What I researched and why
As the class came to an end we were asked to re-look and rethink about Little Red Riding Hood. By ending with the same topic/story as we began the course, we are able to look at the tale in a new light with new analytical tools. I looked for a video, a new media tool, that looked at the tale in a new way, much in the way that we are able to now look at this story. By looking at a new media tool in conjunction with a new version of the classic tale, we can gain a better understanding of how the deeper meaning of the tale that we have previously discussed are brought to light in a modern way.
What you found and how you are interpreting it
I found a video on http://www.youtube.com/ that gives a clip of the recent movie (2005) "Hoodwinked!" directed by Todd and and Cory Edwards. The clip that I have are parts of the "Red's Story" portion of the movie. I chose this clip because of its modern interpretations of the classic tale. In the clip there is a part when Little Red asks the wolf if she needs to get a restraining order against him. This is taking a modern concept, a restraining order, and applying it to the classic story. This modern take helps us understand how a similar situation in modern times could possibly happen. The idea that Little Red Riding Hood is a sexualized tale is further illustrated by this clip because typically when people have sexualized crimes commited against them, a restraining order is a part of the sentencing (in most cases). This gives a modern take on the classic issue of the wolf and Little Red's sexualized relationship. This movie (although not shown in the clip provided) takes different accounts of the same story. So the wolf tells his version of what happened along with the other characters of the story. This provides incite into the minds of the characters about what happened. Where the wolf thinks Little Red is to blame for the incident and he did nothing of a harmful sort to anyone. I interpret this clip as a modern view on a classic tale that give incite into the inner thinkings of the characters so that we can critically analyze their actions and their reactions to what happened. There have been tales telling the side of the wolf as apposed to Little Red, and this movie/clip shows all side to the same story (although they are very different from one another). This movie allows us to rethink the fallacies associated with the Little Red Riding Hood tales, and helps us to better understand a more modern approach to a classical story.
Clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-G_0O5BxtM
What you think it adds to class
I think this is a good wrap up to the class. It provides a modern interpretation to a story that we read different versions of. It is a good end to this course and our class discussion because we can take our newly learned and typically newly known criticism (i.e. newer forms of criticism) to analyze a tale that we have already analyzed. This clip, as previously stated, provides us with a new media outlet for us to analyze a Little Red tale that is vastly different from the stories we have previously read. By having a new form of a story we have already critically analyzed, it allows us to rethink how we previously viewed the tale through a new outlet. By looking at this video clip we can see a modern approach to a classic tale, something that can help the class reanalyze their original ideas of the tale in a new light. By ending with a Little Red tale we can apply all the critical approaches we have learned throughout the semester and can gain a better and more modern interpretation of the classic (much like "Hoodwinked!" does).
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Coming Full Circle with Little Red Riding Hood
What I Researched and Why?
So the final reading assignment for this class was to read Roald Dahl’s version of Little Red Riding Hood which pokes fun at the original tale and completely changes the ending. Little Red in this case, tricks the wolf with linguistic play, shoots him in the head and is next seen not wearing a red cloak, but a “lovely wolfskin coat.” So I wanted to go on-line and research and hopefully find a video, a parody of Little Red, anything that could encapsulate the semester through Little Red Riding Hood which we began with in August/September. I wanted to find something that showed childhood innocence, naughtiness, rebellion, with good images or video, and something fun.
What I found?
I found the perfect video on Youtube (what we would have done without this website, I do not know) of a song by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs from 1966. The song is very bouncy and catchy and is all about the singer being the wolf and desiring a young lady (his little red riding hood), and being her protection from other wolves on the way to grandmother’s house. The bottom line is that he is trying to make ‘little red’ trust him because wolves aka men cannot usually be trusted, to erase the notion that wolves can’t love. Also, with the song, which fits in perfectly with this class the images accompanying the song are from a wide variety of picture books and photographs that show Little Red Riding Hood “through the ages of time.” I found this video particularly interesting not only for its linguistic value but as great visual value (as we’ve been discussing in our picture book and movie lately in class). Here are the links to the video and the lyrics:
video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ql4-Asw3hCclyrics:
http://www.tsrocks.com/s/sam_the_sham_and_the_pharaohs_texts/little_red_riding_hood.html
My Interpretation
First, going back at looking at the song’s lyrics, there is much that could be said here. At the beginning of the semester, we discussed childhood innocence and naivety and falling into the traps of the big bad wolf (or men desiring a girl dressed in a red cloak symbolizing pureness). This song, yes it’s 1966 but more modern than the stories we read, is about men trying to regain the innocent girl’s trust that he is, in fact, one of the good wolves out there, “Little Red Riding Hood…I'd like to hold you if I could…But you might think I'm a big, bad wolf, so I won't.” The song comments on her budding sexuality talking her full lips and the big eyes that drive the wolves mad. Here it seems that the man is trying desperately to make the girl desire him back, to regain female trust in the male. The fact that he needs to stay in the sheep’s clothing the whole time is very interesting in gaining that trust, “What a big heart I have…The better to love you with…Little Red Riding Hood…Even bad wolves can be good.”
Looking at the visual accompaniment from the video, I found this is particularly great for this class, it shows various pictures of Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf in different, unique ways with some more traditional pictures and some more modern day ones. I counted eight traditional pictures of Little Red Riding Hood (:08, :20, 1:08, 1:27, 1:36, 1:56, 2:05, 2:14) that showed her as most know her, little, young, innocent, rosy-cheeked, red cloak, fair skinned and pure. There was one (:45) that showed her as more abstract and a darker Little Red. Also there were three pictures (:29, 1:00, 2:23) that showed her as an older teenage girl, fair enough to call a couple of them almost-a-woman, as oversexed, showing full lips, their legs and their bodies (particularly the last image), this being the more rebellious and naughty child. As for the wolf, they were shown as wild and uncivilized throughout, much like Tom Sawyer. Six images showed the wolf howling wildly, two images as an imposing physical beast intimidating Little Red, one image as the wolf being conniving and sneaky, and two images of men wearing wolf masks. Little Red was shown as innocent usually but naughty with the use of her sexuality, while on the other hand, the wolves (boys) were shown as wild and uncivilized brutes who tried to capture the young lady.
What This Adds to the Discussion:
I think the video, song and images, shows what we’ve talked about in previous four months in terms of childhood historically and the relation between boys and girls. This brief video shows the transition from the innocent young lady who is considered pure become naïve, entranced by the wolf, tricked by the wolf, and be shown as a sexual object which in some circles, as we have discussed is seen as naughty much like the transition Lindsay Lohan makes in Mean Girls from innocent to one of the crowd and mean. And it shows the transition from a young exploring boy becoming a wild, uncivilized wolf like Tom Sawyer and now through the song, wanting to regain the female’s trust.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Real Janis Ian
Hi all,
Since no one has posted this yet, I thought you might be interested in a song by the real-life Janis Ian called "At Seventeen." The character in the movie is meant to evoke this musician, probably because of this song.
Since no one has posted this yet, I thought you might be interested in a song by the real-life Janis Ian called "At Seventeen." The character in the movie is meant to evoke this musician, probably because of this song.
Rachel McAdams: Nice Girl
What I researched and why:
I found the post that explored Lindsay Lohan's personal life with Paris Hilton pretty interesting and decided to do some exploring on the personal life of the actress who I believe gave the finest performance in Mean Girls, Rachel McAdams who played Regina George. I mean, come on, if I had to choose between which character would be more fun to play, Regina is so much more complex than Cady. She switches objectives and tactics at the drop of a dime (one example that comes to mind is the moment in the movie when Regina first engages Cady by telling her she's beautiful, accusing her for believing in her self beauty, and than complementing a bracelet she doesn't even like). The link to the article on Rachel McAdams is from People.com chronicling her career shortly after filming the notebook.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1080601,00.html
What I found:
Unlike Lohan, Rachel lives in Canada and remains close to her family and friends (also making her personal life less of a target for tabloids). She is quoted in the article stating how riding her bicycle and working in her garden keeps her centered as an actress playing different characters. In another article it was also mentioned how McAdams politley walked off the set of a photo-shoot with Kiera Knightley after discovering the poses were to be nude. (I mean, come on, the Pirates of the Carribean queen? That's a major publicity stunt she declined over moral values).
My interpretation:
Funny to acknowledge that unlike Lohan, McAdams sounds like quite a "nice" girl. While I feel that "mean" and "nice" are muddy adjectives, being a person of the theatre business world myself, it is certainly my opinion that McAdams is a more professional actress than Lohan. I guess the lesson for all aspiring Hollywood actors to take away from that is to stay out of L.A.! Yet nonetheless, McAdams has also played a much larger range of roles than Lohan (i.e. The Notebook, Red-Eye), also adding to her credit of more professionalism (and dare I say talent?) It's obvious I'm fan. But seriously, in my opinion she's already keeping her proffessional and personal carreer separate to the degree which Kevin Spacey operates, and he's been playing the Hollywood game a lot longer than she.
What this adds to the discussion:
Today's reading assignment about Paris vs. Lohan makes the Mean Girl sensation an irreputable fact in the media world, and therefore something that is very hard to resist indulging in when you're the centre of that world. I believe behavior like McAdams shows a certain degree of respect for the art work that she does, while behavior like Lohan's is sheer indulgence. There's quick fame and there is lasting fame; fame that is earned and fame that is granted for all kinds of reasons. I think of the great Hollywood stars of our past and how their lives show similar patterns of example. Mean Girls are definetly something thrown at women by the world around them, and its hard to avoid to it. It shows a certain strength of character; like Aaron Sammuels, perhaps the most upstanding character in the film.
I found the post that explored Lindsay Lohan's personal life with Paris Hilton pretty interesting and decided to do some exploring on the personal life of the actress who I believe gave the finest performance in Mean Girls, Rachel McAdams who played Regina George. I mean, come on, if I had to choose between which character would be more fun to play, Regina is so much more complex than Cady. She switches objectives and tactics at the drop of a dime (one example that comes to mind is the moment in the movie when Regina first engages Cady by telling her she's beautiful, accusing her for believing in her self beauty, and than complementing a bracelet she doesn't even like). The link to the article on Rachel McAdams is from People.com chronicling her career shortly after filming the notebook.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1080601,00.html
What I found:
Unlike Lohan, Rachel lives in Canada and remains close to her family and friends (also making her personal life less of a target for tabloids). She is quoted in the article stating how riding her bicycle and working in her garden keeps her centered as an actress playing different characters. In another article it was also mentioned how McAdams politley walked off the set of a photo-shoot with Kiera Knightley after discovering the poses were to be nude. (I mean, come on, the Pirates of the Carribean queen? That's a major publicity stunt she declined over moral values).
My interpretation:
Funny to acknowledge that unlike Lohan, McAdams sounds like quite a "nice" girl. While I feel that "mean" and "nice" are muddy adjectives, being a person of the theatre business world myself, it is certainly my opinion that McAdams is a more professional actress than Lohan. I guess the lesson for all aspiring Hollywood actors to take away from that is to stay out of L.A.! Yet nonetheless, McAdams has also played a much larger range of roles than Lohan (i.e. The Notebook, Red-Eye), also adding to her credit of more professionalism (and dare I say talent?) It's obvious I'm fan. But seriously, in my opinion she's already keeping her proffessional and personal carreer separate to the degree which Kevin Spacey operates, and he's been playing the Hollywood game a lot longer than she.
What this adds to the discussion:
Today's reading assignment about Paris vs. Lohan makes the Mean Girl sensation an irreputable fact in the media world, and therefore something that is very hard to resist indulging in when you're the centre of that world. I believe behavior like McAdams shows a certain degree of respect for the art work that she does, while behavior like Lohan's is sheer indulgence. There's quick fame and there is lasting fame; fame that is earned and fame that is granted for all kinds of reasons. I think of the great Hollywood stars of our past and how their lives show similar patterns of example. Mean Girls are definetly something thrown at women by the world around them, and its hard to avoid to it. It shows a certain strength of character; like Aaron Sammuels, perhaps the most upstanding character in the film.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Mean v. Animal
What I researched and why: With so many different aspects of this movie already being analyzed on this blog, I decided to try to take a look at how the movie was marketed. I wanted to find out who they were marketing this movie to, how they were doing it, and what they were saying about the mean girl phenomenon in the process. So, I searched for movie posters, trailers and other promotional material to see what i could find.
What I found: The best thing I found was an official movie trailer on YouTube. Here's the link: Trailer
Fast foreword to right around the 1:41 mark. I didn't think that this clip was going to do much for me before this part, but it ends up working really well. The scene starts with Lohan's character saying "I knew how this would be settled in the animal world" before knocking over the blond girl in the cafeteria and roaring like a lion. She then says "But this was girl world-- All the fighting had to be sneaky."
My Interpretation: While this is a very basic idea from the mean girl theory, it is interesting that the people in charge of this movie decided to include this in the marketing towards its younger audience. The clip from this trailer glorifies meanness. By contrasting their meanness against animal violence and savagery, they are making high school drama look more sophisticated and even like a better alternative. (It is no coincidence that their animal-like behavior in the dream sequence mirrors stereotypically violent actions taken by boys.) This trailer is saying that it's OK for girls to spread rumors, secretly make fat or do any other "mean" act of "sneaky" fighting. It's almost as if they are saying that emotional abuse is less harmful and more sophisticated than physical abuse. But unlike the movie, there is no real resolution or closure in the end-- the clip ends with all mean actions go unpunished.
What This Adds to the Class Discussion: This brings the class full circle, connecting our last media (Mean Girls) and one of our first (Little Red Riding Hood). This trailer combines the mean girl phenomenon with the controversial distinctions between savageness and civilization. Are the girls more civilized because they use words instead of fists? What does is this trying to say about the severity of this kind of emotional bullying? This is also interesting from the non-literary, marketing perspective. Is this a responsible way for the movie makers to display such mean acts (downplaying their severity and glorifying them) to impressionable young girls? Could a movie trying to dissect this phenomenon also be strengthening it? And, what about the inevitable number of girls who see this trailer and never get to see this movie? Since they never get the end message of the movie, what do they learn about meanness? Is it the trailer maker's responsibility to set a better example?
What I found: The best thing I found was an official movie trailer on YouTube. Here's the link: Trailer
Fast foreword to right around the 1:41 mark. I didn't think that this clip was going to do much for me before this part, but it ends up working really well. The scene starts with Lohan's character saying "I knew how this would be settled in the animal world" before knocking over the blond girl in the cafeteria and roaring like a lion. She then says "But this was girl world-- All the fighting had to be sneaky."
My Interpretation: While this is a very basic idea from the mean girl theory, it is interesting that the people in charge of this movie decided to include this in the marketing towards its younger audience. The clip from this trailer glorifies meanness. By contrasting their meanness against animal violence and savagery, they are making high school drama look more sophisticated and even like a better alternative. (It is no coincidence that their animal-like behavior in the dream sequence mirrors stereotypically violent actions taken by boys.) This trailer is saying that it's OK for girls to spread rumors, secretly make fat or do any other "mean" act of "sneaky" fighting. It's almost as if they are saying that emotional abuse is less harmful and more sophisticated than physical abuse. But unlike the movie, there is no real resolution or closure in the end-- the clip ends with all mean actions go unpunished.
What This Adds to the Class Discussion: This brings the class full circle, connecting our last media (Mean Girls) and one of our first (Little Red Riding Hood). This trailer combines the mean girl phenomenon with the controversial distinctions between savageness and civilization. Are the girls more civilized because they use words instead of fists? What does is this trying to say about the severity of this kind of emotional bullying? This is also interesting from the non-literary, marketing perspective. Is this a responsible way for the movie makers to display such mean acts (downplaying their severity and glorifying them) to impressionable young girls? Could a movie trying to dissect this phenomenon also be strengthening it? And, what about the inevitable number of girls who see this trailer and never get to see this movie? Since they never get the end message of the movie, what do they learn about meanness? Is it the trailer maker's responsibility to set a better example?
Lindsay Lohan: mean girl
What I researched and why:
For class we were supposed to look on Salon.com and search for Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. When I started reading some of the articles, I thought it was interesting that Lindsay Lohan's life is a lot like "the Plastics" in the movie Mean Girls. So I decided to look more into it.
What I found:
In Mean Girls, Regina dates Aaron first then Cady likes Aaron. In Lindsay Lohan's life, Paris Hilton dated Stavros first then Lindsay started dating him, which caused a feud between Paris and Lindsay. In Mean Girls, the drama between "the Plastics" settles down at the end of the movie. In Lindsay's life, Paris and Lindsay eventually patch things up. It was rumored that Paris hacked into Lindsay's BlackBerry and sent her friends mean messages. In Mean Girls, friends are also involved to try to ruin Regina's popular reputation. In Mean Girls, "the Plastics" want to stand out in a crowd, and Lindsay Lohan also does things that get her attention in magazines and tabloids. Also in Mean Girls, the girls in the school copy off of Regina, for example when they cut holes in their shirts because Regina's shirt has holes in it. Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton also effect our culture by setting trends. Lindsay Lohan in real life is basically a mean girl. She's often getting into arguments with other celebrities, and is often the center of attention. Here are some of the articles about Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton I found on Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2006/06/14/wed/index.html
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2006/07/20/thu/index.html
(they are very short articles and they are entertaining)
My interpretation:
I think it's interesting how Lindsay Lohan's life is somewhat like the movie Mean Girls. Also, many girls can relate to the movie because there were mean girls in their high school. I know my high school had mean girls. I also think that the quote was talked about in class, "everyone loves a mean girl" is true. Because when Lindsay Lohan gets into ridiculous fights with other celebrities, people read about it in the tabloids.
For class we were supposed to look on Salon.com and search for Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. When I started reading some of the articles, I thought it was interesting that Lindsay Lohan's life is a lot like "the Plastics" in the movie Mean Girls. So I decided to look more into it.
What I found:
In Mean Girls, Regina dates Aaron first then Cady likes Aaron. In Lindsay Lohan's life, Paris Hilton dated Stavros first then Lindsay started dating him, which caused a feud between Paris and Lindsay. In Mean Girls, the drama between "the Plastics" settles down at the end of the movie. In Lindsay's life, Paris and Lindsay eventually patch things up. It was rumored that Paris hacked into Lindsay's BlackBerry and sent her friends mean messages. In Mean Girls, friends are also involved to try to ruin Regina's popular reputation. In Mean Girls, "the Plastics" want to stand out in a crowd, and Lindsay Lohan also does things that get her attention in magazines and tabloids. Also in Mean Girls, the girls in the school copy off of Regina, for example when they cut holes in their shirts because Regina's shirt has holes in it. Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton also effect our culture by setting trends. Lindsay Lohan in real life is basically a mean girl. She's often getting into arguments with other celebrities, and is often the center of attention. Here are some of the articles about Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton I found on Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2006/06/14/wed/index.html
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2006/07/20/thu/index.html
(they are very short articles and they are entertaining)
My interpretation:
I think it's interesting how Lindsay Lohan's life is somewhat like the movie Mean Girls. Also, many girls can relate to the movie because there were mean girls in their high school. I know my high school had mean girls. I also think that the quote was talked about in class, "everyone loves a mean girl" is true. Because when Lindsay Lohan gets into ridiculous fights with other celebrities, people read about it in the tabloids.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Mean Girls Grown Up...
During class last week, I couldn't help but notice the amount of people who raised their hands and shared personal stories of being bullied or intimidated in some way by the "mean girls" from their past. It's something we can laugh about sometimes, but it is also something that every girl seems to clearly remember and probably always will. After class, when I searched just the words mean girls in Google, I was not surprised at what I found: numerous books about mean girls as adults or getting over mean girls as adults.
The main one I looked at was Mean Girls Grown Up: Adult Women Who Are Still Queen Bees, Middle Bees, and Afraid-to-Bees (Paperback)by Cheryl, PhD Dellasega, although, there were links to several others. There were books about dealing with mean girls who are now mean adults and books about how to get over the emotional damage caused by the interactions with mean girls during childhood and youth. This book deal with both of those issues, it seems. Some reader reviews seemed to like that these issues were being dealt with while other reviews criticized the solutions offered, claiming that the damage done could not be so easily repaired.
So what does this contribute to class? I think it's interesting to see how our childhood interactions affect us later in life. I'm sure that we didn't think that the table we sat at in the cafeteria in junior high would have an effect on the people we became years later. In the same way, I wonder how much of an effect the children's literature we were exposed had on us. If interactions with other people are still affecting us years later, what about the ideas and ideals that were being offered to us through children's literature?
This leads me to think about 17 Things I'm Not Allowed to Do Anymore in a different way. While some people may think the book seems like a bad influence on the present child, I think many adults are overlooking what effect the book may have on the child later in life. This seems to happen alot when examining children's literature; we seem to forget that while we are reading to the child, we are also reading to the adult that the child will become. Perhaps remembering this fact would help us to look at books about mischevious children (girl, in particular) in a different way.
The main one I looked at was Mean Girls Grown Up: Adult Women Who Are Still Queen Bees, Middle Bees, and Afraid-to-Bees (Paperback)by Cheryl, PhD Dellasega, although, there were links to several others. There were books about dealing with mean girls who are now mean adults and books about how to get over the emotional damage caused by the interactions with mean girls during childhood and youth. This book deal with both of those issues, it seems. Some reader reviews seemed to like that these issues were being dealt with while other reviews criticized the solutions offered, claiming that the damage done could not be so easily repaired.
So what does this contribute to class? I think it's interesting to see how our childhood interactions affect us later in life. I'm sure that we didn't think that the table we sat at in the cafeteria in junior high would have an effect on the people we became years later. In the same way, I wonder how much of an effect the children's literature we were exposed had on us. If interactions with other people are still affecting us years later, what about the ideas and ideals that were being offered to us through children's literature?
This leads me to think about 17 Things I'm Not Allowed to Do Anymore in a different way. While some people may think the book seems like a bad influence on the present child, I think many adults are overlooking what effect the book may have on the child later in life. This seems to happen alot when examining children's literature; we seem to forget that while we are reading to the child, we are also reading to the adult that the child will become. Perhaps remembering this fact would help us to look at books about mischevious children (girl, in particular) in a different way.
What does it mean to be mean?
What I researched and why: The idea that kept striking me as we were talking about “mean girls” was that in reality what a mean girl was, was a girl who was standing up for herself. One who doesn’t allow others to influence the way she behaves. Of course, this isn’t entirely positive in that mean girls often hurt others around them as a result of her actions. However, it also meant that girls were standing up for themselves. I wanted to delve a little deeper into what being a mean girl meant to others on a deeper level. So, I thought back to Margaret Finders’ book Just Girls.
What I found: In the book there are two social groups which were examined. The first is the “Queen Bees” and the other is the “Tough Cookies.” The queen bees were of course, the popular girls, whereas the tough cookies were not. Almost all of the “cookies” were from a neighboring trailer park…coming from low income families. The study was conducted to find out about the “hidden literacies and life in junior high.” What Finders found was that many literary events in the school were exclusionary toward the tough cookies. Most notably, was the signing of yearbooks which every teacher observed gave time for in class.
“Constant comments from Northern Hills staff that ‘Everybody gets one’ and ‘Everyone loves them’ reveal that [the tough cookies] and many others were invisible to school personnel…While students may not have purchased a yearbook for a variety of reasons, the socioeconomic status of families may have been a critical issue. For whatever reason, when teachers rewarded students with ‘signing time,’ one out of four students was not able to participate” (36).
My Interpretation: The above quote is just one example of how the “Queens” were dominant over the “Cookies” in terms of literacy. The queens would also exclude the cookies from note passing, bathroom wall writing, yearbook signing and often refer to them as the “woof-woofs” (meaning they were dogs--in case you weren‘t sure, yes, that‘s what they meant). The teachers also made general references in favor of the “Queens.” “Some teachers described their class makeup in terms of numbers of students from trailer parks. A teacher’s comment such as ‘I’ve got seven trailer-park kids’ conveyed to other teachers the implicit yet clearly understood assumption of impending trouble for that teacher” (37).
This, to me, represents the “other side” of the mean girl phenomenon. I’m sure each and every girl has been a victim of a mean girl at some point or another; but these girls were basically forced to be uncomfortable in school every single day. To me, that is by far the largest negative of the mean girl phenomenon. While I do think it’s wonderful that girls are no longer required to be seen and not heard, passive, and submissive, I do not think that terrorizing other girls is the most desirable option.
(Another side note from the book--the only time the girls from the two circles would interact via notes was when one received a chain letter stating “You will have bad luck with boys for the rest of your life”--or something of the sort. Therefore making male attention still more important than “being mean.” And therefore suggesting that being a “mean girl” is perhaps not as empowering as I thought.
What I found: In the book there are two social groups which were examined. The first is the “Queen Bees” and the other is the “Tough Cookies.” The queen bees were of course, the popular girls, whereas the tough cookies were not. Almost all of the “cookies” were from a neighboring trailer park…coming from low income families. The study was conducted to find out about the “hidden literacies and life in junior high.” What Finders found was that many literary events in the school were exclusionary toward the tough cookies. Most notably, was the signing of yearbooks which every teacher observed gave time for in class.
“Constant comments from Northern Hills staff that ‘Everybody gets one’ and ‘Everyone loves them’ reveal that [the tough cookies] and many others were invisible to school personnel…While students may not have purchased a yearbook for a variety of reasons, the socioeconomic status of families may have been a critical issue. For whatever reason, when teachers rewarded students with ‘signing time,’ one out of four students was not able to participate” (36).
My Interpretation: The above quote is just one example of how the “Queens” were dominant over the “Cookies” in terms of literacy. The queens would also exclude the cookies from note passing, bathroom wall writing, yearbook signing and often refer to them as the “woof-woofs” (meaning they were dogs--in case you weren‘t sure, yes, that‘s what they meant). The teachers also made general references in favor of the “Queens.” “Some teachers described their class makeup in terms of numbers of students from trailer parks. A teacher’s comment such as ‘I’ve got seven trailer-park kids’ conveyed to other teachers the implicit yet clearly understood assumption of impending trouble for that teacher” (37).
This, to me, represents the “other side” of the mean girl phenomenon. I’m sure each and every girl has been a victim of a mean girl at some point or another; but these girls were basically forced to be uncomfortable in school every single day. To me, that is by far the largest negative of the mean girl phenomenon. While I do think it’s wonderful that girls are no longer required to be seen and not heard, passive, and submissive, I do not think that terrorizing other girls is the most desirable option.
(Another side note from the book--the only time the girls from the two circles would interact via notes was when one received a chain letter stating “You will have bad luck with boys for the rest of your life”--or something of the sort. Therefore making male attention still more important than “being mean.” And therefore suggesting that being a “mean girl” is perhaps not as empowering as I thought.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Mean Girls, Niceness, and Nancy Drew
What I researched and why: With all this talk of mean girls, I found myself remembering that all-around wholesome, good girl hero Nancy Drew, the seeming antithesis to the viperous mean girls who are the subjects of books, movies, and, as we have realized, countless articles and studies. I wondered what happened to good old
The Human Desire for Power and its Effects
What I researched and why: I researched the mean girl phenomenon, what exactly was going on and the impact on young girls today. I was particularly interested in the comparison of mean girls acting in such a way to emulate male behavior. This did not seem correct and as I researched I came to find that there is supporting evidence that it is not in fact true. So why then are young girls attacking one another and in such a sneaky and indirect manner? The issue of power is of course a central concern regarding this topic; power not only for ones-self but over others. The term relational aggression is key in the understanding of the mean girl phenomenon.
What I found: I googled a number of different key words and phrases in my search for understanding of this new phenomenon. One of the most important labels being "relational aggression." www.relationalaggression.com/faq.html This website gave detailed description of such behavior. It stated that there are three main tasks of which an adolescent is expected to complete; development of personal identity, separation from family, fit into peer groups. The emotional and physical violence demonstrated by these "mean girls" in acts of relational aggression have devastating impacts on the lives of their victims including low self esteem, insecurity, inability to trust the external world, and the ability to develop trust and healthy relationships. What we may have been viewing as "funny" and fairly innocent "girl drama" has deep seeded effects on the innocent young victims. Through acts of social exclusion, ridicule, and gossip girls gain a sense of status over one another. The article "Girl Fighting: Betrayal and Rejection Among Girls," gives a more clear explanation as to the meaning behind such acts. The article explains how girls are not encouraged to express anger and frustration. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_5-6_52/ai_n15344794 Such social inequality leads to underground and indirect aggression to be taken out on other girls. In reality it is a struggle for power that many associate with males. Whereas it is considered the norm for boys to exert their power physically, many see the mean girl phenomenon to be girls "acting like boys." It is important to understand that power is a universal human desire, it is the implementation of such power that differs between men and women.
My Interpretation: Girls are constantly expected to be "good" and "well-mannered" but just like all human beings, are in need of an outlet for their own frustration. It is not socially acceptable for young woman to express their anger in physical violence which in turn leads to the demoralizing practice of controlling others psychologically. It is through this psychological manipulation that distinguishes between the "cool and powerful" and the "uncool and controlled" groups of young women. The desire for power is not a male trait, but in fact an all around human trait. In reality, the result of the actions of "mean girls" can be viewed as much worse than a male’s physical violence. Where did girls learn to be so socially competitive for power and popularity? Perhaps it is the patriarchal and societal sources of mixed messages that teaches young girls that repressed anger expressed underground is the only way to overcome the everyday powerless feeling of being a woman. So with this knowledge the question remains, how do we express to the generations of young women that such power is debilitating to their own personal self esteem, the esteem of others, and the way society views women as a whole?
What I found: I googled a number of different key words and phrases in my search for understanding of this new phenomenon. One of the most important labels being "relational aggression." www.relationalaggression.com/faq.html This website gave detailed description of such behavior. It stated that there are three main tasks of which an adolescent is expected to complete; development of personal identity, separation from family, fit into peer groups. The emotional and physical violence demonstrated by these "mean girls" in acts of relational aggression have devastating impacts on the lives of their victims including low self esteem, insecurity, inability to trust the external world, and the ability to develop trust and healthy relationships. What we may have been viewing as "funny" and fairly innocent "girl drama" has deep seeded effects on the innocent young victims. Through acts of social exclusion, ridicule, and gossip girls gain a sense of status over one another. The article "Girl Fighting: Betrayal and Rejection Among Girls," gives a more clear explanation as to the meaning behind such acts. The article explains how girls are not encouraged to express anger and frustration. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_5-6_52/ai_n15344794 Such social inequality leads to underground and indirect aggression to be taken out on other girls. In reality it is a struggle for power that many associate with males. Whereas it is considered the norm for boys to exert their power physically, many see the mean girl phenomenon to be girls "acting like boys." It is important to understand that power is a universal human desire, it is the implementation of such power that differs between men and women.
My Interpretation: Girls are constantly expected to be "good" and "well-mannered" but just like all human beings, are in need of an outlet for their own frustration. It is not socially acceptable for young woman to express their anger in physical violence which in turn leads to the demoralizing practice of controlling others psychologically. It is through this psychological manipulation that distinguishes between the "cool and powerful" and the "uncool and controlled" groups of young women. The desire for power is not a male trait, but in fact an all around human trait. In reality, the result of the actions of "mean girls" can be viewed as much worse than a male’s physical violence. Where did girls learn to be so socially competitive for power and popularity? Perhaps it is the patriarchal and societal sources of mixed messages that teaches young girls that repressed anger expressed underground is the only way to overcome the everyday powerless feeling of being a woman. So with this knowledge the question remains, how do we express to the generations of young women that such power is debilitating to their own personal self esteem, the esteem of others, and the way society views women as a whole?
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mean Girl in lime light
What I researched and Why: I researched the different types of ‘mean girls’ in the lime light. Many female celebrities are known for feuding with other female celebrities. Fighting tends to draw attention to the celebrities, but when it is two females feuding it seems to be different. The papers keep bringing it up, even if it is over. One female may even be labeled a ‘mean girl.’ I find this very interesting because when men get into fights, it will be discussed for a period of time and then be dropped. However, when women tend to fight, it is brought up for a longer period of time and sometimes not forgotten.
What I found: Looking up ‘Mean Girls’ on Google brings up many different items. The first thing that came up for me though was People.com and the heading was ‘Mean Girls part 2’. (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1215772,00.html) It was a feud between Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. I then researched fighting between Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. On Google, 1,860,000 sites came up. Many people are obsessed with girl fights. Some of the websites that came up were blogs about the fights. People can’t seem to get enough of this mean girl phenomenon. This feud between the girls seems to go on for a period of time and then they are best friends again. Many pictures also came up with Paris and Lindsay partying together. So whether they are feuding or partying, the attention seems to be centered around them.
My interruption/what this adds to discussion: I believe that girls tend to 'act out' for attention. Especially in the case of celebrities, I believe that they do it for publicity. If they are fighting one minute and best friends the next minute, it just does not seem plausible. I feel though that female actresses, especially young girls may look up to, should not be acting like this. It shows the younger girls that behavior like this is okay, when it is really not okay. I guess my question is do you think celebrity fights (girl fights) is propelling the mean girl phenomena even further into naughtiness? Personally, I feel like that is happening, but what could be a way to stop it?
What I found: Looking up ‘Mean Girls’ on Google brings up many different items. The first thing that came up for me though was People.com and the heading was ‘Mean Girls part 2’. (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1215772,00.html) It was a feud between Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. I then researched fighting between Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. On Google, 1,860,000 sites came up. Many people are obsessed with girl fights. Some of the websites that came up were blogs about the fights. People can’t seem to get enough of this mean girl phenomenon. This feud between the girls seems to go on for a period of time and then they are best friends again. Many pictures also came up with Paris and Lindsay partying together. So whether they are feuding or partying, the attention seems to be centered around them.
My interruption/what this adds to discussion: I believe that girls tend to 'act out' for attention. Especially in the case of celebrities, I believe that they do it for publicity. If they are fighting one minute and best friends the next minute, it just does not seem plausible. I feel though that female actresses, especially young girls may look up to, should not be acting like this. It shows the younger girls that behavior like this is okay, when it is really not okay. I guess my question is do you think celebrity fights (girl fights) is propelling the mean girl phenomena even further into naughtiness? Personally, I feel like that is happening, but what could be a way to stop it?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Queen Bees and Wannabees
What I Researched and Why: After our short introduction to the mean girl phenomenon in class, I decided to go home and research the background of the film, Mean Girls. I had seen the movie quite a few times, but did not really know the motivation for the film, or the sources that were used when writing the script.
What I Found: I found that the movie Mean Girls is based on the book Queen Bees and Wannabees: Helping your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and other Realities of Adolescence" written by Rosalind Wiseman in 2002. A synopsis and several reviews can be found at this website. This book is essentially a guide to parents who feel that they do not relate to their teenage daughters well, and would like to become more involved in their lives.
This book categorizes teenage girls into groups. There are the "Queen Bees", or the girls who rule the school by tormenting others, the "Wannabees" or those who want to be the Queen Bees, the "Targets" of the Queen Bees torture, and the "Torn Bystanders" who do not know whether to participate in the torment, or to report it to higher authorities.
Not only does the book give parents insight into the secret life of teenage girls, but it even goes so far as to categorize parents into different groups like, hip parents, best friend parents, and others. The book also enables parents to examine their own parenting styles, "Check their Baggage," and identify how their own background and biases affect how they relate to their daughters.
Queen Bees and Wannabees offers step by step strategies meant to help parents gain an understanding of their daughters while avoiding and defusing the "landmines" than inherently plague parent/child communication. It also exposes the hierarchical structure of the girl world, and encourages teens to be floaters rather than basing their happiness off of one group, but to instead be individuals. It also urges parents to be "The Loving Hard-Ass," where unconditional love is teamed together with personal accountability.
My Interpretation and What it adds to our discussion: I think that keeping this book in our minds when watching Mean Girls will be very beneficial to everyone. Each character in the movie directly resembles one of the stereotypes portrayed in Queen Bees and Wannabees. Regina and her "plastics" are obviously the Queen Bees who rule the school and get pleasure out of tormenting others, a very large percentage of the high school girls are Wannabees, and they try to copy everything Regina does, even cutting holes out of their shirts to show their bras. Cady starts out as an innocent bystander, or a Target, but then is swept up in the world of the "plastics" when her plan to sabotage and blackmail them turns on her. The parents in the movie also take on the various roles described in Wiseman's book. Cady's parents seem to have it on the ball, and embody the "hard ass" parent model. Regina's mom resembles the "hip, best friend" parent, who would do anything to have her daughter and her friends like her.
Rather than watching the movie purely for entertainment, I think that keeping these different character roles in mind, and correlating them to real life situations may help us understand how Mean Girls attempts to expose and possibly overthrow the new mean girl culture that is taking over high schools everywhere.
What I Found: I found that the movie Mean Girls is based on the book Queen Bees and Wannabees: Helping your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and other Realities of Adolescence" written by Rosalind Wiseman in 2002. A synopsis and several reviews can be found at this website. This book is essentially a guide to parents who feel that they do not relate to their teenage daughters well, and would like to become more involved in their lives.
This book categorizes teenage girls into groups. There are the "Queen Bees", or the girls who rule the school by tormenting others, the "Wannabees" or those who want to be the Queen Bees, the "Targets" of the Queen Bees torture, and the "Torn Bystanders" who do not know whether to participate in the torment, or to report it to higher authorities.
Not only does the book give parents insight into the secret life of teenage girls, but it even goes so far as to categorize parents into different groups like, hip parents, best friend parents, and others. The book also enables parents to examine their own parenting styles, "Check their Baggage," and identify how their own background and biases affect how they relate to their daughters.
Queen Bees and Wannabees offers step by step strategies meant to help parents gain an understanding of their daughters while avoiding and defusing the "landmines" than inherently plague parent/child communication. It also exposes the hierarchical structure of the girl world, and encourages teens to be floaters rather than basing their happiness off of one group, but to instead be individuals. It also urges parents to be "The Loving Hard-Ass," where unconditional love is teamed together with personal accountability.
My Interpretation and What it adds to our discussion: I think that keeping this book in our minds when watching Mean Girls will be very beneficial to everyone. Each character in the movie directly resembles one of the stereotypes portrayed in Queen Bees and Wannabees. Regina and her "plastics" are obviously the Queen Bees who rule the school and get pleasure out of tormenting others, a very large percentage of the high school girls are Wannabees, and they try to copy everything Regina does, even cutting holes out of their shirts to show their bras. Cady starts out as an innocent bystander, or a Target, but then is swept up in the world of the "plastics" when her plan to sabotage and blackmail them turns on her. The parents in the movie also take on the various roles described in Wiseman's book. Cady's parents seem to have it on the ball, and embody the "hard ass" parent model. Regina's mom resembles the "hip, best friend" parent, who would do anything to have her daughter and her friends like her.
Rather than watching the movie purely for entertainment, I think that keeping these different character roles in mind, and correlating them to real life situations may help us understand how Mean Girls attempts to expose and possibly overthrow the new mean girl culture that is taking over high schools everywhere.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Goofs, Gallants, and Offill's Awful Little Girl
What I researched and why: When I was little, I had a subscription to Highlights magazine. It was a wholesome and educational publication featuring innocuous material ideal for display in a dentist’s waiting room or the backseat of a minivan. Yet my recollections of the magazine’s trademark cartoon “Goofus and Gallant” still arouse feelings of annoyance and disdain. In a series of vignettes, the thoughtless, reckless Goofus portrayed poor behavior, while the opposing Gallant showed the proper actions of a “good boy.” When I first encountered the main character of Jenny Offill’s 17 Things i’m not allowed to do anymore, the mischievous Goofus immediately came to mind. After our debate in class over the merits of presenting Offill’s story to children, I decided to explore further how the creators of the cartoon and book address naughtiness and the messages they convey in doing so.
My Findings and Interpretation: The Goofus and Gallant feature first appeared in Highlights magazine in 1948 in an effort to introduce appropriate social skills to children. Two black and white sketches portrayed the yin and yang of child behavior. The trademark juxtaposed, monochromatic scheme further emphasized the contrast of right and wrong; it also made the section feel contrived and pedantic, the reason I resisted it as a child. Updated only recently, the feature maintains its basic setup but has strayed from its textbook-illustration appearance to be more colorful, cartoonish, and kid friendly – similar to Nancy Carpenter’s dynamic illustrations in 17 Things.
Discovering interviews with the writers behind Goofus and Gallant, I found that many fans placed the cartoon’s success on the ability of children to relate to both characters and realize that traits of each boy were within them. Gallant's scene was the less appealing but necessary message sugarcoated by the wicked fun of Goofus's antics. Chicago Tribune writer Eric Zorn observes in his article Goofus, Gallant – The Inside Story that the “feature never offers direct lessons or shows consequences.” The CEO of Highlights explains, “It simply shows a wrong way and a right way of doing things, that's all.” Children observe the parallel stories and draw their own conclusions. In Offill’s work, all decisions are blatantly the wrong ones. While the cartoon’s objective vignettes excuse its lack of consequences, the absence of discipline for the consistently naughty girl raises concern.
Highlights publicist Tom White described Goofus as "a surly, uncooperative, ill-mannered child. But he is not a sociopath." This description certainly describes Offill's leading character as well. The comfort behind the cartoon and story is that the deeds the "bad" characters commit remain in the realm of excusable childhood acts. Goofus takes the last piece of fruit because he's hungry; the main character of 17 Things orders another meal because what has been served doesn't appeal to her. The lead girl of 17 Things may share the same wild personality and unruly hair as Goofus, but a major problem arises because this story lacks a Gallant to offset her personality.
Applications to Class Discussion: Applying the Psychoanalytical theory, the Goofus and Gallant characters portray the animalistic desires of the id and the conscientiousness of the superego respectively. The audience assumes the role of the ego, finding their own compromise between the two extremes in daily life. The main character of 17 Things displays a raging id with the exception of the final page, when her ego’s mediating influence appears in the mocking line, “I had an idea to say the opposite of what I mean to trick everyone.” Goofus and Gallant present a balanced portrayal of the decisions one may make, but the delightfully bad main character in 17 Things incorporates a wittiness and irreverence that is much more appealing and enjoyable to read. An interesting discussion could revolve around the success of these different approaches. Which has a greater effect: a responsible tale that instills tidy values but barely veils its didactic intent, or a funny, wayward story whose message is eagerly received but a bit muddled in the process? Can child audiences handle the naughtiness of the girl in 17 Things without a counteractive Gallant beside her?
17 Things, 17 interpretations
What I researched and why:
From our last conversation in class on Tuesday regarding "17 Things..." I was interested in all of the different interpretations people had about the book. Some thought it was an entertaining book about the creativity of kids, while others thought it would not be good for children because the main character does not get punished for the "naughty" or rather, mischevious things she does. I found myself struggling between these two ideas and wanted to research some more reviews of the book and see how adult and child readers are interpreting this book. I think it is important to consider that adults are more likely to see this book as upsetting due to the lack of discipline, where children may find it simply amusing and entertaining. This is an intersting book because it definetly lends itself to debate and contraversy.
What I found/My Interpretation:
Since "17 Things" is a fairly recent book, there isn't too much to research other than reviews, however I found an interesting blog website called BookMoot. http://www.bookmoot.com/2007/05/17-things-im-not-allowed-to-do-anymore.html#c3762051705062692380.
The blog looks at many varied authors, illustrators, and especially focuses on children's literature. Of all the comments, the most interesting one in my opinion, came from "Proud Dad" and claims to be the author's (Jenny Offill) father. He states, "Glad to see such positve responses to "17 Things.." Jenny Offill is my daughter and the vast majority of the reviews/responses have been very positive. I have found it rather interesting that a small minority of folks have been outraged that the girl "does not see the error of her ways," does not apologize to the adults (who of course know everything!) and is not properly contrite at the end." My interpretation of this quote is that the main character is not meant to apologetic and is a symbol of the innocence, creativity, and spunk that childhood brings. We as adults reading this book, can't help but find her mischevious behavior funny and we laugh at her wit and perhaps even admire her bravery, creations, and audacity. However, we struggle with this because we also can't help but notice that she is not severly punished for her misbehaviors. This is disturbing to us because it seems as though she should be somewhat disciplined so she can learn consequences. We are torn between celebrating her debatable creativity and wanting to punish her for doing the bad things she does. Offill's father's statement leads me to believe that he feels the book is really a celebration of a girl's precosiousness and it is acceptable for her lack of remorse. He makes is seem as though it is inevitable that she "does not see the error of her ways" and isn't apologetic. Also, I sense his sarcasm when he paranthetically states that adults, of course, know everything. I feel like he wants adults to interpret this book as a child who is using her raw talent and wit in ways that could be considered bad to adults, but is beneficial to the child as it is her form of expression.
What this adds to our discussions:
Our discussion about the celebration of childhood creativity versus inappropriateness is still interesting to me and I feel like what I found directly speaks to our conversation. It is clear to me why a child reading this book could relate to it and adults may relate as well or feel the opposite and want to punish the girl. One of the bloggers from the website poses the question, "would we want to read about a child who is perfectly behaved, always makes perfect choices and lives an ordinary life?" This would be boring to children and they would less likely relate to it. A huge function of books is for the readers to relate to the characters and the story. This has been a repeating theme in our class as we have discussed in great detail the kinds of readers that relate to the books we've read. I feel that part of the reason this book was created was for adults to take a step back and instead of punishing or limited children, they should find the uniqueness, innocence and pure magic of childhood...even if it is a bit naughty at times, after all, they are kids.
From our last conversation in class on Tuesday regarding "17 Things..." I was interested in all of the different interpretations people had about the book. Some thought it was an entertaining book about the creativity of kids, while others thought it would not be good for children because the main character does not get punished for the "naughty" or rather, mischevious things she does. I found myself struggling between these two ideas and wanted to research some more reviews of the book and see how adult and child readers are interpreting this book. I think it is important to consider that adults are more likely to see this book as upsetting due to the lack of discipline, where children may find it simply amusing and entertaining. This is an intersting book because it definetly lends itself to debate and contraversy.
What I found/My Interpretation:
Since "17 Things" is a fairly recent book, there isn't too much to research other than reviews, however I found an interesting blog website called BookMoot. http://www.bookmoot.com/2007/05/17-things-im-not-allowed-to-do-anymore.html#c3762051705062692380.
The blog looks at many varied authors, illustrators, and especially focuses on children's literature. Of all the comments, the most interesting one in my opinion, came from "Proud Dad" and claims to be the author's (Jenny Offill) father. He states, "Glad to see such positve responses to "17 Things.." Jenny Offill is my daughter and the vast majority of the reviews/responses have been very positive. I have found it rather interesting that a small minority of folks have been outraged that the girl "does not see the error of her ways," does not apologize to the adults (who of course know everything!) and is not properly contrite at the end." My interpretation of this quote is that the main character is not meant to apologetic and is a symbol of the innocence, creativity, and spunk that childhood brings. We as adults reading this book, can't help but find her mischevious behavior funny and we laugh at her wit and perhaps even admire her bravery, creations, and audacity. However, we struggle with this because we also can't help but notice that she is not severly punished for her misbehaviors. This is disturbing to us because it seems as though she should be somewhat disciplined so she can learn consequences. We are torn between celebrating her debatable creativity and wanting to punish her for doing the bad things she does. Offill's father's statement leads me to believe that he feels the book is really a celebration of a girl's precosiousness and it is acceptable for her lack of remorse. He makes is seem as though it is inevitable that she "does not see the error of her ways" and isn't apologetic. Also, I sense his sarcasm when he paranthetically states that adults, of course, know everything. I feel like he wants adults to interpret this book as a child who is using her raw talent and wit in ways that could be considered bad to adults, but is beneficial to the child as it is her form of expression.
What this adds to our discussions:
Our discussion about the celebration of childhood creativity versus inappropriateness is still interesting to me and I feel like what I found directly speaks to our conversation. It is clear to me why a child reading this book could relate to it and adults may relate as well or feel the opposite and want to punish the girl. One of the bloggers from the website poses the question, "would we want to read about a child who is perfectly behaved, always makes perfect choices and lives an ordinary life?" This would be boring to children and they would less likely relate to it. A huge function of books is for the readers to relate to the characters and the story. This has been a repeating theme in our class as we have discussed in great detail the kinds of readers that relate to the books we've read. I feel that part of the reason this book was created was for adults to take a step back and instead of punishing or limited children, they should find the uniqueness, innocence and pure magic of childhood...even if it is a bit naughty at times, after all, they are kids.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Remorse vs. Punishment: Reviewers of "17 Things" Miss the Point
What I researched and why: We've done work in this class to identify different types of "naughty behavior" and possible causes. We've discussed literature's reflection of, and impact on, societal views of children. However, although we've discussed ways parents have dealt with naughty children in the past, we haven't talked much about ideal ways for parents to deal with them now. It seems to me that in "17 Things" the reaction of the parents to the naughty child is a key component, so I wanted to see what readers and reviewers thought
What I found: Reading the Amazon.com reviews of "17 things" reveals that many readers consider it unfit for child consumption; I was surprised to see that much of this was blamed on the action of the child. "I would never read this to a child. The protagonist is rewarded for being manipulative, destructive, and dishonest. I am horrified that this is being lauded as a best book for kids. This is a book that makes a hero out of a spoiled brat, and instructs a child to lie to enjoy themselves," says one Amazon reviewer. This blog post by a teacher is very telling, as well; in reading it to a group of fourth-graders, she notes their lack of enjoyment, and shock at the lack of punishment. "I would be grounded," said one child. However, the teacher still thinks the book could be improved by presenting the child as a "more responsible little girl."
My interpretation/What this adds to discussion: It seems that both the Amazon reviewer and the teacher have missed the point which the book is trying to make. The jacket of "17 Things" reads "It's just too bad grown-ups don't seem to understand her genius..." It seems to me that this is the true problem in "17 Things:" a child's misdirected creativity being channeled through the wrong sort of actions. Whose responsibility is it to guide a child's creativity along the right paths? We would assume the parents', of course. By forbidding her activities, but never recommending anything to take their place, the parents throughout the book are curing the symptoms of the problem, but not striking it at its base. It's no surprise to me that, at the end of "17 Things," the girl doesn't show any remorse for her actions. It would be impossible to depict a girl in such a situation as "more responsible," as her parents have failed to teach her the responsible way to channel her creativity. "The fact that the little girl continued and continued to misbehave and not make any change even though consequence was offered was troubling to me as a teacher and a parent," concludes the teacher in her review. However, what consequences were offered? By forbidding the child to perform certain actions, without striking at the heart of her misbehavior, the parents have offered no consequences at all; in fact, it seems she enjoys coming up with new ways to act out. It troubles me that someone in charge of children, as both a parent and a teacher, fails to make the connection between the insufficient parenting and the child's bad behavior in "17 Things."
This opens up an entirely new realm of discussion in class: how should we deal with naughty children? The question of whether what we label "naughtiness" is just a manifestation of creativity which hasn't found an acceptable channel yet calls to mind our discussion of the transformation of mental crises into art. How does that translate into parenting? Also, both these reviews assign responsibility to children for their bad behavior. Is this a new trend, and is it truly appropriate?
What I found: Reading the Amazon.com reviews of "17 things" reveals that many readers consider it unfit for child consumption; I was surprised to see that much of this was blamed on the action of the child. "I would never read this to a child. The protagonist is rewarded for being manipulative, destructive, and dishonest. I am horrified that this is being lauded as a best book for kids. This is a book that makes a hero out of a spoiled brat, and instructs a child to lie to enjoy themselves," says one Amazon reviewer. This blog post by a teacher is very telling, as well; in reading it to a group of fourth-graders, she notes their lack of enjoyment, and shock at the lack of punishment. "I would be grounded," said one child. However, the teacher still thinks the book could be improved by presenting the child as a "more responsible little girl."
My interpretation/What this adds to discussion: It seems that both the Amazon reviewer and the teacher have missed the point which the book is trying to make. The jacket of "17 Things" reads "It's just too bad grown-ups don't seem to understand her genius..." It seems to me that this is the true problem in "17 Things:" a child's misdirected creativity being channeled through the wrong sort of actions. Whose responsibility is it to guide a child's creativity along the right paths? We would assume the parents', of course. By forbidding her activities, but never recommending anything to take their place, the parents throughout the book are curing the symptoms of the problem, but not striking it at its base. It's no surprise to me that, at the end of "17 Things," the girl doesn't show any remorse for her actions. It would be impossible to depict a girl in such a situation as "more responsible," as her parents have failed to teach her the responsible way to channel her creativity. "The fact that the little girl continued and continued to misbehave and not make any change even though consequence was offered was troubling to me as a teacher and a parent," concludes the teacher in her review. However, what consequences were offered? By forbidding the child to perform certain actions, without striking at the heart of her misbehavior, the parents have offered no consequences at all; in fact, it seems she enjoys coming up with new ways to act out. It troubles me that someone in charge of children, as both a parent and a teacher, fails to make the connection between the insufficient parenting and the child's bad behavior in "17 Things."
This opens up an entirely new realm of discussion in class: how should we deal with naughty children? The question of whether what we label "naughtiness" is just a manifestation of creativity which hasn't found an acceptable channel yet calls to mind our discussion of the transformation of mental crises into art. How does that translate into parenting? Also, both these reviews assign responsibility to children for their bad behavior. Is this a new trend, and is it truly appropriate?
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Repeat Juvenile Delinquency and "Flight"
What I researched and why
I decided to look up statistics and articles relating to the connection between repeat juvenile delinquency and foster homes, as well as the background causes that contribute to both situations. In "Flight," Zits is a clear example of a chronic juvenile offender, and I wanted to research non-fictional examples of people like him.
What I found
I found several articles dealing with the topic. Here is one:
http://www.mncourts.gov/district/4/?page=1889
Written by a judge, this is a short account of various problem children who have come into the system, and a promotion for a new program that is supposed to help ease the problem. It is easy to see in the judge's description of the children how Zits would fit right in. From a young age he has had no true home, bouncing from foster parent to foster parent, often in and out of abusive or neglectful situations. The person he knows best is the cop who often arrests him. As the article says, "Children who started out as “children at risk” a few years ago [are] now being jailed as serious juvenile offenders." Zits is another case of a child that "slipped through the cracks" and acting out in criminal ways seems both natural to him, and a way to gain the attention that no one gives him (although he may not realize this himself.)
http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&SECTION=Article_Archives&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=1429
Here is an article that mentions the story of a young boy who was tried as an adult and convicted for murder-- at age 11. It goes on to discuss more general problems and statistics related to repeat juvenile crime. "What has been found in study after study in countries as diverse as Sweden and Australia and the U.S. is that a small percentage of boys who begin with serious behavior problems in toddler-hood account for upwards of 60 percent of adult criminal behavior." Obviously, a pattern of crime or misbehavior started early in life makes one much more likely to continue such behavior after the age of majority. In most cases, little intervention is made to try and steer the child away from this path other than the various punishments that seem to have no effect. As described in "Flight," Zits has been a juvenile offender for many years and is well-known to the police, yet no one has tried to turn him from his path. He is sent to abusive or uncaring foster homes, runs away, is put in another home or in juvenile prison-- rinse, repeat. Not until the end of the book (when he has come into change through himself) does he receive any kind of promising help.
My interpretation / What this adds to the class discussion
On the outside, based on this information, the message in "Flight" appears to be that someone like Zits cannot get help unless he is willing to receive it. While this might be true for a sixteen-year-old, who has reasonably developed mental faculties, it seems to be an unfair condemnation for younger children who may not fully understand the consequences of their behavior. In these cases, positive adult intervention is crucial, but is often not possible given the large amount of "criminal" children and the physical limitations of the system in place.
I feel that this adds to class discussion in terms of the reasons for Zits' behavior (other than what is specifically spelled out in the book), the meaning of the book's ending, and larger cultural ramifications of juvenile crime in general, which definitely fits with the theme of this course.
I decided to look up statistics and articles relating to the connection between repeat juvenile delinquency and foster homes, as well as the background causes that contribute to both situations. In "Flight," Zits is a clear example of a chronic juvenile offender, and I wanted to research non-fictional examples of people like him.
What I found
I found several articles dealing with the topic. Here is one:
http://www.mncourts.gov/district/4/?page=1889
Written by a judge, this is a short account of various problem children who have come into the system, and a promotion for a new program that is supposed to help ease the problem. It is easy to see in the judge's description of the children how Zits would fit right in. From a young age he has had no true home, bouncing from foster parent to foster parent, often in and out of abusive or neglectful situations. The person he knows best is the cop who often arrests him. As the article says, "Children who started out as “children at risk” a few years ago [are] now being jailed as serious juvenile offenders." Zits is another case of a child that "slipped through the cracks" and acting out in criminal ways seems both natural to him, and a way to gain the attention that no one gives him (although he may not realize this himself.)
http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&SECTION=Article_Archives&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=1429
Here is an article that mentions the story of a young boy who was tried as an adult and convicted for murder-- at age 11. It goes on to discuss more general problems and statistics related to repeat juvenile crime. "What has been found in study after study in countries as diverse as Sweden and Australia and the U.S. is that a small percentage of boys who begin with serious behavior problems in toddler-hood account for upwards of 60 percent of adult criminal behavior." Obviously, a pattern of crime or misbehavior started early in life makes one much more likely to continue such behavior after the age of majority. In most cases, little intervention is made to try and steer the child away from this path other than the various punishments that seem to have no effect. As described in "Flight," Zits has been a juvenile offender for many years and is well-known to the police, yet no one has tried to turn him from his path. He is sent to abusive or uncaring foster homes, runs away, is put in another home or in juvenile prison-- rinse, repeat. Not until the end of the book (when he has come into change through himself) does he receive any kind of promising help.
My interpretation / What this adds to the class discussion
On the outside, based on this information, the message in "Flight" appears to be that someone like Zits cannot get help unless he is willing to receive it. While this might be true for a sixteen-year-old, who has reasonably developed mental faculties, it seems to be an unfair condemnation for younger children who may not fully understand the consequences of their behavior. In these cases, positive adult intervention is crucial, but is often not possible given the large amount of "criminal" children and the physical limitations of the system in place.
I feel that this adds to class discussion in terms of the reasons for Zits' behavior (other than what is specifically spelled out in the book), the meaning of the book's ending, and larger cultural ramifications of juvenile crime in general, which definitely fits with the theme of this course.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Ghost Dancing with the Paiute
What I researched and Why?
‘“What if the ghost dance is real?” Justice asks me again and again’ (34). Even when I reached the end of this book, to me what stood out as the most important passage of the text is the dialogue between Zits and Justice about The Ghost Dance, towards the beginning of the book (pp 31-35). Intertwined with the introduction to Zits about violence and power, it serves as the precursor to Zits walking into a bank with the intention of murdering innocents. Zits tell Justice a brief history of the purpose of the Ghost Dance, in which bottom line, if the Indians did this dance long enough, the dead Indians would return and the white man would die. When Zits finally believes in the power of the Ghost Dance after his practice with the guns and the persistence of Justice’s questioning, he decides his time has come to act upon his newly-found beliefs. But what is the Ghost Dance really and why does Alexie use it in his book? I wanted to gain some historical perspective to further understand this poignant part of the text.
What I found
I wasn’t sure I’d find very much in my search, but it was quite the contrary and I found some interesting things on the topic. And thanks to the power of YouTube, I found a very interesting video, giving a brief history and importance of the Native American Ghost Dance, through the interview of Anita Collins, a member of the Paiute tribe today. The video is also accompanied by an interesting montage of pictures and spiritual music, http://youtube.com/watch?v=cI0Jfdkq4z8.
For those who don’t have the time to watch the short video, here is a little bit of what Anita says. A Paiute Indian (Nevada) named Wokova, who the others perceived as a Paiute Messiah, became one of the first individuals to spread the message of the religious Ghost Dance movement, he was also known as Grandpa Jack Wilson. This movement began at time as Anita Collins called it, “a time when looking for hope for the future” came about; The Paiute were struggling to survive and there was a lot of uncertainty about what would happen to the tribe in the future. Wokova gave them “a voice during sad times, gave them strength.” Within the preaching of Wokova, came a message that if the dance was done, the white oppressors would disappear and the tribe would reunite with friends/relatives in the ghost world in brotherhood. This message and the dance spread across the United States to desperate worshippers, as far as the Great Plains. The government began to fear the movement and the US Army massacred 300 Indians at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, putting an end to the movement. Not to mention, 27 men received the Medal of Honor for the battle.
I also found some songs and lyrics to various Ghost Dance Songs: http://msnbc.com/onair/msnbc/TimeandAgain/archive/wknee/ghostsongs.asp.
My Interpretation/ What this adds to our class discussion
What stood out to me most, in listening to Anita Collins describe how important the Ghost Dance and Wokova were to the Paiute people, were the striking similarities I found that existed in comparison to Zits and Justice. If nothing, this passage stands as a great time of confusion for Zits in his life. He had been through so much in his young life, including so much pain, isolation, and being deserted by foster parents numerous times. He was holding onto his childhood memories, including distant memories of his real parents, and the history of the Indian people he had read in books and seen on television. Enter Justice, who resembles Wokova greatly. Anita Collins speaks to great end about the sad state of her people and the need for a message of hope and a path to regain their strength. For the first time in Zits’ life, he had found a friend, a mentor, a leader who he agreed with that could show him the way. He found the voice he was looking for to give him strength. Zits is so fragile during that time, that he is looking for anyone willing to help to relieve his pain. Justice leads Zits down a path in which Zits believes that killing innocent people in a bank (white people, at that) would relieve that pain and strain of desiring his parents to return. Killing people in that bank is Zits’ Ghost Dance, minus the songs, the drum, and the circle of fellow Indians. And the bank in which the attempted massacre takes place is Wounded Knee. Sherman Alexie integrates Indian/American history, in a symbolic manner, so perfectly in this book throughout, but primarily in this passage to set the stage for Zits: The Time Traveler.
I think this adds to the discussion we had in our previous class discussion of postmodernity in terms of Zits lack of identity. His history has been given to him through the television, the discovery channel, books; in other words, he has received his history through superficial terms. His lack of true experience of history distorts his mind and makes him vulnerable during his search for identity , selfhood, personal feeling of history and love.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Offensive Language and Rebellion: The Youthful Way to Search for Identity in Present Day
What I Researched and Why?
After reading the selection in the course packet, "Language, Resistance and Subjectivity," I started to read "Flight" a little more closely. I wanted to see how the character Zits felt about language and how he used it to protect himself from hurting and also how it gave him an identity. I also wanted to research how other scholars felt about language as a form of resistance. I felt that rebellious youth really are "bad" for a reason, maybe because they never felt that they fit in or found their identity, so I researched rebellious youth to see if the stems of their problems were ever fully determined.
What I found:
I found two particularly helpful websites, http://books.google.com/books?id=sT2ilrNtGkEC&pg=PA179&ots=HPOEMfhwC1&dq=language+and+resistance+in+youth&sig=Nvl1oXX-_nxoStiR7ho350zb6Tc#PPA180,M1 and http://books.google.com/books?id=gOiWLnc-yTsC&pg=PA183&ots=nGSsqtOS7d&dq=psychology+of+rebellious+youth&sig=f3MEsaiDpk6b_D6FPmuGZLlkweM
I feel that these both help in explaining what the character Zits was going through in the story. The first website explains the language-identity equation, stating that, "the lack of language is experienced as having a lack of being; not having a language that adequately, immediately, and fully expresses what one wishes to say about the world and perhaps particularly, about oneself, becomes fully equated with not having a fully realized self" (180). This article also goes on to show how language, culture and socioeconomic status are all intertwined. The second website researches postmodern youth as an alienated culture. "Caught in this conflict of emerging autonomy on one hand and adult control on the other, young people's frustrations and anxieties mounted" (183). This article is helpful in examining how youth may feel a lack of identity due to postmodern movements.
My interpretation/What I think it adds to our discussion:
In the story, Zits is constantly in trouble. He cusses at his parents, he's constantly in fights, is active in substance abuse and pretty much seems to have no motivation whatsoever. This is an all too common occurrence in today's society. I wanted to see why this seems so and what the root of the problem really is.
The first website seems to go along quite well with the selection in the course packet, "Language, Resistance and Subjectivity." After reading this and the first website that I found, it seems that Zits uses offensive language as a way to resist society and to protect himself from being hurt again like he has been too many times before. When the social worker tried to equate herself to him in the beginning of the story and cussed just as he did, he laughed in her face and scoffed at her attempts to understand him. Is it really all that funny, or does he scoff because deep down he realizes that no one can identify with him because he in turn can't even identify with himself? Could he really just being using those words to protect himself from letting someone get to close and actually show him love? "He thinks the curse word will scare me"- page 141, Flight. Even as he is in his own father's body, he still thinks that these certain words are used to shield from becoming too vulnerable. He also repeats the word "whatever" several times and remarks on page 178, " 'Whatever', I say, because it hurts to have hope."
The second website, on the postmodern explanations of rebellious youth researches the growing gap between adults and youth and the expectations that adults have for youth. In class we discussed Postmodern thought as including a lack of individuality and identity. Justice states on page 25, "The individual has always had to work hard to avoid being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high for the privlege of owning yourself." Zits wanders from home to home, he never really met his family, and he's half white, half Indian; he really has no identity. He doesn't even go by his real name. His only identity marker is the acne on his face, further proving the postmodern thought in its superficiality, that looks only matter.
Between the two websites and the thoughts on language as a tool of protection and resistance and rebellious youth as just looking for their own identity, I feel that the character of Zits can be explained. His journey throughout the book, through history and different characters shows that he really is just looking for his identity, and not to be labeled as just a rebellious youth.
After reading the selection in the course packet, "Language, Resistance and Subjectivity," I started to read "Flight" a little more closely. I wanted to see how the character Zits felt about language and how he used it to protect himself from hurting and also how it gave him an identity. I also wanted to research how other scholars felt about language as a form of resistance. I felt that rebellious youth really are "bad" for a reason, maybe because they never felt that they fit in or found their identity, so I researched rebellious youth to see if the stems of their problems were ever fully determined.
What I found:
I found two particularly helpful websites, http://books.google.com/books?id=sT2ilrNtGkEC&pg=PA179&ots=HPOEMfhwC1&dq=language+and+resistance+in+youth&sig=Nvl1oXX-_nxoStiR7ho350zb6Tc#PPA180,M1 and http://books.google.com/books?id=gOiWLnc-yTsC&pg=PA183&ots=nGSsqtOS7d&dq=psychology+of+rebellious+youth&sig=f3MEsaiDpk6b_D6FPmuGZLlkweM
I feel that these both help in explaining what the character Zits was going through in the story. The first website explains the language-identity equation, stating that, "the lack of language is experienced as having a lack of being; not having a language that adequately, immediately, and fully expresses what one wishes to say about the world and perhaps particularly, about oneself, becomes fully equated with not having a fully realized self" (180). This article also goes on to show how language, culture and socioeconomic status are all intertwined. The second website researches postmodern youth as an alienated culture. "Caught in this conflict of emerging autonomy on one hand and adult control on the other, young people's frustrations and anxieties mounted" (183). This article is helpful in examining how youth may feel a lack of identity due to postmodern movements.
My interpretation/What I think it adds to our discussion:
In the story, Zits is constantly in trouble. He cusses at his parents, he's constantly in fights, is active in substance abuse and pretty much seems to have no motivation whatsoever. This is an all too common occurrence in today's society. I wanted to see why this seems so and what the root of the problem really is.
The first website seems to go along quite well with the selection in the course packet, "Language, Resistance and Subjectivity." After reading this and the first website that I found, it seems that Zits uses offensive language as a way to resist society and to protect himself from being hurt again like he has been too many times before. When the social worker tried to equate herself to him in the beginning of the story and cussed just as he did, he laughed in her face and scoffed at her attempts to understand him. Is it really all that funny, or does he scoff because deep down he realizes that no one can identify with him because he in turn can't even identify with himself? Could he really just being using those words to protect himself from letting someone get to close and actually show him love? "He thinks the curse word will scare me"- page 141, Flight. Even as he is in his own father's body, he still thinks that these certain words are used to shield from becoming too vulnerable. He also repeats the word "whatever" several times and remarks on page 178, " 'Whatever', I say, because it hurts to have hope."
The second website, on the postmodern explanations of rebellious youth researches the growing gap between adults and youth and the expectations that adults have for youth. In class we discussed Postmodern thought as including a lack of individuality and identity. Justice states on page 25, "The individual has always had to work hard to avoid being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high for the privlege of owning yourself." Zits wanders from home to home, he never really met his family, and he's half white, half Indian; he really has no identity. He doesn't even go by his real name. His only identity marker is the acne on his face, further proving the postmodern thought in its superficiality, that looks only matter.
Between the two websites and the thoughts on language as a tool of protection and resistance and rebellious youth as just looking for their own identity, I feel that the character of Zits can be explained. His journey throughout the book, through history and different characters shows that he really is just looking for his identity, and not to be labeled as just a rebellious youth.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Childhood in Crisis?
What I researched and why?
After our class discussion about “Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore” greatly intrigued by the notion that childhood is now in a crisis. Is this true; are kids behaving much worse? Although there are many different ways to look at this idea, such as media trends, educational trends, and so on, I was more interested in looking at crime rates.
What I found:
For some reason I was expecting to see a great increase in crime rates, and I was actually greatly surprised to find the exact opposite. Here’s a report on juvenile crime by the Department of Justice: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/191031.pdf. <’a>. It was pretty difficult for me to find more recent trends, but I did manage to find some statistics for 2003: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/chapter5.pdf <’a>. Also, here is an article by the Office of Child Development here at Pitt: http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/publications/backgrounds/31.pdf<’a>.
Some of these statistics may be a little misleading because crime greatly increased in the 80s to the 90s. However I think it is more relevant to look at the more current trends. From these graphs we can see that the time around 1993 marked a peak in the number of crimes. After that year, we are able to see an extremely rapid decline in the majority of crimes committed by juveniles including, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, various types of theft, arson, and murder.
My interpretation/ what this adds to our discussion:
In class, we were discussing how the innocence of childhood, seen in Tom and Huck, has slowly begun to disappear. In “Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore” Powers talks about how children have become increasingly more violent. While I do strongly agree that the media is becoming more violent, I would have to disagree with the notion that children themselves are becoming more violent. I find it odd that his book was published in 2001 while juvenile crimes were on the decline.
If children are, indeed, in a crisis, then what is the cause? Poor parenting? The media? Morals? I would like to gain some insight into what other think of this.
After our class discussion about “Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore” greatly intrigued by the notion that childhood is now in a crisis. Is this true; are kids behaving much worse? Although there are many different ways to look at this idea, such as media trends, educational trends, and so on, I was more interested in looking at crime rates.
What I found:
For some reason I was expecting to see a great increase in crime rates, and I was actually greatly surprised to find the exact opposite. Here’s a report on juvenile crime by the Department of Justice: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/191031.pdf. <’a>. It was pretty difficult for me to find more recent trends, but I did manage to find some statistics for 2003: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/chapter5.pdf <’a>. Also, here is an article by the Office of Child Development here at Pitt: http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/publications/backgrounds/31.pdf<’a>.
Some of these statistics may be a little misleading because crime greatly increased in the 80s to the 90s. However I think it is more relevant to look at the more current trends. From these graphs we can see that the time around 1993 marked a peak in the number of crimes. After that year, we are able to see an extremely rapid decline in the majority of crimes committed by juveniles including, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, various types of theft, arson, and murder.
My interpretation/ what this adds to our discussion:
In class, we were discussing how the innocence of childhood, seen in Tom and Huck, has slowly begun to disappear. In “Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore” Powers talks about how children have become increasingly more violent. While I do strongly agree that the media is becoming more violent, I would have to disagree with the notion that children themselves are becoming more violent. I find it odd that his book was published in 2001 while juvenile crimes were on the decline.
If children are, indeed, in a crisis, then what is the cause? Poor parenting? The media? Morals? I would like to gain some insight into what other think of this.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Foster Care in the U.S.
What I researched and Why:
As I read this book, I couldn't help but be shocked at the things that happen to this character in his foster homes. Foster homes are supposed to be places where children are sent to protect them from their family who cannot or will not take proper care of them. In this book however, many of the homes that Zits is placed in abuse him or neglect him. Because of this I started to wonder just what the requirements were for a person to be a foster parent, and I was pretty unnerved by the very lax requirements I found.
What I found:
Here is a link to the Pennsylvania site on Foster Care. http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ServicesPrograms/ChildWelfare/003676623.htm However, so you don't have to bother going to the site and the list is very short, I'm going to include it here.
Frankly, I find this incredibly disturbing that these are the only requiremenst specified by the state of Pennsylvania. Some other counties have one or two more rules tacked on, but otherwise, this is the only screening that individuals are required to go through. I feel like I should mention that these screening tests are often no more involved than simply signing a consent form that allows child welfare access to your criminal records. Essentially they only want to know if you have been convicted of hurting kids in the past and that is as involved as it gets.
Because of the lax requirements, many of these people couldn't care less that the kids they are in charge of protecting exist. They are foster parents for only one reason: the monthly check. As a result these kids suffer neglect through their entire lives as they travel from home to home. Don't misunderstand, there are a few good foster parents, I'm sure, but with restrictions like these, the majority are bound to be people in it for the money.
My Interpretation/What this adds to our discussion:
We have discussed at length how adults percieve a child's naughtiness. This image, as we have discussed in class has gone from being infant depravity, to innocent childishness, to a natural stage that we all go through. Yet none of these definitions of naughtiness take into account when children are misbehaving, not because of some inherent "wildness" in them, but rather as a cry for help.
In Flight, Zits isn't an innocent who doesn't know what he's doing is wrong. He's definitely no "romantic" child. He wasn't born with all his issues and violence ingrained in his personality. He acts the way that he does because he desperately wants someone to care that he exists. He is trying to get that attention that is denied to him through each and every useless foster parent that he's pawned off on. Ultimately this system, which requires that the person in charge of a child's well-being only be healthy, 21, and not have a criminal record, has allowed this character to fall through the hypothetical cracks.
Here are a few questions to consider. Every time Zits gets in trouble, it is implied that he is arrested and put in jail again, but no one ever seems to wonder what it is about these homes he is living in that makes him want to strike out against his foster parents. Why is it that virtually all the characters (there are a few exceptions) simply write him off as another lost cause? Is a system that allows foster children to be placed in poor family environments (where they suffer neglect or abuse) not encouraging the children in these environments to behave badly or to become juvenile delinquents? In a sense, is it not the adults who become responsible for the actions of children like Zits rather than the children themselves?
As I read this book, I couldn't help but be shocked at the things that happen to this character in his foster homes. Foster homes are supposed to be places where children are sent to protect them from their family who cannot or will not take proper care of them. In this book however, many of the homes that Zits is placed in abuse him or neglect him. Because of this I started to wonder just what the requirements were for a person to be a foster parent, and I was pretty unnerved by the very lax requirements I found.
What I found:
Here is a link to the Pennsylvania site on Foster Care. http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ServicesPrograms/ChildWelfare/003676623.htm However, so you don't have to bother going to the site and the list is very short, I'm going to include it here.
- Be at least 21 years of age.
- Pass a medical examination that states the individual is physically able to care for children and is free from communicable disease.
- Pass screening requirements related to child abuse and criminal history clearances.
Frankly, I find this incredibly disturbing that these are the only requiremenst specified by the state of Pennsylvania. Some other counties have one or two more rules tacked on, but otherwise, this is the only screening that individuals are required to go through. I feel like I should mention that these screening tests are often no more involved than simply signing a consent form that allows child welfare access to your criminal records. Essentially they only want to know if you have been convicted of hurting kids in the past and that is as involved as it gets.
Because of the lax requirements, many of these people couldn't care less that the kids they are in charge of protecting exist. They are foster parents for only one reason: the monthly check. As a result these kids suffer neglect through their entire lives as they travel from home to home. Don't misunderstand, there are a few good foster parents, I'm sure, but with restrictions like these, the majority are bound to be people in it for the money.
My Interpretation/What this adds to our discussion:
We have discussed at length how adults percieve a child's naughtiness. This image, as we have discussed in class has gone from being infant depravity, to innocent childishness, to a natural stage that we all go through. Yet none of these definitions of naughtiness take into account when children are misbehaving, not because of some inherent "wildness" in them, but rather as a cry for help.
In Flight, Zits isn't an innocent who doesn't know what he's doing is wrong. He's definitely no "romantic" child. He wasn't born with all his issues and violence ingrained in his personality. He acts the way that he does because he desperately wants someone to care that he exists. He is trying to get that attention that is denied to him through each and every useless foster parent that he's pawned off on. Ultimately this system, which requires that the person in charge of a child's well-being only be healthy, 21, and not have a criminal record, has allowed this character to fall through the hypothetical cracks.
Here are a few questions to consider. Every time Zits gets in trouble, it is implied that he is arrested and put in jail again, but no one ever seems to wonder what it is about these homes he is living in that makes him want to strike out against his foster parents. Why is it that virtually all the characters (there are a few exceptions) simply write him off as another lost cause? Is a system that allows foster children to be placed in poor family environments (where they suffer neglect or abuse) not encouraging the children in these environments to behave badly or to become juvenile delinquents? In a sense, is it not the adults who become responsible for the actions of children like Zits rather than the children themselves?
Sherman Alexie
What I researched and why:
As I continue to read Flight by Sherman Alexie, I am completely enthralled by his writing style and the creative and twisted world he creates for the main character, Zits. He uses descriptive langauge which helps the reader create a vivid depiction of what is going on in the mind and environment of the main character. I cannot help but feel bad for Zits and feel that his whole life has been a cry for help. When he experiences the time travel, he is able to experience a different person, which works to his advantage since he seems to loathe himself and have nothing but self-pity for himself. Since I was so intrigued by this character, I wanted to do some research on Alexie and find out how much of this story was autobiographical or if it even was based on him at all. I couldn't help but wonder...what is the author's hope for the reader and what does he want young readers to think or feel as they read this highly entertaining book.
What I found:
While doing research on Alexie I came across an interesting interview between him and Dennis and Joan West, called "Sending Cinematic Smoke Signals: An Interview with Sherman Alexie." (This should take you to the website: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/alexie.html. If not, you can go to wikipedia.org and scroll all the way to the bottom, under interviews, it is the second link). Smoke Signals is a film that Alexie was the scriptwriter and co-producor for. He argues that American pop culture recognizes Native Americans in two categories, the warrior and the shaman. He destoys the stereotypes through different images, stories and songs.
In the interview, Alexie comments on the semi-autobiographical elements by stating, "It's more about my relationship with my father...he had to struggle with alcoholism, as I have. It's also about the struggle within myself...it's sort of schizophrenic multiple personality of myself that I develop within the movie." He talks about his "fascination with dreams and stories and flashing forward and flashing back and playing with conventions of time", which directly correlates to the time travel feature in Flight.
My interpretation:
When asked to comment on the absent father theme, I found Alexie's response to be fascinating. He explains that a father does not have to physically leave home to be absent in a child's life, that they could simply be sitting in the living room and still be absent. This theme resonates for Alexie because of his negative relationship with his father. He states, "My father did leave to drink, but he always came back. So for me it was a way of exploring that feeling of abondonment." This statement is quite powerful and insightful. I feel that when Alexie writes stories such as Flight, where personal, painful issues are raised, it almost acts as therapy for him and is a way for him to heal his wounds from the lack of his father figure. I think takes a brave and aware individual to create something like that and have hopes that someone who struggles with the same issue will read the book and feel less lonely and with more hope.
What this adds to our discussion:
I feel like this topic ties in with our discussion last week on Where the Wild Things Are in which we discussed how books "speak for children" and even side with them. The school of thought in the 1960's when Where the Wild Things Are was written, was that books should expand a child reader's imagination and more importantly, they should have a pyschological benefit. For example, they can help children deal with childhood traumas or fears. Specifically, if a child has an absent father or experiences the intense loniless and shame that Zits does, they can unleash these feelings while delving into the story of Flight. By relating to the character, they feel safe and know that they are not the only one who is struggling and they find comfort in the fact that someone else has felt the same sadness they have felt. Is this not the sole purpose for books? Especially books for child readers...they need to feel safe and comfortable and realize that books can help them deal with issues in their life where they may feel are lacking or out of control. It is readily apparant how the book Flight could potentially help child readers who may relate to the characters and have experienced struggles both individually and interpersonally.
As I continue to read Flight by Sherman Alexie, I am completely enthralled by his writing style and the creative and twisted world he creates for the main character, Zits. He uses descriptive langauge which helps the reader create a vivid depiction of what is going on in the mind and environment of the main character. I cannot help but feel bad for Zits and feel that his whole life has been a cry for help. When he experiences the time travel, he is able to experience a different person, which works to his advantage since he seems to loathe himself and have nothing but self-pity for himself. Since I was so intrigued by this character, I wanted to do some research on Alexie and find out how much of this story was autobiographical or if it even was based on him at all. I couldn't help but wonder...what is the author's hope for the reader and what does he want young readers to think or feel as they read this highly entertaining book.
What I found:
While doing research on Alexie I came across an interesting interview between him and Dennis and Joan West, called "Sending Cinematic Smoke Signals: An Interview with Sherman Alexie." (This should take you to the website: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/alexie.html. If not, you can go to wikipedia.org and scroll all the way to the bottom, under interviews, it is the second link). Smoke Signals is a film that Alexie was the scriptwriter and co-producor for. He argues that American pop culture recognizes Native Americans in two categories, the warrior and the shaman. He destoys the stereotypes through different images, stories and songs.
In the interview, Alexie comments on the semi-autobiographical elements by stating, "It's more about my relationship with my father...he had to struggle with alcoholism, as I have. It's also about the struggle within myself...it's sort of schizophrenic multiple personality of myself that I develop within the movie." He talks about his "fascination with dreams and stories and flashing forward and flashing back and playing with conventions of time", which directly correlates to the time travel feature in Flight.
My interpretation:
When asked to comment on the absent father theme, I found Alexie's response to be fascinating. He explains that a father does not have to physically leave home to be absent in a child's life, that they could simply be sitting in the living room and still be absent. This theme resonates for Alexie because of his negative relationship with his father. He states, "My father did leave to drink, but he always came back. So for me it was a way of exploring that feeling of abondonment." This statement is quite powerful and insightful. I feel that when Alexie writes stories such as Flight, where personal, painful issues are raised, it almost acts as therapy for him and is a way for him to heal his wounds from the lack of his father figure. I think takes a brave and aware individual to create something like that and have hopes that someone who struggles with the same issue will read the book and feel less lonely and with more hope.
What this adds to our discussion:
I feel like this topic ties in with our discussion last week on Where the Wild Things Are in which we discussed how books "speak for children" and even side with them. The school of thought in the 1960's when Where the Wild Things Are was written, was that books should expand a child reader's imagination and more importantly, they should have a pyschological benefit. For example, they can help children deal with childhood traumas or fears. Specifically, if a child has an absent father or experiences the intense loniless and shame that Zits does, they can unleash these feelings while delving into the story of Flight. By relating to the character, they feel safe and know that they are not the only one who is struggling and they find comfort in the fact that someone else has felt the same sadness they have felt. Is this not the sole purpose for books? Especially books for child readers...they need to feel safe and comfortable and realize that books can help them deal with issues in their life where they may feel are lacking or out of control. It is readily apparant how the book Flight could potentially help child readers who may relate to the characters and have experienced struggles both individually and interpersonally.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Sherman Alexie's view of 'justice'
What I researched and why:
After reading the first ten chapters of Flight by Sherman Alexie, I thought that the feelings Zit had about life, at least in the beginning of the novel, were accurately described by Alexie, in terms of real life situations. This attracted me to the book because it was blunt, to the point, and included the good and the bad of a boy's life. It didn't try to mask anything for the reader's sake. I decided I wanted to research other views on this novel because it is so blunt and raunchy, and I wondered how Alexie's writing style and the plot of the story affected other readers.
What I found and My Interpretation:
Researching on the web, I found many differing views on Flight, including reviews which were both supportive and un-supportive of Alexie's style of this particular novel. However, as I read through these reviews I found one which emphasized the ironic fact that Zit met a boy named Justice in jail. Here is the article: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/01/001410.php. The reviewer Richard Marcus claims that "Getting arrested isn't the strange part it's meeting the white kid called Justice in the prison - that's strange". With this, I realized that 'justice' was a central focus of the plot, at least up to the point I had read to, and I found this much more interesting than what other reader's views were of the story. Justice is able to convince Zip that he needs to get back at people for his current life and with this we are thrown into many different situations where characters are getting revenge, justice or vengeance for something that has occurred either to them or to a group of people they are representing (ex: when Zip is in the body of a young Indian who is contemplating slitting a white soldier's throat to avenge his own throat slaying). These continuous examples seem to portray the getting justice is an innate part of human interaction, whatever the means, in all facets of life. Justice's point of view also seems to indicate that Zit has other people to blame for the life he is leading, regardless of his age, hence the need to get back at them.
What this adds to our discussion:
I feel that this is important to our discussion because it parallels what we have been discussing in class dealing with the 20th century view on childhood. This view holds that children are a locus for competing desires, anxieties, aggressions and traumas. Naughtiness is a natural state we need to overcome. Following this then, did Zit and the other adult or near adult characters in Flight fail to overcome their naughtiness? These characters seems to completely lack any kind of adult characteristics, such as inhibition or consciousness for right and wrong. Marcus makes an interesting conclusion about this story saying "revenge turns you into the people you want revenge against", meaning that although one feels they are entitled to justice and revenge, doesn't this serve to make them just as bad as the person they are seeking justice against? Although I have a hunch, I am curious to see how/whether Alexis solves this problem towards the end of the book.
After reading the first ten chapters of Flight by Sherman Alexie, I thought that the feelings Zit had about life, at least in the beginning of the novel, were accurately described by Alexie, in terms of real life situations. This attracted me to the book because it was blunt, to the point, and included the good and the bad of a boy's life. It didn't try to mask anything for the reader's sake. I decided I wanted to research other views on this novel because it is so blunt and raunchy, and I wondered how Alexie's writing style and the plot of the story affected other readers.
What I found and My Interpretation:
Researching on the web, I found many differing views on Flight, including reviews which were both supportive and un-supportive of Alexie's style of this particular novel. However, as I read through these reviews I found one which emphasized the ironic fact that Zit met a boy named Justice in jail. Here is the article: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/01/001410.php. The reviewer Richard Marcus claims that "Getting arrested isn't the strange part it's meeting the white kid called Justice in the prison - that's strange". With this, I realized that 'justice' was a central focus of the plot, at least up to the point I had read to, and I found this much more interesting than what other reader's views were of the story. Justice is able to convince Zip that he needs to get back at people for his current life and with this we are thrown into many different situations where characters are getting revenge, justice or vengeance for something that has occurred either to them or to a group of people they are representing (ex: when Zip is in the body of a young Indian who is contemplating slitting a white soldier's throat to avenge his own throat slaying). These continuous examples seem to portray the getting justice is an innate part of human interaction, whatever the means, in all facets of life. Justice's point of view also seems to indicate that Zit has other people to blame for the life he is leading, regardless of his age, hence the need to get back at them.
What this adds to our discussion:
I feel that this is important to our discussion because it parallels what we have been discussing in class dealing with the 20th century view on childhood. This view holds that children are a locus for competing desires, anxieties, aggressions and traumas. Naughtiness is a natural state we need to overcome. Following this then, did Zit and the other adult or near adult characters in Flight fail to overcome their naughtiness? These characters seems to completely lack any kind of adult characteristics, such as inhibition or consciousness for right and wrong. Marcus makes an interesting conclusion about this story saying "revenge turns you into the people you want revenge against", meaning that although one feels they are entitled to justice and revenge, doesn't this serve to make them just as bad as the person they are seeking justice against? Although I have a hunch, I am curious to see how/whether Alexis solves this problem towards the end of the book.
"Author Sherman Alexie Talks 'Flight'"
*Spoiler Warning: The end of the novel is talked about in various moments in this post. If you do not wish to hear of the ending yet, please refrain from viewing at this time*
What I researched and Why:
After having read seven chapters (though that number will most likely have changed by the time one reads this), of Sherman Alexie's Flight, I was really interested in finding out more information about Sherman Alexie and the text. Not only did I want to do so because I find Alexie's narrative style interesting, but I'm fascinated with the fact that Flight is a fairly recent novel, and is from an author, that while having written other well-recepted texts (Reservation Blues, Indian Killer, etc), I had never heard of before. I suppose you could say, in so few words, that I wanted to go on a fact finding mission and see what I could dig up.
What I found:
When I typed "Flight" (Sherman Alexie) in Google, it produced a gold mine of results. Not only can one find book reviews from major newspapers, but also that Sherman Alexie has his own blog devoted to his Flight book tour. While perhaps someone else would like to post about that blog (but if no one chooses not to, it's still worth looking at), I found something very interesting. Earlier this year in April, Sherman Alexie did about a seventeen minute radio interview for NPR (National Public Radio)'s segment Talk of the Nation, wherein he discussed quite a bit about Flight.
This should link you straight to the interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/popup.php?id=9517858&type=1&date=11-Apr-2007&au=1&pid=43343430&random=0330506640&guid=000940667C54071E5CE4353061626364&uaType=WM&aaType=RM,WM&upf=Win32&topicName=Books&subtopicName=Fiction&prgCode=TOTN&hubId=-1&thingId=9517855&ssid=&tableModifier=&mtype=WM
However, if it doesn't, please try this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9517855
(If you use this link, you just have to click the red "Listen", which is below the title "Author Sherman Alexie Talks 'Flight'")
Here are some points from the interview (in case no one can get it to work):
-The book's narrative track originated from Alexie watching a documentary on the events of September 11th. Alexie remembered an interview with a flight instructor that had taught one of the terrorists how to fly, and noted the sense of personal betrayal the man exuded. The instructor had grown to be friends with the terrorist (he remembers telling jokes, getting drunk with him, etc), but it just shocked him that this same man, who he had called his friend, had committed such a horrible act. Alexie combined this essence of personal betrayal and ethnic crime to create Flight.
-While writing about this, Alexie remembered other violent acts in U.S. history and what stories had not been told about these events. He then wanted to write about these eras as well.
-But the problem he had was that he had multiple stories, and couldn't connect them together. He solved the problem after reading Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, wherein the main character of that story could travel through time. As Alexie states in the interview, "If Vonnegut could do it, I could try" (Maybe this is the reason why there is a Slaughterhouse-Five quote before the story begins...)
-Alexie addresses the question of Flight being "A Study of Violence". He's surprised that the book has been received half postively and half negatively. He believes that the book is based on the idea that violence is perpetuated on both sides of any conflict, even using the Iraq war as an example. Alexie credits the Iraq war a lot in writing this novel.
-Flight came about also from Alexie's work on another book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.
-Alexie addressed the ending of Flight. *Here is where the spoilers come in *
Alexie wanted to be "Hopeful about being Hopeful" He's surprised that the ending has received some negative criticism because he [Alexie] is being hopeful. He had been cynical with all his other works, but now is being punished for being optimistic. Also, Alexie had written alternate endings to the novel, but chose the one he did because he thought it was just the right one.
*End spoiler*
-Alexie compares himself to Zits while talking about the funny points to the novel. He mentions the blend of violence and humor in the novel, and says that Flight has been particularly criticized for its humor. Alexie says that he's been called "shallow" and "glib"
-Alexie addresses an Indian stereotype, proving it true in many cases in his life.
My Interpretation/ What this adds to our discussion:
I feel that I cannot continue without saying first that it's quite rather nice to actually hear Sherman Alexie's voice. In a way, it seems to add another dimension to understanding him (putting the photo to the voice/putting the voice to the photo). After all, aside from written comments and photographs, we have not literally "heard" from any of the other authors of the texts we've read in this course. I don't know, it just seems to make him more identifying and personable.
I find Alexie's comment on violence being perpetuated on both sides of a conflict really interesting. It seems to me that he is saying that violence is infinite, a never ending Mobius strip. Yet something about that just doesn't seem to sit right with me. If violence is perpetuated on both sides, is there really no chance for peace? What of the cases where conflicts of violence have been resolved? If the conflict has been resolved, isn't this a critical contradiction? Or is one side of the conflict still prone to violence?
*Spoiler: Discussion of end from here on *
Like Sherman Alexie, I'm also surprised about the criticism that the end of the novel has been getting. Granted I haven't finished the novel yet, but I find the criticism itself interesting. The end is being criticized because it is hopeful and shows optimism, that things can have a resolution.
Why would critics be against this? For me, this reminds me of part of the discussion we had in class on Tuesday about the portrayal and shielding of violence and adult themes towards children. On the one hand, we have one group wanting to shield children from blood and gore, while the other doesn't want these issues hidden, to show them reality.
For a novel such as Flight, even from what you have read so far, which ending would you prefer? Should it have a happy ending, such as Alexie's hopeful optimism or not? That everything can be alright for the troubled and violent boy after all? The happy ending seems in league with the way most children's literature, past and present, ends ("Happily Ever After" and the like). Are happy endings realistic? Or, are they shields to protect the child from what really should/would happen? If we deny the existence of hope, such as Alexie's critics have been doing, what does that say about reality, and for that matter, society and values? Have they changed throughout the flight of the ages?
What I researched and Why:
After having read seven chapters (though that number will most likely have changed by the time one reads this), of Sherman Alexie's Flight, I was really interested in finding out more information about Sherman Alexie and the text. Not only did I want to do so because I find Alexie's narrative style interesting, but I'm fascinated with the fact that Flight is a fairly recent novel, and is from an author, that while having written other well-recepted texts (Reservation Blues, Indian Killer, etc), I had never heard of before. I suppose you could say, in so few words, that I wanted to go on a fact finding mission and see what I could dig up.
What I found:
When I typed "Flight" (Sherman Alexie) in Google, it produced a gold mine of results. Not only can one find book reviews from major newspapers, but also that Sherman Alexie has his own blog devoted to his Flight book tour. While perhaps someone else would like to post about that blog (but if no one chooses not to, it's still worth looking at), I found something very interesting. Earlier this year in April, Sherman Alexie did about a seventeen minute radio interview for NPR (National Public Radio)'s segment Talk of the Nation, wherein he discussed quite a bit about Flight.
This should link you straight to the interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/popup.php?id=9517858&type=1&date=11-Apr-2007&au=1&pid=43343430&random=0330506640&guid=000940667C54071E5CE4353061626364&uaType=WM&aaType=RM,WM&upf=Win32&topicName=Books&subtopicName=Fiction&prgCode=TOTN&hubId=-1&thingId=9517855&ssid=&tableModifier=&mtype=WM
However, if it doesn't, please try this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9517855
(If you use this link, you just have to click the red "Listen", which is below the title "Author Sherman Alexie Talks 'Flight'")
Here are some points from the interview (in case no one can get it to work):
-The book's narrative track originated from Alexie watching a documentary on the events of September 11th. Alexie remembered an interview with a flight instructor that had taught one of the terrorists how to fly, and noted the sense of personal betrayal the man exuded. The instructor had grown to be friends with the terrorist (he remembers telling jokes, getting drunk with him, etc), but it just shocked him that this same man, who he had called his friend, had committed such a horrible act. Alexie combined this essence of personal betrayal and ethnic crime to create Flight.
-While writing about this, Alexie remembered other violent acts in U.S. history and what stories had not been told about these events. He then wanted to write about these eras as well.
-But the problem he had was that he had multiple stories, and couldn't connect them together. He solved the problem after reading Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, wherein the main character of that story could travel through time. As Alexie states in the interview, "If Vonnegut could do it, I could try" (Maybe this is the reason why there is a Slaughterhouse-Five quote before the story begins...)
-Alexie addresses the question of Flight being "A Study of Violence". He's surprised that the book has been received half postively and half negatively. He believes that the book is based on the idea that violence is perpetuated on both sides of any conflict, even using the Iraq war as an example. Alexie credits the Iraq war a lot in writing this novel.
-Flight came about also from Alexie's work on another book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.
-Alexie addressed the ending of Flight. *Here is where the spoilers come in *
Alexie wanted to be "Hopeful about being Hopeful" He's surprised that the ending has received some negative criticism because he [Alexie] is being hopeful. He had been cynical with all his other works, but now is being punished for being optimistic. Also, Alexie had written alternate endings to the novel, but chose the one he did because he thought it was just the right one.
*End spoiler*
-Alexie compares himself to Zits while talking about the funny points to the novel. He mentions the blend of violence and humor in the novel, and says that Flight has been particularly criticized for its humor. Alexie says that he's been called "shallow" and "glib"
-Alexie addresses an Indian stereotype, proving it true in many cases in his life.
My Interpretation/ What this adds to our discussion:
I feel that I cannot continue without saying first that it's quite rather nice to actually hear Sherman Alexie's voice. In a way, it seems to add another dimension to understanding him (putting the photo to the voice/putting the voice to the photo). After all, aside from written comments and photographs, we have not literally "heard" from any of the other authors of the texts we've read in this course. I don't know, it just seems to make him more identifying and personable.
I find Alexie's comment on violence being perpetuated on both sides of a conflict really interesting. It seems to me that he is saying that violence is infinite, a never ending Mobius strip. Yet something about that just doesn't seem to sit right with me. If violence is perpetuated on both sides, is there really no chance for peace? What of the cases where conflicts of violence have been resolved? If the conflict has been resolved, isn't this a critical contradiction? Or is one side of the conflict still prone to violence?
*Spoiler: Discussion of end from here on *
Like Sherman Alexie, I'm also surprised about the criticism that the end of the novel has been getting. Granted I haven't finished the novel yet, but I find the criticism itself interesting. The end is being criticized because it is hopeful and shows optimism, that things can have a resolution.
Why would critics be against this? For me, this reminds me of part of the discussion we had in class on Tuesday about the portrayal and shielding of violence and adult themes towards children. On the one hand, we have one group wanting to shield children from blood and gore, while the other doesn't want these issues hidden, to show them reality.
For a novel such as Flight, even from what you have read so far, which ending would you prefer? Should it have a happy ending, such as Alexie's hopeful optimism or not? That everything can be alright for the troubled and violent boy after all? The happy ending seems in league with the way most children's literature, past and present, ends ("Happily Ever After" and the like). Are happy endings realistic? Or, are they shields to protect the child from what really should/would happen? If we deny the existence of hope, such as Alexie's critics have been doing, what does that say about reality, and for that matter, society and values? Have they changed throughout the flight of the ages?
"Mama, Do You Love Me?"
What I researched and why:
After reading “17 Things I’m Not Allowed to do Anymore” I was curious to see the reviews that it received. Like all of the previous stories containing a misbehaving main character, I expected this book to receive much rough criticism. Surprisingly, I was wrong (well at least for the most part). As I read through tons of reviews I was only able to come across one that stated that “17 Things” was inappropriate for children. All of the other reviews raved of brilliance. http://www.jandysbooks.com/children/17things.html <’a> . Basically, this critic found it unsuitable that the main character did not show any remorse for her mischievous acts. She believes that children may be easily swayed into reproducing these wrong doings.
Upon this discovery, I remember an acclaimed story that I read as a child called “Mama, Do You Love Me?” by Barbara M. Joosse. In this story a little girl tests her mother’s love by asking her if she will still love her if she did a variety of “off of the wall” things. For example, the little girl asks if her mother will still love her if she turned into a scary monster.
What I found/My Interpretation:
I believe that there are many similarities between “17Things I’m Not Allowed to do Anymore” and “Mama, Do you love Me?” In “Mama” the little girl comes up with crazy ideas to see how unconditional her mother’s love actually is. By partaking in many naughty events, I feel that the character in “17 Things” is doing the same. At the end of story, the mother happily embraces her daughter, which shows her that her mother still loves her despite her misbehaving.
In my opinion, “17 Things” does not encourage unruly behavior in children. Covered by vibrant illustrations and a creative plot, I think it is a great way to get children interested in reading while teaching them a great meaning. I feel that many children today feel as if they are horrible children, and get the feeling that they are not cared for, when they do something wrong. Both of these books show children that even though they might do something wrong (in an adult’s eyes), that they are still cared for.
What this adds to class discussion:
In class we have be discussing the different types of criticism that can be used when examining a story. We have also looked more closely at various critics and their interpretations on our class readings. All of these are very different, and may seem crazy to others (Freud maybe?). However, all of them do have good points. Although I disagree with what the critic previously mentioned, I can understand where she is coming from. I am very curious to hear what everyone else thinks about the text, as well as the ways this book may affect the child reading it.
* I’ll bring “Mama, Do You Love Me?” to our next class.
After reading “17 Things I’m Not Allowed to do Anymore” I was curious to see the reviews that it received. Like all of the previous stories containing a misbehaving main character, I expected this book to receive much rough criticism. Surprisingly, I was wrong (well at least for the most part). As I read through tons of reviews I was only able to come across one that stated that “17 Things” was inappropriate for children. All of the other reviews raved of brilliance. http://www.jandysbooks.com/children/17things.html <’a> . Basically, this critic found it unsuitable that the main character did not show any remorse for her mischievous acts. She believes that children may be easily swayed into reproducing these wrong doings.
Upon this discovery, I remember an acclaimed story that I read as a child called “Mama, Do You Love Me?” by Barbara M. Joosse. In this story a little girl tests her mother’s love by asking her if she will still love her if she did a variety of “off of the wall” things. For example, the little girl asks if her mother will still love her if she turned into a scary monster.
What I found/My Interpretation:
I believe that there are many similarities between “17Things I’m Not Allowed to do Anymore” and “Mama, Do you love Me?” In “Mama” the little girl comes up with crazy ideas to see how unconditional her mother’s love actually is. By partaking in many naughty events, I feel that the character in “17 Things” is doing the same. At the end of story, the mother happily embraces her daughter, which shows her that her mother still loves her despite her misbehaving.
In my opinion, “17 Things” does not encourage unruly behavior in children. Covered by vibrant illustrations and a creative plot, I think it is a great way to get children interested in reading while teaching them a great meaning. I feel that many children today feel as if they are horrible children, and get the feeling that they are not cared for, when they do something wrong. Both of these books show children that even though they might do something wrong (in an adult’s eyes), that they are still cared for.
What this adds to class discussion:
In class we have be discussing the different types of criticism that can be used when examining a story. We have also looked more closely at various critics and their interpretations on our class readings. All of these are very different, and may seem crazy to others (Freud maybe?). However, all of them do have good points. Although I disagree with what the critic previously mentioned, I can understand where she is coming from. I am very curious to hear what everyone else thinks about the text, as well as the ways this book may affect the child reading it.
* I’ll bring “Mama, Do You Love Me?” to our next class.
what i researched and why-
To be honest, this might have been some of the most depressing research I've ever done! The selection from "Tom and Huck Don't Live Here Anymore" prompted me to research the obvious thing, which would be juvenile delinquency. I wanted to look around and see what the news reports were like. Were these children being punished? How do reports like this affect a society that wants to view childhood as a time of innocence?
what i found-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=866502259882461359&q=juvenile+crime+interview&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
This is a video of a news report about ten year old boys who beat a homeless man quite brutally. I chose to include this video (even though there were so many options to choose from) for a few reasons. First of all, there is the obvious issue of age. These boys aren't even teens; They are children. This issue of age complicates not only our interpretation of their actions but also the idea of punishment. For instance, it seems, in this video, that the seventeen year old boy with the two ten year olds will probably be blamed for instigating the actions. This is evidence of our inability to see children as capable of comitting such a crime on their own. We cannot comprehend ten year olds being that evil.
Another reason I chose this video was because of the discussion of the children's families and punishment. The children are referred to as "disposable kids" because no family members can be found in connection with them. There are no smiling school pictures of the children, no crying mothers pleading for mercy for their sons, like we usually see in such cases. I think this is an interesting case, because it really challenges the way that we are able to think about children and crime.
Contribution to Discussion:
This is a very relevant thing, I think, to everything we've talked about so far concerning childhood innocence and naughtiness. We see things that might make us chuckle every now and then on the news or in day to day life: kids stealing yard decorations, harmless grafitti, things that are "mischevious", but acceptable. Then we see news reports of ten year olds attacking homeless people. What's interesing to me is our reaction. We want to know motives. We want to know who is responsible, because we don't think it can be them. That automatic response to defend the innocence of children is interesting, and I think it might be worth discussing, especially in regards to literature and what ideas of childhood we take from our childhood books.
To be honest, this might have been some of the most depressing research I've ever done! The selection from "Tom and Huck Don't Live Here Anymore" prompted me to research the obvious thing, which would be juvenile delinquency. I wanted to look around and see what the news reports were like. Were these children being punished? How do reports like this affect a society that wants to view childhood as a time of innocence?
what i found-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=866502259882461359&q=juvenile+crime+interview&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
This is a video of a news report about ten year old boys who beat a homeless man quite brutally. I chose to include this video (even though there were so many options to choose from) for a few reasons. First of all, there is the obvious issue of age. These boys aren't even teens; They are children. This issue of age complicates not only our interpretation of their actions but also the idea of punishment. For instance, it seems, in this video, that the seventeen year old boy with the two ten year olds will probably be blamed for instigating the actions. This is evidence of our inability to see children as capable of comitting such a crime on their own. We cannot comprehend ten year olds being that evil.
Another reason I chose this video was because of the discussion of the children's families and punishment. The children are referred to as "disposable kids" because no family members can be found in connection with them. There are no smiling school pictures of the children, no crying mothers pleading for mercy for their sons, like we usually see in such cases. I think this is an interesting case, because it really challenges the way that we are able to think about children and crime.
Contribution to Discussion:
This is a very relevant thing, I think, to everything we've talked about so far concerning childhood innocence and naughtiness. We see things that might make us chuckle every now and then on the news or in day to day life: kids stealing yard decorations, harmless grafitti, things that are "mischevious", but acceptable. Then we see news reports of ten year olds attacking homeless people. What's interesing to me is our reaction. We want to know motives. We want to know who is responsible, because we don't think it can be them. That automatic response to defend the innocence of children is interesting, and I think it might be worth discussing, especially in regards to literature and what ideas of childhood we take from our childhood books.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Similarities between Rabelais and Sendak
What I researched and why
When reading about “Rabelais and His World”, by Mikhail Bakhtin, I noticed similarities between Rabelais’ concepts and “Where the Wild Things Are”, by Maurice Sendak. I had never heard of Rabelais before, so I decided to look up some information about Rabelais and his writings. I thought it would be interesting to see how writings from the fifteenth century could have similarities with writings from the twentieth century.
What I found
I ended up finding a few similarities between Rabelais and Sendak. Rabelais’ most famous writing is a series of five novels about two giants. Gargantua is the father giant and Pantagruel is his son. One of Rabelais’ concepts is called grotesque realism. Grotesque realism focuses on the body. Eating is something very important to Rabelais’ giants. In “Where the Wild Things Are”, eating is also a major theme of the book. Max gets sent to bed without supper and he is upset by that. In Rabelais’ writing, he often uses profanities and curses. In “Where the Wild Things Are”, Max says something inappropriate to his mother when he yells at her, “I’LL EAT YOU UP!” Rabelais’ writings also deal with fantasy because giants of course don’t exist. So the reader can use their imagination when reading about Rabelais’ giants and Sendak’s wild things. Both writers were also controversial. Rabelais had some of his books banned for unorthodox ideas and a carefree attitude. “In the Night Kitchen” by Sendak was a censorship target because of the naked drawings of the character Mickey. Bettelheim also thought that “Where the Wild Things Are” was too violent for children for example. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Rabelais to a short biography about Rabelais that I found interesting. And this is another link: http://expasy.org/spotlight/images/sptlt066_1.jpg of a picture of Pantagruel the giant.
My interpretation/ what this adds to class discussion
I think it’s neat that these writings from different time periods that are very far apart from each other have so much in common. At first they may seem totally different from one another, but if you dig deeper and do some research, they actually share a lot of common themes. It’s interesting to ponder whether Sendak was influenced by Rabelais at all. What would Rabelais think if he would’ve read “Where the Wild Things Are”? Would he have liked it? Would Rabelais’ readers have liked “Where the Wild Things Are”? It’s something to think about.
When reading about “Rabelais and His World”, by Mikhail Bakhtin, I noticed similarities between Rabelais’ concepts and “Where the Wild Things Are”, by Maurice Sendak. I had never heard of Rabelais before, so I decided to look up some information about Rabelais and his writings. I thought it would be interesting to see how writings from the fifteenth century could have similarities with writings from the twentieth century.
What I found
I ended up finding a few similarities between Rabelais and Sendak. Rabelais’ most famous writing is a series of five novels about two giants. Gargantua is the father giant and Pantagruel is his son. One of Rabelais’ concepts is called grotesque realism. Grotesque realism focuses on the body. Eating is something very important to Rabelais’ giants. In “Where the Wild Things Are”, eating is also a major theme of the book. Max gets sent to bed without supper and he is upset by that. In Rabelais’ writing, he often uses profanities and curses. In “Where the Wild Things Are”, Max says something inappropriate to his mother when he yells at her, “I’LL EAT YOU UP!” Rabelais’ writings also deal with fantasy because giants of course don’t exist. So the reader can use their imagination when reading about Rabelais’ giants and Sendak’s wild things. Both writers were also controversial. Rabelais had some of his books banned for unorthodox ideas and a carefree attitude. “In the Night Kitchen” by Sendak was a censorship target because of the naked drawings of the character Mickey. Bettelheim also thought that “Where the Wild Things Are” was too violent for children for example. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Rabelais to a short biography about Rabelais that I found interesting. And this is another link: http://expasy.org/spotlight/images/sptlt066_1.jpg of a picture of Pantagruel the giant.
My interpretation/ what this adds to class discussion
I think it’s neat that these writings from different time periods that are very far apart from each other have so much in common. At first they may seem totally different from one another, but if you dig deeper and do some research, they actually share a lot of common themes. It’s interesting to ponder whether Sendak was influenced by Rabelais at all. What would Rabelais think if he would’ve read “Where the Wild Things Are”? Would he have liked it? Would Rabelais’ readers have liked “Where the Wild Things Are”? It’s something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)