Researching periodicals this semester has been my favorite part of the course, however I find it somewhat difficult to find a common thread in the articles I brought to class. The three I've chosen to revisit here have elements of sensationalism and skepticism, but mostly…these are my faves. :)
From 10/35: on Witchcraft
You might remember this one-- it's a short little morality tale from The Minerva on January 31, 1824. It's about a woman named Trine Pipers who, because she showed no desire to get remarried after her husband died, and because everyone in the town was envious of her carefree lifestyle, everyone decided was obviously a witch. Oh, and she had a cat, which pretty much sealed the deal. So the townspeople started spreading rumors and stopped associating with her and she eventually became destitute and died in her house after the roof blew off. Aaand then her remains were "refused the rites of sepulture" and they impaled her cat. This quote really drives the "moral of the story" bit home:
"The fact was, that Trine grew old and solitary; she had no children, no relations; the cat was the only thing on earth that really loved her; and the heart, that age had closed to all else, was yet open to this single object of affection. How could it be other wise? But, among the ignorant and superstitious peasantry of a remote village, the report was fatal. The charge of witchcraft, like the imputation of madness, is, with the prejudiced and ignorant, sure to confirm itself; actions, which in others would not be noticed, are so many proofs of the accession with those who have been blighted by its fatal mildew."
From 11/01: on Executions, etc…
This article comes from The American Magazine of Wonders and Marvellous Chronicle, in 1809, and it's titled "Singular Circumstance"….
"In 1747, a man was broken alive n the wheel at Orleans, for a highway robbery….when the executioner concluded he was dead, he gave him to a surgeon, who had him carried to his anatomical theatre, as a subject to lecture on. The thighs, legs, and arms, of this unhappy wretch, had been broken; yet, on the surgeon's coming to examine him, he found him reviving…."
The article goes on to explain that the surgeon fixed up the "executed" man, gave him a cart to get around on, and left him to a life of begging on the street. In a shocking turn of events, the beggar did NOT redeem himself, and instead started brutally murdering and robbing people who passed him on the road and mistook him for an injured soldier. Personally, I was surprised by the amount of detail that the article gave on his crimes…
"The bushes were searched, and a descent discovered into a cave. Here were found three young girls and a boy. The girls were kept for the offices of servants, and the purposes of lust; the boy, scarcely 12 years of age, was son to one of the robbers. The girls in giving evidence deposed, that they had lived three years in the cave; that they had been kept there by force from the time of their captivity; that dead bodies were frequently carried into the cave, stripped, and buried; and that the old soldier was carried out ever dry day, and sat by the roadside for two or three hours."
And the article ends with this very brief conclusion: "On this evidence, the murdering mendicant was condemned to suffer a second execution on the wheel."
Yikes.
From 11/15: on miracles, angels, etc.
This was the week that I searched for "stigmata", and found the "Modern Miracle" article about Holy Sister Emmerich and details about her holy suffering. This is from the New England Galaxy and Masonic Magazine on Dec. 24, 1819.
"Finally, her medical attendants acknowledged that her disorder was beyond the reach of their skill, and God crowned his work by causing Stigmata to appear on her feet and hands. There is also a wound on her side, which is surmounted by a small crucifix: and every Friday, between seven and eight in the morning, her head is encircled by a crown of blood, whence, and also from the wounds above mentioned, the flood flows abundantly till noon."
This article is referencing Anne Catherine Emmerich, who was beatified in 2004 by good ol' Pope John Paul II. What I find the most interesting about this particular article, however, is the conflicting message that the New England Galaxy and Masonic Magazine is sending in its opening statements:
"Superstition and imposer are still in existence in various parts of the continent, as appears from the following curious document…." -- this is the text preceding the story, which is concluded, still within quotations, by saying "The supernatural facts above related, respecting Sister Emmerich, of the Convent of Dulmen, are accurately true. They are corroborated by the Apostolic Nuncio of the Netherlands, who visited Dulmen for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. They are also attested by many respectable eye-witnesses, all worthy of implicit credit."
And this story was quoted from the Atheneum.
Revisiting these articles reminds me of how surprised I was to find such gory details in early American periodicals. Such skepticism and sensationalism seems like a product of our current culture, but clearly sensationalism was alive and well in the early 1800s. I am interested in the way that these stories are presented, the first as a cautionary tale about the dangers of gossip and superstition, the second a cautionary "Once a crazy felon, always a crazy felon" story, and the third is a very serious and "accurately true" account, which is preceded by a skeptical introduction by the editor. I wonder if these stories were all received as they were intended, whether the New England Galaxy readers believed in Sister Emmerich's stigmata, or if the lesson present in the story of Trine Pipers and her cat was well heeded by what might've been a very superstitious readership. There are so many interesting avenues of study here, but as always, I am most interested in what the response may have been, and would like to further research these particular stories to see how they may have been represented elsewhere, and if any responses were printed.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Novels
An Extensive Republic - pg. 440-448
"Novels"
Elizabeth Barnes
I'm still hung up on the first paragraph, to be honest.
"At the turn of the nineteenth century, the genre of the novel was loosely defined, encompassing not only fictional narratives, but also a 'whole range of nonfictional reading materials, including sketches, captivity narratives, and travel pieces,' while works that are today readily classified as novels (e.g., Tristram Shandy) claimed other designations ('a sentimental history')." (440)
So. Here we are classifying non-fiction as "novels", while at the same time attaching labels such as "history" or "truth" to works of fiction. No wonder the history of the novel is such a complicated and interesting field of study. This passage really makes me wonder over the magical mystical written word. I mean, seriously-- what other medium could insist the truth of fiction and fiction of truth? It's madness!
But really, how cool is this? Film could never do this. Yes, I know, I talk about film a little too much for a Master of English (what, is it weird to call myself that?)-- but I can't help it. It makes me think about the movie Galaxy Quest and how the Thermians (I'm revealing my fangirl here, aren't I?) thought that the Star Trek-esque TV series "Galaxy Quest" was a "historical document", mistaking the actors in the show for an actual space crew.
It's kind of creepy, when you think about it. LabeNoling Charlotte Temple as a "tale of truth" and Tristram Shandy a "sentimental history"….giving a fictional character a gravesite?
I mean, jeez. We'd better clarify this stuff. Wouldn't want to confuse the alien visitors (or the people in the distant future!).
"Novels"
Elizabeth Barnes
I'm still hung up on the first paragraph, to be honest.
"At the turn of the nineteenth century, the genre of the novel was loosely defined, encompassing not only fictional narratives, but also a 'whole range of nonfictional reading materials, including sketches, captivity narratives, and travel pieces,' while works that are today readily classified as novels (e.g., Tristram Shandy) claimed other designations ('a sentimental history')." (440)
So. Here we are classifying non-fiction as "novels", while at the same time attaching labels such as "history" or "truth" to works of fiction. No wonder the history of the novel is such a complicated and interesting field of study. This passage really makes me wonder over the magical mystical written word. I mean, seriously-- what other medium could insist the truth of fiction and fiction of truth? It's madness!
But really, how cool is this? Film could never do this. Yes, I know, I talk about film a little too much for a Master of English (what, is it weird to call myself that?)-- but I can't help it. It makes me think about the movie Galaxy Quest and how the Thermians (I'm revealing my fangirl here, aren't I?) thought that the Star Trek-esque TV series "Galaxy Quest" was a "historical document", mistaking the actors in the show for an actual space crew.
It's kind of creepy, when you think about it. LabeNoling Charlotte Temple as a "tale of truth" and Tristram Shandy a "sentimental history"….giving a fictional character a gravesite?
I mean, jeez. We'd better clarify this stuff. Wouldn't want to confuse the alien visitors (or the people in the distant future!).
Monday, November 14, 2011
Women Writing in the Early Republic
An Extensive Republic - pg. 364-381
Women Writing in the Early Republic
Joanne Dobson & Sandra A Zagarell
"…although the individualized public identity that writing would confer on authors of both sexes by the middle of the nineteenth century was unthinkable in the early republic, writing did tend to bestow on women a form of semi-anonymous public identity grounded in their writing alone, for individual writers were often expressly identified by means of their publications" (368).
So, tomorrow morning I am defending my thesis. I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I am knee-deep in a project, I am reminded of it everywhere, and the readings for class this week were no exception. As I read through the chapter, I was struck by the similarities between these early women writers and the women who are posting fiction regularly on fanfiction communities online. These women are working in their own modern version of "leisure time" (if we even really have any nowadays) and are frequently posting their fictions anonymously or under a pen name. Fanfiction authors are also typically identified by their writing alone, or are able to create their own authorial presence in online communities or public blogs associated with their writing pseudonyms.
In a text that I use for my thesis, Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture, Henry Jenkins points out the value that this fan writing may have for modern women, "Women who have low prestige jobs or who are homemakers can gain national and even international recognition as fan writers and artists; fan publishing constitutes an alternative source of status, unacknowledged by the dominant social and economic systems but personally rewarding nevertheless"(159).
I can't help but find this intriguing. While some women in the 1820s were making the big bucks (or any bucks) from publishing their work, others were participating in print culture simply for love of writing, similar to these current trends in fan participation. Although women have come a long way as far as authorship, these marginalized communities of readers and writers may suggest that some of the practices used in early American print culture, namely the anonymity of women's work, are still valued today as they create a public barrier and encourage writing for writing's sake, rather than for monetary gain.
(Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992. Print.)
Women Writing in the Early Republic
Joanne Dobson & Sandra A Zagarell
"…although the individualized public identity that writing would confer on authors of both sexes by the middle of the nineteenth century was unthinkable in the early republic, writing did tend to bestow on women a form of semi-anonymous public identity grounded in their writing alone, for individual writers were often expressly identified by means of their publications" (368).
So, tomorrow morning I am defending my thesis. I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I am knee-deep in a project, I am reminded of it everywhere, and the readings for class this week were no exception. As I read through the chapter, I was struck by the similarities between these early women writers and the women who are posting fiction regularly on fanfiction communities online. These women are working in their own modern version of "leisure time" (if we even really have any nowadays) and are frequently posting their fictions anonymously or under a pen name. Fanfiction authors are also typically identified by their writing alone, or are able to create their own authorial presence in online communities or public blogs associated with their writing pseudonyms.
In a text that I use for my thesis, Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture, Henry Jenkins points out the value that this fan writing may have for modern women, "Women who have low prestige jobs or who are homemakers can gain national and even international recognition as fan writers and artists; fan publishing constitutes an alternative source of status, unacknowledged by the dominant social and economic systems but personally rewarding nevertheless"(159).
I can't help but find this intriguing. While some women in the 1820s were making the big bucks (or any bucks) from publishing their work, others were participating in print culture simply for love of writing, similar to these current trends in fan participation. Although women have come a long way as far as authorship, these marginalized communities of readers and writers may suggest that some of the practices used in early American print culture, namely the anonymity of women's work, are still valued today as they create a public barrier and encourage writing for writing's sake, rather than for monetary gain.
(Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992. Print.)
Monday, November 7, 2011
Men Writing in the Early Republic
An Extensive Republic - pg. 350-363
Men Writing in the Early Republic
David Leverenz
This week's reading was super interesting, and let me tell you why: It was about men. I know! I said it. It's a weird thing to say, but I've said it and it's out there.
So let me explain myself, I guess.
Like many students of the female persuasion, I've always gravitated toward courses centered around women in literature. I'd eagerly chime in on the debates about diversifying the canon and nod along while others professed their dissatisfaction with sexist readings of literary history. And I don't take any of that back, really…..but it has occurred to me lately that I may have overdone it a bit. While I was taking up the cause for female writers, and while I understood the importance of this cause, what I actually lacked (and am in many ways still lacking) -- is that knowledge of classically canonical (and masculine) texts that provides a sort of foundation on which the emphasis on women writers has been built upon.
In other words, I am the product of literature courses that put particular emphasis on women's writing, and because of this I feel an odd disconnect from what is meant to be "common knowledge" (at least to English grads).
So, I suppose that is a sort of jumbled explanation of why this week was so very enlightening. :) I found the points about masculinity and manhood to be interesting, particularly the little insights into how some of these authors sought or failed to find a true sense of manhood. I had hoped that Leverenz would return to some of the earlier discussion about pseudonyms, perhaps looking more closely at the different attributes, because I found this particularly interesting-- but overall it was an informative and clear reading.
Men Writing in the Early Republic
David Leverenz
This week's reading was super interesting, and let me tell you why: It was about men. I know! I said it. It's a weird thing to say, but I've said it and it's out there.
So let me explain myself, I guess.
Like many students of the female persuasion, I've always gravitated toward courses centered around women in literature. I'd eagerly chime in on the debates about diversifying the canon and nod along while others professed their dissatisfaction with sexist readings of literary history. And I don't take any of that back, really…..but it has occurred to me lately that I may have overdone it a bit. While I was taking up the cause for female writers, and while I understood the importance of this cause, what I actually lacked (and am in many ways still lacking) -- is that knowledge of classically canonical (and masculine) texts that provides a sort of foundation on which the emphasis on women writers has been built upon.
In other words, I am the product of literature courses that put particular emphasis on women's writing, and because of this I feel an odd disconnect from what is meant to be "common knowledge" (at least to English grads).
So, I suppose that is a sort of jumbled explanation of why this week was so very enlightening. :) I found the points about masculinity and manhood to be interesting, particularly the little insights into how some of these authors sought or failed to find a true sense of manhood. I had hoped that Leverenz would return to some of the earlier discussion about pseudonyms, perhaps looking more closely at the different attributes, because I found this particularly interesting-- but overall it was an informative and clear reading.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Newspapers & Periodicals
An Extensive Republic - pg.389-409
Newspapers & Periodicals
Andie Tucher
So, I have a question. Can we read an entire book by Andie Tucher? I found this section entertaining--which may say quite a lot about what kind of early American periodical I would subscribe to-- and informative. I loved the colorful language and tongue-in-cheek moments. My kinda writing, really.
I found Tucher's comments on reprinting interesting, and although we've spoken about this several times in class, I was particularly struck by this passage: "Always heavily represented was news from Europe or Washington that had been copied, with or without attribution, from other papers. Some country editors, relying on a provision in the 1972 Post Office Ace that allowed any editor to exchange his paper with any other postage-free, might fill half or more of their news hole with items reprinted from other organs around the country and the world. In a country paper, originally did not count, and the publication of a novel or local fare was often taken as a sign of editorial desperation, a last resort when the mail carrying more important tidings was late." (Tucher 296)
Tucher goes on to mention the lateness of reprinted news-- which we've seen a bit in our search areas in class-- and provides a few examples of really really late news…which I find so difficult to imagine, given our current wealth of information technology.
There were a two things that struck me about the passage I've quoted above. The first, of course, involves me attempting to wrap my feeble brain around the challenge of doing any kind of productive research, particularly on periodicals, pre-Internet/databases. How lucky are we, really? Can we all just take a minute to appreciate our ability to trace these crazy reprints via all the wonderful databases that we're provided? I feel a bit spoiled, honestly.
Secondly, I'm interested in the shift from publishers always waiting for the "mail carrying more important tidings," to a recognition that what was going on locally was of enough importance to be circulated. The last sentence in the above quoted paragraph really struck me as emphasizing the value placed on what everybody else was up to, rather than an interest in the local community that a country paper might serve.
Newspapers & Periodicals
Andie Tucher
So, I have a question. Can we read an entire book by Andie Tucher? I found this section entertaining--which may say quite a lot about what kind of early American periodical I would subscribe to-- and informative. I loved the colorful language and tongue-in-cheek moments. My kinda writing, really.
I found Tucher's comments on reprinting interesting, and although we've spoken about this several times in class, I was particularly struck by this passage: "Always heavily represented was news from Europe or Washington that had been copied, with or without attribution, from other papers. Some country editors, relying on a provision in the 1972 Post Office Ace that allowed any editor to exchange his paper with any other postage-free, might fill half or more of their news hole with items reprinted from other organs around the country and the world. In a country paper, originally did not count, and the publication of a novel or local fare was often taken as a sign of editorial desperation, a last resort when the mail carrying more important tidings was late." (Tucher 296)
Tucher goes on to mention the lateness of reprinted news-- which we've seen a bit in our search areas in class-- and provides a few examples of really really late news…which I find so difficult to imagine, given our current wealth of information technology.
There were a two things that struck me about the passage I've quoted above. The first, of course, involves me attempting to wrap my feeble brain around the challenge of doing any kind of productive research, particularly on periodicals, pre-Internet/databases. How lucky are we, really? Can we all just take a minute to appreciate our ability to trace these crazy reprints via all the wonderful databases that we're provided? I feel a bit spoiled, honestly.
Secondly, I'm interested in the shift from publishers always waiting for the "mail carrying more important tidings," to a recognition that what was going on locally was of enough importance to be circulated. The last sentence in the above quoted paragraph really struck me as emphasizing the value placed on what everybody else was up to, rather than an interest in the local community that a country paper might serve.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Revolution's Legacy for the History of the Book
An Extensive Republic - pg.58-74
The Revolution's Legacy for the History of the Book
Richard D. Brown
For this week, I was struck by a particular passage in which Richard Brown discusses Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
"Paine crystallized a broad, popular sense of citizenship, jealous of privilege and eager to use print to enter into discussions of public affairs. Although they were suspicious of privilege and galvanized by Paine's earthy rhetoric, in the quest for greater political influence common folk would in time be reading many of the same literary, historical, and political texts that circulated among the elite and emulating genteel rhetoric." (67)
Man, I find this fascinating. It reminds me of the suspicious attitude that is put on academics, that whole "too much knowledge" thing that I've always been baffled by. It made me laugh, first of all, and I think it's a really great and important point. To think of someone getting all up in arms after reading Common Sense and charging around with a mind to weigh in on public affairs, but then realizing that maybe they have more in common with the "elite" than they expected? Kinda cute, Americans.
I guess this really says something about the idea that the circulation of knowledge as it reflects on who has the "control" of the nation. While texts like Common Sense incite excited patriotism and a desire to become involved in public affairs, they are also promoting education beyond their pages by influencing their readers to quest for "greater political influence".
The Revolution's Legacy for the History of the Book
Richard D. Brown
For this week, I was struck by a particular passage in which Richard Brown discusses Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
"Paine crystallized a broad, popular sense of citizenship, jealous of privilege and eager to use print to enter into discussions of public affairs. Although they were suspicious of privilege and galvanized by Paine's earthy rhetoric, in the quest for greater political influence common folk would in time be reading many of the same literary, historical, and political texts that circulated among the elite and emulating genteel rhetoric." (67)
Man, I find this fascinating. It reminds me of the suspicious attitude that is put on academics, that whole "too much knowledge" thing that I've always been baffled by. It made me laugh, first of all, and I think it's a really great and important point. To think of someone getting all up in arms after reading Common Sense and charging around with a mind to weigh in on public affairs, but then realizing that maybe they have more in common with the "elite" than they expected? Kinda cute, Americans.
I guess this really says something about the idea that the circulation of knowledge as it reflects on who has the "control" of the nation. While texts like Common Sense incite excited patriotism and a desire to become involved in public affairs, they are also promoting education beyond their pages by influencing their readers to quest for "greater political influence".
Monday, October 17, 2011
An Extensive Republic- Introduction
Overall, I enjoyed this introduction-- except that it made me wish I had more space in my brain for all the interesting details that Gross provides. Although the writing style is a bit snoreworthy, my interest in early American print culture has survived due to these little details, and I've been particularly interested in the stuff about nineteenth century libraries and their tumultuous relationship with the early novel.
"Most of the social libraries that were started in the early republic aimed to bring 'useful knowledge' to their members, chiefly in the form of substantial works of nonfiction-- histories, biographies, geographies, travels, practical science." (43)
First of all, can we agree that it's difficult to imagine a library without a healthy dose of fiction? Along with being tickled by the assumption that 'useful knowledge' is limited to works of nonfiction, it just all sounds so….dull.
"An up-to-date collection could not avoid novels, and so long as they were thought morally improving and restricted to a modest number, the social libraries gave in to popular demand and furnished them. But the popular enthusiasm for fiction overwhelmed the custodians of culture." (43)
Now, I'll admit that I've taken to defensively overanalyzing what is meant by the use of the word 'popular'. On the one hand, I understand that the term does have the ability to merely suggest the level of interest a particular item/idea/abstraction has received. However, I don't think that anybody ever describes something as 'popular' without attaching to it some kind of value, be it negative or positive. I find it interesting when reading the above quote by Gross, that while today we may find ourselves siding with the 'popular enthusiasm for fiction' and shaking our fists at the 'custodians of culture' who attempted to limit the availability of the novel, we also tend to distance ourselves from the 'popular' as it is described today.
Sometimes academics remind me of hipsters. You know? Those "I listened/read/saw that band/book/movie before it was popular" kids. The ones who look down on 'popular' media and attach to the phrase as many negative connotations as they can. Popular, after all, isn't cool. But then, when we really think about it-- these expressed values indicate an opinion similar to the 'custodians of culture' that Gross mentions in his introduction….and if the early American hipsters had gotten their way, if popular enthusiasm for fiction had been shunned and barred from social libraries…where would we be now?
"Most of the social libraries that were started in the early republic aimed to bring 'useful knowledge' to their members, chiefly in the form of substantial works of nonfiction-- histories, biographies, geographies, travels, practical science." (43)
First of all, can we agree that it's difficult to imagine a library without a healthy dose of fiction? Along with being tickled by the assumption that 'useful knowledge' is limited to works of nonfiction, it just all sounds so….dull.
"An up-to-date collection could not avoid novels, and so long as they were thought morally improving and restricted to a modest number, the social libraries gave in to popular demand and furnished them. But the popular enthusiasm for fiction overwhelmed the custodians of culture." (43)
Now, I'll admit that I've taken to defensively overanalyzing what is meant by the use of the word 'popular'. On the one hand, I understand that the term does have the ability to merely suggest the level of interest a particular item/idea/abstraction has received. However, I don't think that anybody ever describes something as 'popular' without attaching to it some kind of value, be it negative or positive. I find it interesting when reading the above quote by Gross, that while today we may find ourselves siding with the 'popular enthusiasm for fiction' and shaking our fists at the 'custodians of culture' who attempted to limit the availability of the novel, we also tend to distance ourselves from the 'popular' as it is described today.
Sometimes academics remind me of hipsters. You know? Those "I listened/read/saw that band/book/movie before it was popular" kids. The ones who look down on 'popular' media and attach to the phrase as many negative connotations as they can. Popular, after all, isn't cool. But then, when we really think about it-- these expressed values indicate an opinion similar to the 'custodians of culture' that Gross mentions in his introduction….and if the early American hipsters had gotten their way, if popular enthusiasm for fiction had been shunned and barred from social libraries…where would we be now?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)