The Burden of the Humanities

I really enjoyed reading Wilfred M. McClay’s article The Burden of the Humanities. There were a few ideas in particular I really found interesting. I really enjoyed McClay’s comparison of humanities and sciences. Science is concrete. There are right answers in science. However, humanities are broad and indeterminate. “The humanities are imprecise by their very nature. But that does not mean they are a form of intellectual finger-painting” (pg. 36). Although imprecise, humanities deal with the world around us, how we see it. Sciences explain the world in a robotic manner, without reference to human meaning. I also really enjoyed the joking story McClay used to explain the American attitude towards the past. The man in the story did not want to pay for the story, but only pay for the bronze statue. Even after all the rats followed him and he saw the power of the statue, he still did not want to know the story behind it. He just asked to be sold, “a bronze statue of a lawyer?” (pg. 39). As a reader of this story, I too did not really care about the story behind the statue. I was too entertained by the punch line. My telling this story, McClay effectively motivates the reader to learn about our culture’s past. In order to appreciate our country, one must learn and have a general knowledge of our past. You can’t appreciate what one has today, “unless you pay the price of learning the stories” (pg. 39). The third idea that I really enjoyed was McClay’s analysis of humanities in the past in order to predict the definition of humanities in the future. In the past, humanities have been understood as humans opposed to animals, the divine, or the rational mechanical. Humanities have been defined as opposition to what humans are not. McClay then argues that, “what we call ‘the humanities’ will survive and thrive, however we choose to define them” (pg. 41). Whatever the humanities is used to oppose next, it will thrive since it has thrived to oppose many different ideas in the past. McClay then goes on to explain that he thinks that humanities will be defined to oppose the recent problems and prospects of biotechnology and medicine. Cloning, artificial wombs, species melding, etc. will force us to call into question our limitations and what it means to be human. I think McClay is right on his prediction of the future. It will be interesting to see how people use humanities to support or oppose new advances in biotechnology and medicine in the future.

The Little Mermaid

The Little Mermaid wants many different things in this story. I cannot choose a single thing she longs for because it changes throughout the story. The Little Mermaid is the youngest of six sisters. When a mermaid turns fifteen, she is allowed to swim to the water’s surface to watch the world above. Each year, an older sister swims to the surface and then tells the Little Mermaid what she has seen. At this point in the story, the Little Mermaid is longing for her turn to swim to the surface. She wants to see the world above her and wants to see humans.

Once the Little Mermaid turns fifteen, she ventures to the water’s surface. She sees the ship with the handsome prince and falls in love with him. At this point in the story, the Little Mermaid wants love. As a result, she saves the prince from the storm. However, she is not seen by the prince and has to leave him to the young girl from the temple. The interaction with the prince leads the Little Mermaid to ask her grandmother about humans. She learns that humans have eternal souls. At this point, the Little Mermaid wants to be human and have an eternal soul.

In order to get an eternal soul, the Little Mermaid exchanges her tongue and goes through much pain. She is also risking dying brokenhearted and being turned into sea foam if the prince does not love her. The Little Mermaid is unsuccessful in her mission to obtain the prince’s love as the prince marries the girl from the temple.

Despite how many things the Little Mermaid longs for throughout the story, she is never selfish. This is proven in the Little Mermaid’s final decision not to slay the prince. The Little Mermaid cannot bring herself to kill the prince, even though it would allow her to live out her full life as a mermaid. As a result of her selflessness, she turns into some kind of spirit. She will earn her own soul by doing good deeds for others.

There are some life lessons that one can learn from this story. First lesson is to recognize what you want, and do as much as you possibly can to obtain it. However, you cannot try to reach your goals at the expense of others. This idea leads to the lesson of selflessness. Look out for others as well as yourself.

Wrapped in Tradition

“Wow,” is what I said when entering the museum. “What cool photos, blankets, and glass work!” I think anyone can appreciate the photos, trade blankets, and glass works of Dale Chihuly that can be found in the Wrapped in Tradition: The Chihuly Collection of Native American Trade Blankets exhibit. I was amazed at the eighty vintage Native American trade blankets, the large black and white photos, and the numerous pieces of original artwork from Chihuly’s Blanket Cylinder series. I was particularly interested in the trade blankets. The multicolored blankets with breathtaking designs can be universally appreciated for the craftsmanship and overall appearance. Each blanket had unusual, complex designs. It seems like each blanket probably took a year to make. For these reasons alone, I really enjoyed viewing and analyzing each blanket. However, I further appreciated the trade blankets after learning the importance of the trade blankets in Native American culture. The Native Americans found inspiration in the natural and spiritual world around them. They incorporated their surroundings in these multi-colored blankets. Most of them have a lot of red in them. I’m not sure what that meant, but I am interested if someone could tell me. In the 1800s, these blankets were objects of power, prestige, and potential for Native Americans. The blankets could also be used as symbols for peace. “…Handling of a blanket became a signal for peace,” Meriwether Lewis (an American settler) wrote in his expedition journal in 1805. American trade blanket companies began using Native American design elements in new combinations and colors, and their blankets became part of Native American ceremonial life. It is interesting that commercial enterprises began recreating and changing the Native American blankets for profit. I think the contingent factors of the blankets are necessary to fully appreciate the importance of these trade blankets. The blown glass collection was also spectacular. Chihuly crafted these pieces of art from 1975-1995. The blankets on the glasses portray the unique colors, patterns, and textures found in the Native American trade blankets. Putting the blankets and the blown glass in the same room creates and interesting dialogue between Native American traditions and contemporary art.

Francisco Goya's The Colossus (1808-1812)

(I searched everywhere for information on the Bird Walker, but was unsuccessful. I even emailed Doug Cockell, but did not receive a response. Without this information, I feel I could not give a full explanation of the painting. I have found another painting and will share my analysis.)

Francisco Goya’s The Colossus (1808-1812) is an exceedingly interesting painting. The painting is occupied by a colossal sized man who is among the mountains. His legs are hidden up to his thighs so it cannot be determined if the giant is walking or standing. Clouds surround him which gives an estimate of how tall he is. His fists are raised in a boxing stance and his eyes are closed. The giant occupies the upper two thirds of the painting. The final, lower third is occupied by a valley where people and cattle run in all different directions. What was Goya trying to say when he painted this? The answer to this question is the reason for my appreciation of this painting.

Goya painted The Colossus some time from 1808-1812. The Peninsular War was being fought during this time. The French invaded Spain in 1808 and the war continued until 1814. Goya used this painting to voice, as a Spaniard, his view of the war. The giant is in an aggressive, fighting stance, and represents the Spanish population emerging to confront the Napoleonic invasion. Why is the giant’s eyes closed? The closed eyes represent blind violence. The giant looks almost inhuman with his eyes closed. He will attack anyone and harm anything with the goal of spreading death and destruction. The scattering people and animals in the valley help emphasize the giant’s power. They are all fearful which proves to the viewer that this giant means business. This idea is exactly what Goya was trying to emphasize when painting this. In painting this image, Goya was basically saying, “Watch out Napoleon! Spain is like this colossal giant. We will destroy and kill anyone who opposes us and act with blind violence. Beware!”

My interest in this painting is grounded in the ‘universal’ idea of using a painting or image to illustrate an idea. Goya used this painting to explain his view on The Peninsular War. He wanted to show his Spanish people what he thought of his country, and how they could rise up against the French. One must research the contingent factors in order to fully appreciation this painting. Without knowing that this painting was completed during The Peninsular War, the viewer would not recognize that Goya used his art to illustrate his view of the time.

(On an unrelated note, art experts have recently questioned whether The Colossus was actually painted by Goya. It may have been painted by one of his assistants. Please read this article if you are interested: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/is-goya-masterp.html-just-a-colossal-mistake-808645.html .)

Doug Cockell's Bird Walker

I have searched everywhere for the year of this painting and the media of the painting. I do know it was painted within the last couple decades and it is most likely acrylic as most of Cockell's paintings are. Let me know if you would like me to find a different image where this information can be found. However, I do feel like I can analyze this painting effectively and even connect it to Laterna Magica.

Eirik's Saga

Eirik’s Saga contains a lot of information on the Nordic expeditions to North America. How much of it is actually true? This question kept popping into my mind while reading these adventures. However, I feel this question is not important when analyzing the literary style and history of this saga.

One conclusion I immediately came to was the importance of family lineage in Norse culture. The first two chapters set up the characters and explained who is whose son and who is married to whom. These family lineage breakdowns were extremely confusing to me, “Eirik was supported by Styr Thorgrims- son, Eyjolf of Svin Island, Thorborn Vifilsson, and the sons of Thorbrand of Alptafjord….” (77). Who? What? Come again? It makes sense that I do not understand these first chapters as I was not alive during this time. This saga was not written for people today to read. The literary style shows that these adventures were written for people of the fourteenth century. They explain the characters as if the reader already knows them. The importance of family lineage is a universal idea that can be seen in cultures today. However, the specific characters and lineage in the saga are hard to identify with.

There was a lack of character development in these stories. Each story focused on the specific action or event instead of the depth of the characters. Character descriptions were often brief with few adjectives used, “Karlsefni was a sea-going merchant and was considered a trader of great distinction” (91). The character development consisted of the character’s family, occupation, and how the character was perceived by society. Much of recent literature uses a good amount of dialogue to develop characters. This saga has little dialogue and is mainly used to drive the action. It is not used to reveal the inner quality of a character. I argue that the character development in this saga is a polar opposite to Jane Austin’s character development in Pride and Prejudice. I felt no connection with the characters in this saga.

No matter how hard I tried I could not help but doubting the accuracy of these tails. The accounts in this saga are historical fiction. They are based off some historical fact, but have been embellished and altered. I still think it is important to examine this saga to reveal some history of these early European explorations of the New World.

Frost

Frost’s poem “Mending Wall” is about two neighbors and one stone wall. Every spring the two meet and make repairs on the wall. However, the speaker does not understand why there is a need for the wall. There are no cows to contain, it is simply there to separate the neighbors. The old neighbor responds to this by saying, “Good fences make good neighbors.” The speaker is still not convinced and continues to press his neighbor to look beyond this old-fashioned tradition. His neighbor cannot be swayed. The speaker thinks his neighbor is from an outmoded era. In the last line of the poem, the neighbor repeats his initial proverb. Like most of Frost’s poems, this one seems simple at first glance, but is actually filled with complex ambiguity. Frost uses his ‘artistic vocabulary’ to propose many ideas in this poem. The worth of boundaries and keeping the status quo are a couple of the main ideas that can be discussed after reading Frost’s poem.

This poem allows readers to question the worth of boundaries. Boundaries are made to confine things. In this poem, the wall was not necessary, but the two continue to build it every year. The specific example within the context of this poem leads to the universal question of why concrete boundaries are necessary. To me, people have walls to mark their property and they are used as a means of safety. Would a household be safe without a wall and without locks to protect them? Would there be violent behavior if everyone trusted everyone else? Or is it because nobody trusts anyone else and puts up walls that spark violence? I believe walls are seen as an object of distrust. However, people feel obligated to have walls because of violent behavior they have heard about. I also think walls and boundaries are used for privacy, and discourage communal feeling. Developed countries contain people who crave privacy, more so then less developed villages where everything is shared. So does the want for privacy and economic background correlate? I believe so.

In this poem, there is no need for the wall. The speaker explains that walls are needed to contain cows, but “here there are no cows.” He tries to question his neighbor, but continues to help mend the wall. This specific story brings up the universal idea of “changing the status quo.” People act in ways similar to how people have acted in the past. I saw this idea when we read about “Stubborn Stina” in Laterna Magica. She continued to wait for her seamen because the pattern she had grown accustomed to was comfortable for her. Should people continue to do something just because it is comfortable? Or should actions be changed if they are not applicable? I argue that if something is no longer necessary, change it. However, there are those who believe tradition is very important. I think the idea of tradition bleeds in to discussions about religion. Some rituals in religions do not apply to the twenty-first century like they applied when the religion was formed. I believe rituals and actions should be altered to fit the specific time and situation. However, it is very hard to change the status quo and alter what has been done in the past.

Blog # 7

I found William Heinesen’s short stories in Laterna Magica very hard to analyze and hard to find meaning in each of them. However, I did find a few examples of the relationship between individuals and ‘the collective.’ These relationships helped me find deeper meaning in the short stories as a whole. Characters in these stories are constrained by their mental labyrinths and cannot live normally. ‘The collective’ does not appreciate the character’s admirable qualities, so they are looked at as outcasts instead of heroes.

Master Jacob is one character who battles ‘the collective.’ “He was a learned man, a researcher and a collector. He was a fantastic collector of words…” (p. 18). One might think that Jacob, with his wealth of knowledge, would be a highly regarded man among ‘the collective.’ However, this is not the case. No one cared about his collections and research and he was, “met with only scant appreciation of his meticulous language and tireless labor” (p. 20). As a result of no one caring, Jacob withdraws himself from everyone. His only sources of joy are his music, his cat, and his secret rendezvous with Miss Urd. Jacob withdraws himself and cannot live normally because he is so focused on the fact that ‘the collective’ did not appreciate his hard word.

Stubborn Stina battles ‘the collective’ as she imperturbably waits for her seaman Thomas to return. Stina’s friend and family tell her to drop him. “He’s not worth your faithfulness, he’s running wild out there in the great trackless world, he’s boozing and carousing and has a sweetheart at every port” (p. 28). They attempt to sway her away from waiting for him while she is still young and beautiful. However, Stina will not listen to the advice. Even after she receives news that Thomas has perished, there is no change in Stina and she continues to wait. Stina is so focused on the idea of waiting that she is unable to live a normal life. Stina’s dedication can be looked at as admirable, but in reality, ‘the collective’ sees her as a crazy woman who is devoted to a man she will never see again.

The final example I recognized in these short stories was the clash between Midjord’s belief in the miracle he saw and ‘the collective’s’ disbelief in the miracle. Midjord tried to explain to everyone that he had seen Old Tonnes flying in the air after being swept up by the storm. However, all the people he told just smiled and shook their heads. Even the pastor told him, “It’s against the law of gravity and the law of God” (p. 88). We do not know what further action Midjord takes, but we do know that the pastor told him to, “Put a blinder over your eyes and seal over your lips, then you will see that everything will turn out for the best, for you and for me and for all of us” (p.89). This sentence in particular reminded me of Ibsen’s play An Enemy of the People. Dr. Stockmann was harshly treated for trying to speak up about what he had discovered about that baths. Midjord is being encouraged to not speak of what he saw. If this short story were to end in a similar manner as the other short stories of Laterna Magica, then I would anticipate that Midjord would not listen to ‘the collective’ and instead continue to speak of the miracle he saw. Midjord would fit very nicely with the other characters that have admirable qualities, but are shunned by ‘the collective.’

Poem: Mending Wall by Robert Frost

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

Post #6

Dr. Stockman has discovered that the town’s bathing complex’s drainage system is contaminated. The baths are essential to the town’s economy, and a dysfunctional bathing complex would be economically devastating for the town. Instead of facing the truth and trying to make changes, there is a lot of opposition to Dr. Stockman’s discoveries. One group that opposed Dr. Stockman was the leaders of the town. This group was opposed to Dr. Stockman because they were concerned about power. The powerful leaders were fearful of losing power so they opposed Dr. Stockman. These leaders were fearful of the people, fearful of the majority. Fear of the majority is Ibsen’s main criticism in this play. He is criticizing the tyranny of the majority. The leaders of the town are at the people’s mercy because they are afraid of the majority. Hovstad’s action is one example of a leader folding under the mercy of the majority. Hovstad is the editor of the town’s main newspaper. Although he wanted to print Dr. Stockman’s report on the baths, he was influenced by the majority because he was fearful he would upset his subscribers. The mayor is another example of a person of power being influenced by the will of the majority. He does not want to reverse the original bath plans because it will confirm that he made a mistake. He is fearful that the majority will force him out of his position of power. Ibsen is also trying to prove the people of power can easily manipulate the majority. The townspeople are the other group that opposes Dr. Stockman. However, the people are manipulated by the leaders. Dr. Stockman holds a town meeting in order to inform the people of the bath problems. However, the mayor and Aslaksen keep him from speaking and are manipulating the majority. Also, I think Hovstad did not want to publish the story because he was trying to please the majority. He made the decision for the majority, that they would oppose Dr. Stockman’s discovery. Aslaksen, the mayor, and Hovstad all manipulated the majority and forced them to oppose Dr. Stockman without them even knowing they were being forced. Leaders have to try to please the majority even if they have to act dishonestly.

Blog #5

Shakespeare uses his ‘artistic vocabulary’ to establish the power relationship between Claudius and Hamlet in the opening act of his play Hamlet. This relationship is most notably established in the second scene. Claudius pledges that the joy of his marriage to Gertrude balances the sorrow for his brother’s death. This is an idiotic idea because Gertrude is his dead brother’s widow, and marrying her is not necessarily a joyous occasion. However, although very superficially, the royal court still seems to support Claudius. Hamlet is the only person who is unwilling to go along with Claudius’ attempts to demonstrate a healthy royal court. Shakespeare immediately uses Hamlet to contradict Claudius. Claudius refers to Hamlet as a son. I am not sure if Claudius actually thinks of Hamlet as a son or if he is continuing his manipulative actions. Hamlet sees his relationship with his Uncle Claudius as strictly family, not a relationship with fondness. Hamlet is still wearing black mourning clothes for his father. In an attempt to give fatherly advice, Claudius explains that all fathers die, and that all sons are supposed to mourn for their fathers. However, sons must not mourn too long or it is seen as inappropriate and unmanly. Claudius’ attempt to give Hamlet fatherly advice gives the reader a negative impression of Claudius. He tells Hamlet to stop grieving for this dead father. Claudius attempt to be a fatherly figure to Hamlet is an unpleasant idea since Claudius is Hamlet’s dead father’s brother and he married Hamlet’s mother Gertrude. Claudius’ advice is also suspect since Hamlet was in line to be king until Claudius came and snatched it away. Shakespeare uses the Gertrude-character to further emphasize the power relationship between Claudius and Hamlet. Hamlet feels betrayed by her mother’s remarriage. He remembers how in love his parents were and voices his pain in his soliloquy at the end of the scene. Hamlet is intensely disgusted at his mother’s marriage to Claudius and how soon it happened after his father’s death. He says, “By what it fed on: and yet, within a month,— Let me not think on’t, Frailty, thy name is woman!— A little month; or ere those shoes were old With which she followed my poor father’s body” (I, ii, 145–48). Hamlet also compares his father, “an excellent king,” to his Uncle Claudius, a “satyr.”

Blog #4

When researching the history of Francisco Goya's painting "The Third of May 1808", I learned about the historical component of this painting. Goya was trying to commemorate the resistance of the Spanish people to Napoleon’s army during the occupation of 1808. However, in true Michel Foucault fashion, I will analyze this painting and its ‘artistic vocabulary’ without any art-historical investigation. I will not look at “contingent” factors like the artist’s biography, relationship with the patrons, or any social context. I will look strictly at the painting and try to interpret the artist’s narrative.

The painting is an obvious contrast between two distinct groups. The first group to me is an unorganized group of captives held at gunpoint. The other group is of a uniformly and organized firing squad. The captives have sorrow expressions written on their faces. Some are lying on the ground dead while others are crying and showing their mercy. The group on the left is faceless and absent of emotion. They have robotic mannerisms as if they were programmed to kill these captives. It is obvious that Goya is favoring the sorrowful captives on the left. They are shown more as humans since their faces are visible and show emotion. Goya does not favor the firing squad since he painted their backs to the viewer and they are portrayed as robots more than humans.

The central figure in the painting is a man in the center of the group of captives. He is the lightest form in this dark-colored painting. The glowing, white color represents good. It is the only light figure in the dark painting. The viewer is drawn to this man not only because of the lightness of his shirt, but also the leading lines of the firing squad’s guns. The guns are pointing at him in the actual action of the painting, and also point the viewer of the painting to him. This man shows the most action as his arms are flung wide to show his appeal and mercy. Also, his face is depicted with a lot of detail to show his human qualities and his sorrow.

Goya uses ‘artistic vocabulary’ brilliantly to show that his painting constitutes a narrative. No historical context is necessary to explain that he strongly disapproved what was going on during the time of his painting. He is trying to make a statement that this type of war action is not appropriate and is immoral

Blog #3

In Michel Foucault’s analysis of Las Meninas, the analytical observation I found most interesting was his interpretation of what was the center reference point. I tend to agree with his “X” theory. It is easy to see an “X” formation from the painter’s eyes down to the dog’s back and from the male courtier’s eyes down to the bottom of the canvas. These two lines intersect at the eyes of the Infanta. I seemed to be more drawn by the “X” shape than the “vast curve” which is later described.

I also enjoyed Foucalt’s argument that the people’s names that are shown in the mirror are not important. It is obvious that the two people in the mirror are King Philip IV and his wife, Mariana. But he explains that if you want to “keep the relation of language to vision open,” and “treat their incompatibility as a starting-point for speech instead of as an obstacle to be avoided, so as to stay as close as possible to both, then one must erase those proper names and preserve the infinity of the task” (9). It is easy to see that the people in the mirror are important because everyone is focused on them. However, the names are not necessary and Foucalt wants to analyze the visual relationships in the painting without historical facts.

I thought it was very interesting that Foucalt described this painting in vast detail, but left out any information of art-historical investigation. Subject matter was not explored nor was any “contingent” factors like the artist’s biography, relationship with the patrons, or any social context. Instead, he focuses on what is specifically going on in the painting. He highlights the visual relationships between the painter on the left, the subject-model, and the viewer. Foucalt explains this reciprocity viewing relationship, “A mere confrontation, eyes catching one another’s glance, direct looks superimposing themselves upon one another as they cross. And yet this slender line of reciprocal visibility embraces a whole complex network of uncertainties, exchanges, and feints” (4). At first glance at this painting I did not think of this reciprocal relationship. However, it is very evident after studying the painting and after reading this analysis.

I think Foucalt is trying to explain that this painting contains a new way of thinking in European art. It is a middle point between the old Classical style and the new modern style. He explains this idea in the final paragraph, “Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were, of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us….and representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form” (16). Foucalt is hypothesizing that this painting could be the cross over between how art was and what it can will be.

Blog #2

In our assigned text, Joseph Carroll explains that the Darwinian literary criticism model is insufficient when analyzing literature. This model looks at basic evolutionary psychological motives to predict how people will behave. Carroll argues that this method of criticism is unsatisfactory because people do not always follow universal patterns of behavior. Also, Carroll argues that characters in literature are not real people, and instead are expressions of the author. This Darwinian method analyzes behavior by looking at the universality of human nature. It does not take into account contingent factors like culture, economics, intelligence, or social standing.

After summarizing the flaws of the Darwinian literary criticism, Carroll begins to critique Pride and Prejudice using a different model. In this model, Carroll analyzes the points of view of the author, characters, and audience in order to fully explain what Austen was trying to write to her audience. The Darwinian literary criticism explains that men in the novel look for women who are beautiful and women look for men who have recourses. However, these biological and evolutionary attractions are not the only important attributes. Instead, “they must…be weighed in the balance of the total set of values that can be integrated a well-proportioned economy of human life” (100). Austen is explaining her own set of values in the novel, often times through the Elizabeth-character. Along with Elizabeth, Darcy is the other protagonist Austen uses to refute the “Darwinian” idea of human nature. Instead of youth and beauty, Darcy is attracted to Elizabeth’s wit. And instead of property and rank, Darcy’s strength of character (originally thought to be weak by Elizabeth) is what eventually attracts Elizabeth. I think Carroll does an excellent job in analyzing the novel.

After reading Carroll’s analysis of Pride and Prejudice, it was evident that not all humans act universally. It is easy to assume that humans act in and evolutionary and reproductively driving behavior. However, humans are much more complex than this. One must look at a human’s background and their uniqueness in order to better predict their behavior. I think the Darwinian literary criticism is too general and too large scale. I believe biologists and evolutionary idealist support it because it probably rings true when looking at the human race as a whole. However, I think a better model must be used when analyzing specific humans in specific situations.

Blog #1 9/8

What is the importance of the Mr. Collins-character?

When I looked at the Mr. Collins-character, I thought of him as a symbol for how men viewed women, and the role of men and women in 18th century England. I think Jane Austen uses Mr. Collins to make a social criticism of her era’s view of marriage. Mr. Collins was not at all prepared for the refusal of his proposal to Elizabeth. He assumed that Elizabeth would be happy to marry him because her future would be secure. Elizabeth was unique because she did not believe in marriage just for security. She wanted a companion that would make her happy every day and that she would actually love. This idea was contrasted by her best friend Charlotte Lucas. Charlotte believed love was not a vital part of marriage, so when Mr. Collins proposes to her, she accepts. Mr. Collins is a symbol for how marriage was viewed by men at the time of the novel.

Another dimension of Mr. Collins-character was his contrasting characteristics to Mr. Darcy. Although both men are viewed as very proud, Mr. Darcy actually has reason to be proud because of his wealth and social status. Mr. Collins is just obnoxious and overly proud of himself because he works for the “great” Lady Catherine De Bourgh. I believe Austen made Mr. Collins so pitiful in order to highlight Mr. Darcy. At Mr. Bingley’s party, I kept thinking how obnoxious Mr. Collins was and how he kept getting in the way of everyone. I found myself liking Mr. Darcy more because I disliked Mr. Collins so much. Mr. Darcy seemed more gentlemen like because Mr. Collins was not gentlemen like at all.

I believe Mr. Collins was also used to illuminate Mrs. Bennet’s foolishness as well as Mr. Bennet’s wisdom. After Elizabeth refuses Mr. Collins’ proposal, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet have opposite responses to Elizabeth. Mrs. Bennet was appalled that Elizabeth would refuse the opportunity to get married and secure her future. She chased Elizabeth down and begged her to reconsider. Mr. Bennet, on the other hand, respected Elizabeth’s decision and realized that Elizabeth had absolutely no interest in Mr. Collins and therefore should not marry him. Mr. Collin’s proposal allowed Mr. and Mrs. Bennet to show their contrasting views on their daughters’ potential marriages.

Durant: How would you describe Durant's view of the importance of philosophy?

Durant argues the importance of philosophy because it answers the questions that science cannot answer. Science advances and philosophy regresses as more questions are answered by science and fewer questions are left to be answered by philosophy. Science explains how things happen while philosophy explains why.