however, it seems pretty great. What shocks me completely, though, is the fact that a child's obsession with barbie does not end with the end of childhood. Reading about the lady who wanted to become a barbie really freaked me out. Sure, she is probably an extreme case, but the fact remains that the majority of people want to be freakishly tall, have blond hair, and be a barbie. How could we have put the idea of perfection upon a scary doll?
Like barbies, I have tended to stay away from teen magazines. In fact, I am not aware of having a role model as a child... unless one counts my older sister- but what younger sister doesn't love and respect her older sis? My experience in the area of teen magazines and their articles is lacking, suffice to say. I was not aware of how stereotypical and dehumanizing these magazines are. What's interesting is how many girls know it is silly and idiotic, yet read it, perhaps unknowingly falling in the trap of these stereotypes. Hanging out with girls, sometimes I listen to them complaining about their weight, or their hair, or how they need to get in shape, when I haven't noticed any difference with their appearance. Of course, I don't usually notice these things anyways, even if there is something to notice, but the point is that girls do have that image of perfection in their minds, of a barbie-like figure that they are forever trying to attain. Not to a drastic degree, but that goal is still there. It's hard to understand why people go on diets or fret about their shape- they look perfectly normal to me.
It is not only barbies that create this image of a 'good and perfect' girl. This concept is everywhere. In Disney movies,the girls are often portrayed the same. Sure, their hair color may differ, but they still remain thin, relatively helpless in a fight, needing a man to come save them, and completely loving and morally pure. Of course, there is Mulan, which gives a fighting image for girls, but her looks are still regarded as that 'pretty perfection'. Diversity in Disney is only just now starting begin (much like barbies)- The Princess and the Frog may have a black woman as the protagonist, but the list at the end of the barbie article of barbies that should be could very well apply to Disney girls. There are no "Dinner Roll Barbies" or "Body Piercing Barbies" in the Disney world either.
What I would like to know is which objects, articles, and toys have an effect on boys to create some preconception of what they should be. For it seems to me that children believe what they see and hear as they take in their surroundings- and why not? They don't know how the world is, or should be. They don't know that the world should not have a should be. As as child, people are just trying to adjust and learn their way around the world. If they are being told the wrong thing, well- who's to tell them that?
Both barbies and teen magazines create preconceptions and images in a child's mind that stick for life. First ideas and memories are important for anyone, and thus a child is particularly susceptible to creating stereotypes and false preconceptions when they are young. Children are known to be innocent and trusting- so they'll believe what anyone (including magazines) say. In early life, the objects that surround a child are telling them what image is perfect, what they should be, and what is wrong. Barbies, like Susan Jane Gilman says, are particularly stereotypical and just plain horrifying. I never thought about this before , and since my access to barbies is severely limited (I am proud to be able to say that I've never owned a barbie), I am not sure as to what extent the ideas a barbie creates effect a child's mind. According to this article, however, it seems pretty great. What shocks me completely, though, is the fact that a child's obsession with barbie does not end with the end of childhood. Reading about the lady who wanted to become a barbie really freaked me out. Sure, she is probably an extreme case, but the fact remains that the majority of people want to be freakishly tall, have blond hair, and be a barbie. How could we have put the idea of perfection upon a scary doll?
Like barbies, I have tended to stay away from teen magazines. In fact, I am not aware of having a role model as a child... unless one counts my older sister- but what younger sister doesn't love and respect her older sis? My experience in the area of teen magazines and their articles is lacking, suffice to say. I was not aware of how stereotypical and dehumanizing these magazines are. What's interesting is how many girls know it is silly and idiotic, yet read it, perhaps unknowingly falling in the trap of these stereotypes. Hanging out with girls, sometimes I listen to them complaining about their weight, or their hair, or how they need to get in shape, when I haven't noticed any difference with their appearance. Of course, I don't usually notice these things anyways, even if there is something to notice, but the point is that girls do have that image of perfection in their minds, of a barbie-like figure that they are forever trying to attain. Not to a drastic degree, but that goal is still there. It's hard to understand why people go on diets or fret about their shape- they look perfectly normal to me.
It is not only barbies that create this image of a 'good and perfect' girl. This concept is everywhere. In Disney movies,the girls are often portrayed the same. Sure, their hair color may differ, but they still remain thin, relatively helpless in a fight, needing a man to come save them, and completely loving and morally pure. Of course, there is Mulan, which gives a fighting image for girls, but her looks are still regarded as that 'pretty perfection'. Diversity in Disney is only just now starting begin (much like barbies)- The Princess and the Frog may have a black woman as the protagonist, but the list at the end of the barbie article of barbies that should be could very well apply to Disney girls. There are no "Dinner Roll Barbies" or "Body Piercing Barbies" in the Disney world either.
What I would like to know is which objects, articles, and toys have an effect on boys to create some preconception of what they should be. For it seems to me that children believe what they see and hear as they take in their surroundings- and why not? They don't know how the world is, or should be. They don't know that the world should not have a should be. As as child, people are just trying to adjust and learn their way around the world. If they are being told the wrong thing, well- who's to tell them that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)