Wikipedia Article

I found this article very interesting-- it opened my eyes to just how prominent and useful the internet can be. I mean, I know how useful it is but I didn't realize how much bigger Wikipedia was than the Encyclopedia Britannica. I've always heard that Wikipedia is not a credible source because it can be edited by pretty much anyone, but I've never seen anything so outrageous or incorrect that suggests that some random kid went in and messed with the page; I think that what gets overlooked by teachers so often is the fact that there are people whose job it is to make sure that these pages stay as accurate as possible. Things like banning the whole House of Representatives because they kept trying to make themselves look better is a perfect example of how under control the website is. I am a huge fan of wikipedia-- it's so convenient, so user-friendly and more broad than any other source I can think of in terms of topics covered. Jimmy Wales, the founder, created a website that allows for access to apparently over a million topics at the user's disposal and I think that to have such an easy way to learn is both a curse and a blessing. It's wonderful to have such a fast spread of awareness of so many things and to make learning about them so much easier, but some people don't dive deeper past Wikipedia when doing research, and obviously not everything can be covered on every topic. It sometimes substitutes real research, and the use of hard copies of books and encyclopedias, which to me is kind of sad. I am a fan of the website and I find it very helpful but at the same time I think it should be used in addition to these other sources rather than replacing them, I think it should serve as a kind of starting point for research or studying and not be the sole source of it. As far as the article, I found the section on Essjay and the drama that surrounds the editing very fascinating, and the information that can be seen as subjective and what gets to stay on the site versus what doesn't. It seems overwhelming to think that there is so much to constantly monitor and fix, and the mention of five robots whose job it is to revert incorrect information just doesn't seem like that many. But I guess that the staff and the policies in place on top of that get the job done, because like I said, I've never seen any major flaws in an article.

Acts 3 and 4

Higgins is ridiculous! I understand the times and the context but the way he treats Eliza and talks about her is unbelievable. I think it's funny that so much importance is placed in class and social rank and people judge so harshly, but then on the other hand that it's so easy to elevate someone from one class level to another-- with a few speech improvements and wardrobe touch-ups, Eliza becomes something to admire rather than something to frown upon and judge and treat as though she were an inanimate object (something that Higgins said is pretty much all women are worth anyway. Or something along those lines). I feel like he kind of gains respect for her in a weird way, or maybe respect isn't the word--but at the end of scene four, he seems hurt by her words after the experiment is over and they have a somewhat passionate exchange, with the slippers and the ring and everything. I think maybe Higgins is regretting the way he's acted in the past few months, like maybe he has begun to respect Eliza. But does he just respect the woman he's turned her into? Or would he have grown to respect her regardless of class after getting to know her? I think the answer to that kind of determines what kind of man Higgins is, and he hasn't really proven himself a very upstanding human being thus far.

Lyn Pykett: Feminist Perspective

I liked the unconventional stance that Wuthering Heights took (at least according to Pykett) in terms of feminism and women’s place in society. The part where she analyzes the influence women generally hold and its comparison to Catherine in the novel was interesting: “Catherine’s story also dramatizes the limits of female influence. Her marriage to Edgar, which ironically she sees as a means of empowering herself to assist Heathcliff (p. 87), proves unable to reconcile the two men, and her belief in the power of her influence over Heathcliff is equally illusory” (p. 472). Despite Catherine’s dominating tendencies and desire for at least some notable power or control over the situation, the simple fact that she is a woman makes it impossible for her to hold any substantial decision-making ground or for her to gain the type of attention from men that they so easily give each other. The unconventionality comes from the fact that this marriage that Catherine enters into, rather than simplifying and normalizing her life as would be the case in most situations of this time, just further complicates and “compounds the problems of Catherine’s life and exposes its contradictions”. The presence of Heathcliff and Catherine’s feelings for him make her marriage to Edgar seem irrelevant and petty. The novel examines the choices women must make and this particular situation is a perfect example of how choosing society and normality over passion and love can often backfire and cause the type of misery that was probably meant to be avoided in the first place.

Cultural Critical Perspective

The very first paragraph of this essay drew me in. The enigmatic nature of Emily Bronte and the description of her as "stronger than a man, simpler than a child, her nature stood alone" is what has always fascinated me about her; and the observation that Wuthering Heights is a story so detached from the rest of the world, politically and historically, is an interesting one to consider. Would the book have the same impact had it been more interconnected with some type of culture other than its own, other than the small world of Wuthering Heights? I think that the self-contained nature of the novel adds that mysterious dark air that makes the novel what it is. It has such a secluded, otherworldly air, and I think this also contributes to the strange characteristics of Heathcliff, Catherine, and all the other characters in the novel. The culture within the novel, the culture of the Grange and the Heights and the relationship between the two, is rich in and of itself, and possibly even more so because of the lack of an outside influence.
Something else I found interesting about Armstrong's text was her discussion on the incorporation of photography into society and how it "brought the more remote regions to the metropolis in much the same way that Wuthering Heights did" (438). She talks about how the photographer is detached from the photograph as much as Emily remained detached from her writing, but I think I disagree with this-- from all the descriptions I've read about Emily and her personality, I think that there's a lot of her characteristics in this novel-- distant, melancholy, troubled. She didn't necessarily recount a story of her life or deliberately placed herself within the pages, but I believe that she's as much a part of the novel as a photographer is a part of the photograph. You can't see the photographer in the picture, but there's a trace of him and his artistic eye in the picture-- it's how you can look at an Ansel Adams photograph and know immediately who took it without being told. The artist always incorporates his or her own style or approach into the art being produced.

Wuthering Heights

I've read Wuthering Heights before, about four years ago in high school. And this is one of those "the place you are in your life determines the context of the book you're reading" scenarios, for sure. Because I recall thoroughly enjoying this the first time I read it, and I believe I connected to the characters and found the writing impeccable. Perhaps it was because there was so much interaction with the book (given that it was a high school course), with projects and discussions and multiple essays that I was fooled into thinking I enjoyed it simply because I had so much incessant exposure to it. I still enjoy the atmosphere of the book-- I feel like it's somehow a cozy read mingled with anticipation, and it is nice to return to the complicated story within the story of Nelly and Lockwood, and to be reintroduced to the complex array of characters like Heathcliff. I just don't seem to have a deep connection to the book like I felt I did before? Maybe it's because I know the characters and don't identify with them the way I used to, or maybe I just wasn't as exposed to literature the first time I read it so I felt like it was one of the first real classics I enjoyed. I'm not sure, I think I will see where my opinion goes as I keep reading-- I vaguely recall the story picking up pace and gaining momentum and I think there are some interesting plot twists and scandals. We'll see!

Forbidden Reading

The section that I found most significant, or at least the one that elicited the biggest reaction, was the section on forbidden reading. I found myself immensely grateful that society as a whole has become more liberal about things that were so controversial and taboo centuries ago. The book-burnings across all different cultures and the elimination of the "old spirit" in favor of the new was shocking; the incredible lengths taken to censor reading material just because it no longer aligned with what the public was wanted to know or believe made me appreciate the right I have today to be able to read whatever I want without fear of penalty. I think it's important to be able to trace history via literature, and that wouldn't be possible if the book-burning tradition had remained so prominent and consistent an activity. I find that what irks me more than almost anything else is someone with a mind closed to many if not all cultures, belief systems, and ideas aside from their own. The quote by General Videla on page 289 cemented this disdain: "a terrorist is not just someone with a gun or bomb, but also someone who spreads ideas that are contrary to Western and Christian civilization." I think it's vital that people be able to try to know as much as possible about everything, and to have their minds absorb all different mentalities and beliefs and philosophies from every corner of the world-- otherwise their life is confined and sheltered and so limited that it's almost a waste in my opinion.

A History of Reading: A New Perspective

I began the book with hesitation; the title isn't exactly captivating. But once I got past the initial judgment, I was pretty   intrigued by what Manguel had to say. His universalization of reading is fascinating-- I never took into consideration exactly how necessary and vital reading material is in this world, not just for literature buffs or students, but for every possible genre of person--from astronomers to architects to musicians and beyond. He refers to reading as "the craft of deciphering and translating signs", which broadens the concept of reading to connect to language, culture and history. When he begins to delve into the timeline of reading, it's a bit overwhelming at first-- but he focuses on things I never paid much attention to, like the preference of verbal reading to silent reading in certain cultures, and things like how much of a privilege reading and writing were in the Middle Ages and Renaissance period (p. 71). The transformation of literature over the centuries is fascinating not only in the sense of how immensely language has shifted and evolved over the years, but also because of the cultural context surrounding the writing. So much attributes to the writings of a certain time and place; for example, the church used to hold much authority and precedence over the writings of its students: "The original texts--whether those of the Church Fathers or, to a far lesser extent, those of the ancient pagan writers--were not to be apprehended directly by the student but to be reached through a series of preordained steps." (77) The reading has made me appreciate both what intensity has gone into the great writings of the past centuries, and it has also made me appreciate the artistic freedom we are given today as writers as opposed to the strict methods used in ancient cultures. As far as Manguel's interpretation of this vast history, I love his well-rounded analysis of reading versus being read to and the benefits of hearing a story via someone else's tongue and inflections in contrast to absorbing the text silently. Overall, a very fascinating read (Sorry if this post is a little all over the place, there is a lot of material to cover!)

Introduction

Sorry I'm a little late to this. :) I'm Kim, I'm a junior and I just transferred to Kennesaw State. I'm a natural-born English major, I've had a passion for writing and reading ever since I can remember. Literature and all things English-related are definitely my forte. Aside from that, I'm passionate about photography and music-- I have a probably unhealthy addiction to going to shows and festivals, the energy is unlike anything else I've ever experienced. There's probably more I could say, but I'm not the best at talking about myself. :)