This week's reading was of particular interest to me, as copyright laws and sensationalism tend to pop up in just about every research interest I have. Currently, I'm in the middle of work on my thesis, which deals with intellectual property and copyright as it relates to derivative texts (ie: fanfiction)-- so seeing where some of these conversations began was helpful in my thinking. I was particularly interested in the comment on pg. 121 about derivative works and abridgments:
"In Wheaton and other cases, the courts were skeptical of claims of copyright infringement by derivative works, such as abridgments. According to an 1853 decision, a translation of a work did not infringe on the copyright of the original and an author had no property right in a book's fictional characters." (121)
My, how things have changed! This passage stuck out to me because it serves as a nod to the shift in the general perception of intellectual property that has occurred over time. In many of the texts I've been reading on fan culture, it is pointed out that the ownership of a text or its characters is a relatively recent development, and prior to copyright laws such as these, people would add to existing stories and borrow characters without a second thought as to who "owned" them. It was interesting to see the regulations clarified and the steps it took to get to our current idea of ownership today.
I also found the development of the gossipy, sensationalist press to be fascinating. It was no surprise, really, that Americans were into murder and scandalous details, but it was interesting to see how the penny press adapted in format to suit its readership, and how the English and French press compared to the developments in American techniques.
I was also interested in the beginnings of advertising "plugs", as referenced on pg. 146: "In response to demands from advertisers, many nineteenth-century papers inserted paid 'reading notices' into their regular news columns and published 'puffs' for products (including laudatory book reviews for publishers)".
Finally, I just have to say that I'm somewhat glad we're moving away from Starr. While I really enjoyed the reading, I admittedly know very little about American history, and Starr's American exceptionalism was unsettling because I remained so unsure of what to take seriously, and what to chalk up to his bias. However, this has been a very good reminder to read with skepticism. :)
Showing posts with label starr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label starr. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
creation of the media pg. 47-111 / "Moral & Useful"
Sometimes, when I'm reading for class I get a little into my note-taking. This began around the time that I realized that the running commentary in my head could be manipulated, and used for good, rather than for evil. Instead of trying to suppress my own silly questions and sarcastic remarks, I began to write them down along with more serious notes, and among quotations that I wanted to highlight.
In my notes for this week, I have a quote from pg.53 of Starr, "As a result of limited education for women and the denial of literacy to slaves, three out of four people in colonial Virginia were 'largely or entirely confined within the oral medium'." Just underneath this quote, I'd added "yikes, doesn't paint a very pretty picture of Virginia" and below that "sometimes I think it's amazing that we, as a human race, survived as long as we did without modern technology".
Reading back through my notes in preparation for this week's blog post, I rolled my eyes at my cheeky commentary, but also felt that it reflected much of what I'd highlighted as important (or at least interesting to me) in this week's readings. I suspect that some of my confusion may be related to the way Starr reflects on history, but I found myself highlighting passages where I felt a genuine sense of wonder at the sheer ingenuity of early Americans. I know, right? That's pretty sappy stuff. As amazed as I was by early decisions about freedom of press, I was wowed even more by the way education played out….it's a bit of a bizarre feeling, really.
So, apparently, one of the lessons I am learning quite poignantly, is that I don't know diddly squat about history. And I'm about to make a slightly awkward transition, because what I'm referring to currently is a lack of knowledge about general history….but next I want to talk about someone I was surprised I'd never heard of: Matthew Lyon!
Okay first of all, Starr's description of Lyon: "a member of Congress and former printer from Vermont, who had come to America as an indentured servant and risen to political success partly by means of the newspaper he published"(79). How have I never heard of this guy?! And then later on? "Lyon was reelected to Congress while he was still in jail" (80). This may be a silly thing to point out, but why hasn't Leonardo DiCaprio played this dude in a movie yet? (and don't even get me started on his Wikipedia page….) Leave it to me to pinpoint this very brief moment in Starr's reading to obsess over, but there you have it. A glimpse into my weird psyche.
Finally, I found Starr's mention of when the newspapers began to refer to the colonists as "Americans" very interesting. This brought up a range of questions about identity and nationality, but it also made me wonder about the evolution of American slang, and how important the media is in shaping and helping create and perpetuate these ideas.
As far as my archive search went, I found my article in The Boston Weekly Magazine, Devoted to Morality, Literature, Biography, History, the Fine Arts…..(I thought this specification was funny - okay! We get it! You're very classy, Boston Weekly)-- and the article appeared on June 30, 1804. This piece is a letter from a reader, supposedly, who is responding to the Boston Weekly's call for examples of exceptional women, and it is called "Moral and Useful: Miranda- A Character".
"I have been pleased to observe in your useful Miscellany, an endeavor to promote the intellectual improvement of the female sex, by setting before them examples of virtue, fortitude, piety, and every commendable pursuit: I wish to assist your laudable design, but sending the character of a lady with whom I have the happiness to be acquainted, which I hope you will permit to appear in your Magazine."
The letter goes on to describe Miranda, who is "endowed with all the graces that can excite admiration, all those virtues that can command respect". The letter-writer clarifies that Miranda is "pleasing, rather than beautiful" and spends an entire paragraph describing her musical skills, "which lead[s] one to prefer a simple air performed by her to the most brilliant execution of a finished amateur" (even though her voice is not strong). Most importantly, however, is the "high cultivation" of Miranda's mind. The writer highlights not only Miranda's "extensive reading and knowledge of the world", but also mentions that she is careful to "adapt her conversation to the taste and understanding of her companions". I found this to be the most interesting bit of this letter, because it acknowledges that along with great knowledge of the world, there also comes a great responsibility to not be a jerk about it to others. This seems somewhat surprising to note, particularly for a female intellectual.
However, although Miranda is very well read, she is also the perfect domestic partner, and performs her service to her family "without ever appearing hurried or in confusion". Hence, most likely, her usefulness. While I thought that this article was surprising in that it included education as a point of notability in female character, it did spent its majority depicting a more traditional female role.
In my notes for this week, I have a quote from pg.53 of Starr, "As a result of limited education for women and the denial of literacy to slaves, three out of four people in colonial Virginia were 'largely or entirely confined within the oral medium'." Just underneath this quote, I'd added "yikes, doesn't paint a very pretty picture of Virginia" and below that "sometimes I think it's amazing that we, as a human race, survived as long as we did without modern technology".
Reading back through my notes in preparation for this week's blog post, I rolled my eyes at my cheeky commentary, but also felt that it reflected much of what I'd highlighted as important (or at least interesting to me) in this week's readings. I suspect that some of my confusion may be related to the way Starr reflects on history, but I found myself highlighting passages where I felt a genuine sense of wonder at the sheer ingenuity of early Americans. I know, right? That's pretty sappy stuff. As amazed as I was by early decisions about freedom of press, I was wowed even more by the way education played out….it's a bit of a bizarre feeling, really.
So, apparently, one of the lessons I am learning quite poignantly, is that I don't know diddly squat about history. And I'm about to make a slightly awkward transition, because what I'm referring to currently is a lack of knowledge about general history….but next I want to talk about someone I was surprised I'd never heard of: Matthew Lyon!
Okay first of all, Starr's description of Lyon: "a member of Congress and former printer from Vermont, who had come to America as an indentured servant and risen to political success partly by means of the newspaper he published"(79). How have I never heard of this guy?! And then later on? "Lyon was reelected to Congress while he was still in jail" (80). This may be a silly thing to point out, but why hasn't Leonardo DiCaprio played this dude in a movie yet? (and don't even get me started on his Wikipedia page….) Leave it to me to pinpoint this very brief moment in Starr's reading to obsess over, but there you have it. A glimpse into my weird psyche.
Finally, I found Starr's mention of when the newspapers began to refer to the colonists as "Americans" very interesting. This brought up a range of questions about identity and nationality, but it also made me wonder about the evolution of American slang, and how important the media is in shaping and helping create and perpetuate these ideas.
As far as my archive search went, I found my article in The Boston Weekly Magazine, Devoted to Morality, Literature, Biography, History, the Fine Arts…..(I thought this specification was funny - okay! We get it! You're very classy, Boston Weekly)-- and the article appeared on June 30, 1804. This piece is a letter from a reader, supposedly, who is responding to the Boston Weekly's call for examples of exceptional women, and it is called "Moral and Useful: Miranda- A Character".
"I have been pleased to observe in your useful Miscellany, an endeavor to promote the intellectual improvement of the female sex, by setting before them examples of virtue, fortitude, piety, and every commendable pursuit: I wish to assist your laudable design, but sending the character of a lady with whom I have the happiness to be acquainted, which I hope you will permit to appear in your Magazine."
The letter goes on to describe Miranda, who is "endowed with all the graces that can excite admiration, all those virtues that can command respect". The letter-writer clarifies that Miranda is "pleasing, rather than beautiful" and spends an entire paragraph describing her musical skills, "which lead[s] one to prefer a simple air performed by her to the most brilliant execution of a finished amateur" (even though her voice is not strong). Most importantly, however, is the "high cultivation" of Miranda's mind. The writer highlights not only Miranda's "extensive reading and knowledge of the world", but also mentions that she is careful to "adapt her conversation to the taste and understanding of her companions". I found this to be the most interesting bit of this letter, because it acknowledges that along with great knowledge of the world, there also comes a great responsibility to not be a jerk about it to others. This seems somewhat surprising to note, particularly for a female intellectual.
However, although Miranda is very well read, she is also the perfect domestic partner, and performs her service to her family "without ever appearing hurried or in confusion". Hence, most likely, her usefulness. While I thought that this article was surprising in that it included education as a point of notability in female character, it did spent its majority depicting a more traditional female role.
Monday, August 29, 2011
creation of the media: pgs. 1-46
There are a few, specific points that I took from the introduction and first chapter of Paul Starr's The Creation of the Media, and rather than attempt to string them together in any logical way, I intend to present them individually, and then try to pinpoint some connections in my thought processes.
First and foremost, I have to address my fascination with the depth and scope that this book takes on its subject, and my surprise when I discovered just how much I didn't know about the creation of the media. Perhaps typical for someone born in the late 80s, I tend to take the media for granted, in that I had never bothered to consider how it had developed into what we now encounter on a daily basis. Having immediately noticed my shameful lack of historical knowledge on this topic, I powered through the first 46 pages with more pleasure than I'd expected to experience. :)
From the Introduction:
I find it interesting that Starr notes the way that changes in communication were presented to the public as they were made: "All these deviations from the society's ideal standards led to political struggles, and these political struggles changed the practical working of communications, though the changes were often presented and understood as reaffirmations of founding principles" (14, my italics). This is sneaky and quite clever, a way of avoiding a confession of wrongdoing by reaffirming that our intentions always were to provide what we'd been advertising all along: freedom of speech.
I'm also intrigued by problems that the American media managed to create by avoiding such regimented governmental control. On page 16, Starr mentions the monopolies of Western Union and the Associated Press, and remarks that "Americans confronted a new form of centralized power for which they at first had no institutional response". This is immediately followed by a mention that "advertising achieved earlier and wider acceptance in America than in Europe", a subject that I hope will receive more attention elsewhere in the book (16).
Finally, I have to comment on the curious reaction I had to a particular clarification that Starr makes in the introduction when he states that "Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American newspapers gave primacy to reporting the news, while French newspapers gave primacy to literary essays" (18). Honestly, I had to read this sentence several times over, because never have I felt more absolutely American than I did in that moment. Of course newspapers should give primacy to the news, literary essays are for literary journals, you silly French! This must be a reflection of the way we've developed and come to rely on the newspaper in modern times, but can also be seen as an impulse to separate journalistic endeavors from academic or literary ones. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or even if we're "right" in favoring news rather than literature in newspapers-- but I found my reaction as a reader surprising and possibly in need of a greater analysis.
From Chapter One: Early Modern Origins:
Throughout this chapter, I found myself drawing connections between early print circulation and the ever-expanding information overload of the internet. In particular, I was interested in the implications of the "invisible threads of connection" that are mentioned early in the chapter, and how they impact the way we do research in this field as modern scholars.
"Publications weave invisible threads of connection among their readers. Once a newspaper circulate, for example, no one ever truly reads it alone. Readers know that others are also seeing it at roughly the same time, and they read it differently as a result, conscious that the information is now out in the open, spread before a public that may talk about the news and act on it" (24).
What strikes me about this passage is the way that we as researchers must be contextualizing every piece of media that we come across, no matter in what century it originally appeared. If it isn't interesting enough to consider how readers read private and public communications differently, we also have to take into account how we are reading the periodicals that we find now in our current place and time. Not only are we charged with the responsibility of interpreting contextual information about the artifact's original circulation, but we also must be paying careful attention to our own context, and how interpretation may be shaped by these contexts.
Finally, because I'm finding myself beginning to ramble, I couldn't help but wonder what subscribing to eighteenth century British periodicals meant to those who subscribed to them. What was the subscription list like? What was the motivation for investing in a subscription? And, most interestingly, was the motivation always about reading or about appearing to read?
A highlighter lost its life due to my enthusiastic reading of these first 46 pages. I have bought more highlighters in preparation for the coming weeks. There is little doubt in my mind that I'll be needing them. :)
First and foremost, I have to address my fascination with the depth and scope that this book takes on its subject, and my surprise when I discovered just how much I didn't know about the creation of the media. Perhaps typical for someone born in the late 80s, I tend to take the media for granted, in that I had never bothered to consider how it had developed into what we now encounter on a daily basis. Having immediately noticed my shameful lack of historical knowledge on this topic, I powered through the first 46 pages with more pleasure than I'd expected to experience. :)
From the Introduction:
I find it interesting that Starr notes the way that changes in communication were presented to the public as they were made: "All these deviations from the society's ideal standards led to political struggles, and these political struggles changed the practical working of communications, though the changes were often presented and understood as reaffirmations of founding principles" (14, my italics). This is sneaky and quite clever, a way of avoiding a confession of wrongdoing by reaffirming that our intentions always were to provide what we'd been advertising all along: freedom of speech.
I'm also intrigued by problems that the American media managed to create by avoiding such regimented governmental control. On page 16, Starr mentions the monopolies of Western Union and the Associated Press, and remarks that "Americans confronted a new form of centralized power for which they at first had no institutional response". This is immediately followed by a mention that "advertising achieved earlier and wider acceptance in America than in Europe", a subject that I hope will receive more attention elsewhere in the book (16).
Finally, I have to comment on the curious reaction I had to a particular clarification that Starr makes in the introduction when he states that "Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American newspapers gave primacy to reporting the news, while French newspapers gave primacy to literary essays" (18). Honestly, I had to read this sentence several times over, because never have I felt more absolutely American than I did in that moment. Of course newspapers should give primacy to the news, literary essays are for literary journals, you silly French! This must be a reflection of the way we've developed and come to rely on the newspaper in modern times, but can also be seen as an impulse to separate journalistic endeavors from academic or literary ones. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or even if we're "right" in favoring news rather than literature in newspapers-- but I found my reaction as a reader surprising and possibly in need of a greater analysis.
From Chapter One: Early Modern Origins:
Throughout this chapter, I found myself drawing connections between early print circulation and the ever-expanding information overload of the internet. In particular, I was interested in the implications of the "invisible threads of connection" that are mentioned early in the chapter, and how they impact the way we do research in this field as modern scholars.
"Publications weave invisible threads of connection among their readers. Once a newspaper circulate, for example, no one ever truly reads it alone. Readers know that others are also seeing it at roughly the same time, and they read it differently as a result, conscious that the information is now out in the open, spread before a public that may talk about the news and act on it" (24).
What strikes me about this passage is the way that we as researchers must be contextualizing every piece of media that we come across, no matter in what century it originally appeared. If it isn't interesting enough to consider how readers read private and public communications differently, we also have to take into account how we are reading the periodicals that we find now in our current place and time. Not only are we charged with the responsibility of interpreting contextual information about the artifact's original circulation, but we also must be paying careful attention to our own context, and how interpretation may be shaped by these contexts.
Finally, because I'm finding myself beginning to ramble, I couldn't help but wonder what subscribing to eighteenth century British periodicals meant to those who subscribed to them. What was the subscription list like? What was the motivation for investing in a subscription? And, most interestingly, was the motivation always about reading or about appearing to read?
A highlighter lost its life due to my enthusiastic reading of these first 46 pages. I have bought more highlighters in preparation for the coming weeks. There is little doubt in my mind that I'll be needing them. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)