comment on prick

Well i don't have any definitive statement, or dictionary terminology to announce, but I can talk about a funny conversation i had with my grandma. This weekend she visited my aunt here in Austin and i asked her if she had ever read TC, and she had. She said she read it when she was about 15 and then Tropic of Capricorn. She said at the time it was banned everywhere but her brother brought it back from South America where he was stationed during the war. She said it was racy and crude, but when i asked her about the terms she said that they were common then. She was raised very conservative catholic and so it wasn't regularly that she heard them but said that they were known of ,and she felt they had the same meaning. I sort of feel they still do. I mean, if prick means penis and  instead of calling someone mean a jerk i call him a dick, which is a regular thing for someone (especially college aged) to say then isn't it all the same? ...I don't know. Oh but back to grandma one time we were watching boxing and she called Lenox Lewis a pussy and i was shocked...i didn't know she knew what that meant. Her and Miller would have been BFFs.

Response to Marshal on “Prick”

I don’t know why, but after I read this blog I felt the need to see what our trusty Oxford dictionary had to say about the word “prick” from our nifty online UT library tools. This is the first one that caught my eye, “As a term of endearment for a man: darling, sweetheart”. Yeah, my Mom used to call me Prick all the time. This one made more sense to today’s standards, “the penis”. I’ve never seen it used in that context but I could see how it would work. This one was much closer to what we use it for today, “a stupid, contemptible, or annoying person (esp. a man or boy). Also used as a general term of abuse”. I think this is pretty much how we use it today. It would be kind of more insulting I guess to call a woman a prick just like when you call a man a bitch; it has different connotation than when you call a woman a bitch.
And it even comes in compound form; prick-sucker is defined as “a person who performs fellatio”. No comment. Prick-teaser is defined as “a woman who gives the impression of being sexually available but refuses or evades sexual intercourse”; I know we all know how this term has transformed over the centuries. I thought this one was funny; prick-teased; defined as “that has been frustrated by a ‘prick-teaser’”. I know I didn’t answer your question Marshal, but at least know we all have new euphemisms to employ in our lexicon.

Re: to Marshall in Prick

Again, like I've mentioned many times before, I am so lost when it comes to these slang terms. But correct me if I am wrong, didn't today's language change the word "prick" from describing a penis change into a condescending term to describe a person? I have heard my friends call each other pricks before, and normally they say it as to categorize someone in a level that is a little but above being a jerk. Now thinking of this, I am also somewhat confused and am not sure which side to take on, Marshall's or Piekarski's?

Re: Banning

I do not think that the Miller Test was meant to make censorship easier. On the contrary, censorship grew more difficult as a result of the added third criteria following the court case, Miller v. California (1973). The criteria for testing obscenity grew stricter over the course of the past century. Initially, in Regina v. Hicklin (1868), the Hicklin Test stated that if "the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" then the work in question is said to be obscene and thus censored. This made censorship easier, because anybody could have objections to works that they feel could be obscene. It was a simple yes or no answer, and once a decision has been made, was not open to debate .

The Miller Test basically kept the first two criteria from the previous Roth Test from the court case, Roth v. United States, but added the third criteria: "the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The third criteria was extremely important because many critics have different definitions of what constituted literary or artistic. You couldn't automatically censor something unless you have a consensus among the majority.

Prick

Alright, Monday in class I mentioned that I thought the dirty words used in Tropic of Cancer have changed in meaning since the time it was written. KP disagreed, and said that only twice in history have there really been changes in the English language. This is true, but I'm not so sure it applies to slang terms. I'll concede that cunt is more or less the same. My original thought, when reading, was that Miller said cunt as a desirable thing, and of course now, as said in class, it refers to a putrid vagina. I guess it was a desirable thing, but because of the fact that Miller's sick character desired said unkempt women. However, I disagree that prick hasn't changed. Obviously in today's world it is used to describe an unsatisfactory penis. I don't think Miller's narcissistic character would denounce himself in such a way, so I feel that the connotation from then to now has definitely changed. Thoughts?

Tropic of Cancer is for Fake People?

Today in class, briefly before we parted, Piekarski asked a question that somewhat confused me. I didn't understand if he was trying to ask us if we thought that Miller had a good reason to be vulgar. Does his purpose for this book and his language give us an excuse to express our minds OR our mouths, or our minds AND our mouths? 

 In result, some people tried to answer my confusion and what I got out of that was the idea that this book was written for fake people. We all know that we all have thoughts similar to Millers and there is no hiding the fact that we are all judgmental in someway or another. But what I don't understand is if Miller is trying to be "that guy", the one who always puts people out of their comfort zone by putting their morals at stake. Is he trying to tell us that it is better to be real and honest than to be fake and considerate? I don't understand Miller at all, the only thing apparent to me about him is that he pities dishonesty in more than one level.

 Anyway, I'm glad that this book is over with. In addition, if his purpose was to be "that guy" than he has succeeded. A lot of my friendships are at stake, thanks to my reactions towards Miller and somehow I am unsure if I like being this way or not. 

Re: To Doug

Doug, I completely get where you are coming from. I understand that this book could have had the exact same content  if it came from a women's point of view, but the history of women's rights, I feel, contributes to a bigger part of my perception of this novel. I do agree, as a female, that my position on the book is based on my own sexist ideas that women should not be treated as sex objects. But despite this, I am still a bit shocked that certain ideas are reached far beyond this. I feel that Miller not only tries to categorize women as sex toys for his pleasure, but rather, sometimes even describes them as unworthy for anything else. While reading this, I got an idea that Miller just wanted women for their vaginas and after that should be thrown out like trash. Woman aren't disposable Miller! This is mainly what bothered me, not the fact that he was being vulgar about it all. I know a lot of men think similarly to the way Miller does, but I have never met anyone who has disgusted me like he has.

Banning

So, while I was researching the obscenity trials for my work sample, I was very surprised at how easy it is to get something banned. A work has to satisfy a set of criteria called (interestingly enough) the Miller test, i.e.:

• Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions^[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).

I was frankly shocked at this definition of obscenity, especially because I wasn't really aware that we could still ban things in the United States. It seems a terrible infringement on our First Amendment rights.

And it's still occuring. "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" has just gotten banned in some theaters in Utah.

Response to HelloGlo on Effects of Tropic of Cancer

Your post made me thing of an interesting concept I heard today – “there is no gender free interaction”. I can’t really explain in depth what that means but it made me think about the vulgarity in Tropic of Cancer and how the reactions of males versus females are typically different. Obviously, the content of the book is from a male’s perspective and that perspective has a jaded view on females. Males seem to be less offended by the book, in my opinion. So what if Tropic of Cancer were written by a woman and was about a woman traveling in Paris and having her way with various man-whores (to quote EG)? Would the reverse be true? Would us males be more offended by the content of the book and females less offended? Probably not, we are pretty shameless, but still it’s an interesting idea.

Response to MartinL on Standards for Art vs. Standards for Literature

I think you bring up a good point here. I think it’s clear that those who consider Tropic of Cancer low art o pornographic, as some do with Blue Velvet, have not taken the time to dig beyond the surface of the literature and work through their own uncomfortable feelings in order to find the ‘high art”. I think the two give us more than entertainment in return – Lynch gives his viewers a view of the world they may never experience and Miller gives his reader’s a broader perspective of topics that literature has to offer.

Bob Dylan

i just finished listening to Dylan's songs and the only thing that stood out to me was one line from "bringing it back home", the line where he says "i went into the bank and they asked for collateral, so i pulled down my pants." This got me thinking...Well actually better yet, it made me smile. Before that line i was so irritated by Bob Dylan's voice i was about to stop listening, and then i heard that line and it kind of made me cheer internally. The line while it was crude gave off this kind of "f*ck the police" vibe, it appealed to the common man. This made me wonder why (for myself at least) he appealed more to me than Henry Miller in TC. I loved TC the book, but the guy rubbed me wrong; he was hateful. I sort of don't enjoy Bob Dylan's music for the most part, but i liked him....i guess what I'm trying to say is that they can both be crude but i observed that Bob Dylan can do it in much more of a likable manner.

The Pornographic Interview

I was reading the October issue of Vice magazine recently and happened upon a section that consisted of a series of interviews, titled "People Who Just Had Sex With Each Other a Couple of Minutes Ago". The content of each of the interviews doesn't stray far from what you might expect it to be initially: Two consenting adults relaying play-by-play events of their most intimate moments, in Q&A format. I thought immediately of Sontag's piece and thought that the section might be considered a very poor piece of pornographic literature, due to its mechanical descriptions of sex, without any literary devices. And then I realized that they were interviews, and very few, if any, interviews could be considered literature. I had erred in labeling it. But then I began thinking about the section in terms of interviews. Could a pornographic interview qualify as a truly good interview? A good interview is expected to be insightful and informative. Certainly the interviews in Vice said a lot about the individuals and their preferences. For example, certain fetishes, like biting, were detailed in one of the interviews. I thought this qualified as insightful to the most extreme degree, because rarely would most people divulge deep psychological passions to an interviewer. I began to think that Sontag might agree that it could be a good interview, but then I began to question whether the interviews were even pornographic. Sexual excitement should have no place in the purpose of journalism. Yet it is difficult to respond to such vividly erotic descriptions in a wholly academic way, without excitement.

From the Pornographic Imagination: "The physical sensations involuntarily produced in someone reading the book carry with them something that touches upon the reader's whole experience of his humanity-and his limits as a personality and as a body." Reading this partly led me to believe that the interviews did in fact fulfill its purpose as an insightful interview...even if a lot of the insight gained is from the reader's response.

Effects of Tropic of Cancer

The question that was introduced in class discussion today was, does or doesn't the content of Tropic of Cancer directly affect the moralistic values of its readers? Personally after immediately hearing this, my answer for it was pretty concrete. As I mentioned when I submitted my work sample, I feel that the Miller's language is a bit extreme at any standard and that it, " cannot reach the common audience if he puts their morals at stake" (emphasis on the world "common"). I understand that many may disagree with this statement, but for the sake of the blog I share only my stand. I have noticed that while reading the novel, I was never able to place myself in the same level as Miller, and just continued to frown upon his vulgarity. I was also unable to embrace his honesty, but rather became annoyed by the distractions his word choice created. I admit to sounding like a Catholic grandma when writing my work sample, but honestly, how can calling a woman a infected vagina ever be a good thing? 

Re: Marshall

I can't necessarily refute everything that you said, but you had some great points!

As far as the dolphins are concerned, I did consider that some mammals probably mate for pleasure, but that is still perceiving sex as a physical act. My point was that they are (probably) not able to sacralize sex, or assign some sort of higher meaning to it. True, many animals do mate for life, but sadly, as far as we know, this is not some sort of symbol of enduring love, it is merely a mating tactic. Females prefer to stick with one male who can protect their offspring, and monogamous males stick with one female so as to make sure that she doesn't mate with other males. Blah, blah, blah, enough fun animal facts! All I was trying to say is that some humans, particularly Miller, may view sex as purely physical, as many other mammals do. This does not make it meaningless, it just means that he has stripped it of its societal construct. 

I'm not sure about your taboo topic assertion. Are you sure there aren't words to appropriately describe emotional sex? How about "making love"? And even if there aren't words that can truly do it justice, why does something like "indescribable" not at least begin to portray the emotions felt? 

In my opinion, we don't talk about strong emotions as much because then they would become more common and ordinary. If everyone was going around telling all of their friends how "fantastically indescribable" or "emotionally life changing"their sexual experience was, those words would sort of lose their merit. We would adjust to them. They would no longer be as effective. Sex would no longer seem as important. 

It's like the word "love." We don't just toss it around, because then it wouldn't seem as important. 

Maybe I'm totally wrong here. :)

Sex??? Death???

I am about to philosophize a lot about death, even idealize it, but I don't want to be labeled as emo, even though I had the haircut depicted to the left for two days in high school.

This is a pretty popular topic on the blog right now, so whatever, I'll give it a shot. I'll preface this by saying that I know nothing about either. But this leaves me a lot of time to speculate on both. My general concept of both, were I not to use words or images to define either, would be flashes of light. Let me throw out another life event with a different a-literal a-pictorial depiction, birth, which is a gradually expanding ray of light, rather than a burst. This may or may not make a lot of sense, but to me, light is the origin of all things, so it is the perfect place to begin. This is also not meant to be conclusive about anything,

The main comparison between sex and death in class was that they are both limits. Even though my argument here is that they are similar, I'm not sure about this point. I would say that they are both ends... sex is an end to youth and death is an end to earthly life, however, as limits, I feel that the limit of sex varies among people and has been attained many times, whereas death is a universal limit that no one can possibly conceptualize indisputably. I suppose, though, after writing that, one can never be positive that they have attained their own sexual limitations, and so there is a shared murky uncertainty with death.

I'm not associated with a specific religion, but I would define myself as religious. I believe in a nonspecific afterlife and such. I guess the proper term for it is that I have no unwavering beliefs, but I have faith. With the uncertainty of higher powers, absolutely no belief system can be proven as false. So, even if someone were to make up a position on the spot, somewhere in the millionths or trillionths of probability, there is a chance that it's true. Maybe the God in their madeup system implanted the story to be told as a joke, knowing that with every joke there's a hint of truth. I hold God as the greatest of writers, which is why so much symbolism exists in the world, and why writing was even able to come into fruition as a thing. I AM SO FAR OFF TRACK.

So, here are possibilities to argue with some of the points made already on this blog. The goal is not to find a definitive answer, but to point out that nothing can be known as fact.

• How can one say you can't feel death at all? What is "you"? If you continue after death, then it's possible that death and everything thereafter feel more incredible than absolutely anything in life. In saying this it's important to distinguish between 'dying' (being shot, motorcycle accident, being hit by lightning), and 'death' (a soul or spirit leaving the body).
• Death very well may not rip you away from your loved ones. In the case of wandering spirits, maybe you can actually be with your loved ones all day. On the reverse, you being ripped away from them, some people may not appreciate a loved one until they die, thus bringing that loved one effectively closer. Emotions of the survivors in regards to you are likely heightened (from another blog: sex = emotion), so this keeps you even closer.
• More on that, it's possible that in the afterlife, after your loved ones have also died, given the unknown physiology of spirits, that you and your spouse could actually occupy the same space. Sex is the zenith of pleasure on earth because it is the ultimate form of closeness, but it does not equate to a literal chemical bond.
• Sex for creation, death for death, is true unless human life is a sort of larval stage to the afterlife, in which death is a cocoon and afterlife is the most enjoyable stage.
  
• Sex may create life, but the creation of life is also, in effect, creating more eventual death.
• "Everybody wants to die but no one wants to." Instead of speaking ambiguously and situationally on this, I'll just quote Whitman: "Has any one supposed it lucky to be born?
  I hasten to inform him or her it is just as lucky to die, and I know it."
• In regards to the statement about the movie couple having sex in the face of looming death, this is explained by the uncertain nature of death. It is equally possible to aforementioned views that after human life there is great unfathomable nothingness (one cannot imagine nothing, the best attempt is an image of solid black). So, yes, not knowing what will happen, they choose to at the very least having the best thing life has to offer again one last time. If there is to be no afterlife, then the best thing in life is also the best thing there is at all.
• If feeling nothing is terrible, it is so only when one knows the concept of feeling. If death is a complete departure from life in which earthly joys are forgotten, the absence of feeling wouldn't be noticeable. I can't go without television, but if television had never been, I wouldn't notice its absence.
• I believe the reason sex and death are taboo topics is not because of inappropriateness, but rather a lack of appropriate language to describe them. A man who describes sex saying nothing more than "Yeah dude, I banged her for like 4 hours" probably has no problem talking about sex (in fact, he will start the conversation). However, to people who truly appreciate the emotional experience of sex, there is no way to vocalize what has occurred, and therefore they'd rather not discuss it. I don't foresee death and sex having a departure from taboo, save the invention of a machine linking minds to share concepts.
• Not all other mammals view sex as strictly physical. Dolphins also mate for pleasure. *FUN NATURE FACT*
• To Glo's post: If there is any such thing as predetermined fate, then such an "accident" may not be vested with the undefinable characteristics that constitute life. Such an "accident" may be a solely physical birth, implanted solely to teach a lesson to the sinners. In regards to sinning in general, I try to avoid it as well, except that I like to drink.... I like to drink a lot. But premarital sex and drugs I personally view as acts that bring one closer to God in a sort of "cheating" way (See "Closer" - Nine Inch Nails) ... postmarital sex, on the other hand, I view as an act to bring life into a safe environment.
• To Alex: I have nothing really to dispute in your post, but I love love LOVED the typo where instead of "first sexual exchange" you said "fist sexual exchange". I'm sure everyone does remember a fist sexual exchange. I'm hard-pressed to recall a typo I have enjoyed more thoroughly.

So, I'm an RTF major, and the way I theorize the entire process works with the basic three-act narrative structure. Plot point 1 is birth, then there's youth, then plot point 2: sex, adulthood, then the climax of death (an intensified plot point two), and then the beautiful afterlife denouement. I believe also in reincarnation, not because it's exceptionally feasible, but because it's a dreamy possibility. So, the denouement doesn't go forever, and the transition of afterlife to rebirth can equate to the loading of a new film, while the audience sits and applauds if they like Coca-Cola. IT'S A MOVIE MARATHON!

I'm going to conclude with the two songs I believe perfectly depict sex and death. They're by the same band, a band which I'm extremely biased toward, so it's likely that other people would have other songs they believe represent these concepts. However, I contest that other music about the topics is far too explicit, and does not attack the subjects in as near a primal way. The fact is, this band does a lot of LSD, which I've already stated as a way to cheat to get an early glimpse of God. So, I let them do the drugs for me, and then acts as prophets to me. Note how much longer death is than sex:

Sex- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqvBoFpgXQA
Death- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rvPX8UlQ78

Sex and Death

What is the difference between sex and death? Quite a lot. Let's get past all of this hoity toity symbolic thought and get down to the nitty gritty.

1. Sex feels good -- dying not so much -- death you can't feel at all.
2. Sex is a combining act, it brings to mind Spice Girls "2 become 1" -- death rips you away from your loves ones, not quite so combining.
3. Sex is a act that is intended for creation -- death is intended for death.
   
4. Everyone dies but no one wants to -- only they lucky get a ridiculous amount of sex, some get no sex at all, poor bastards.

Thinking about these I can see how death and sex are butting heads. In reality, no one wants to die, but everyone wants sex. Whether it's sex for love or just sex -- everyone wants it. Who wants to die? Only the suicidal and ridiculously emo, and they're just probably not getting enough sex. If sex wasn't so good why would religious figures abstain from it? Obviously it's a temptation.

This antithesis brings me back to my argument of good v. evil and how evil is needed to make good actually good. Think about this for a second, I'm getting insightful. If sex is, at it's core, a creationary act, then is it not an antithesis to death? Would sex be as good without the looming fear of death? This is to say sex really is good for you and not just mediocre, which if that's the case, I'm sorry.

I'm not trying to say that we're constantly thinking about how we may die any minute and we need to get all the sex we can in as fast as possible. However, you know in the movies when the two main characters are put in a situation of inevitable death? How do they normally react when they've given up trying to save themselves? Now considering the movie I'm creating in my head isn't made for children, the though of animated characters getting it on kind of irks me. However two -- probably incredibly attractive -- people are going to die. What do they do?

They have sex!

Fully aware that sex will not fend off a looming death, they decided they just didn't get enough sex in their lifetime, and they do it. This is an illustration of the importance of sex. It makes babies, did you know that? More babies = more life, which is good! Except maybe in China, I hear they're getting a little crowded over there.

So next time you bring a girl or a guy back to your place and things get a little heated, remember -- that you're going to die sooner or later and then you're not going to feel anything anymore. Do you watch Heroes? Claire can't feel anything and she hates it. So enjoy your sex while you can, because death is on it's way. Only a matter of time before you've run out of options (here's hoping you haven't already.)

Miller v Nabakov (spoiler alert)

I brought this up in class -- and I felt it needed expansion. I find that having read part of Lolita prior to delving into Tropic of Cancer my memory begins to fail me and I become confused as to which book was referring to what.

For example, there was a point where Miller mentions his wife, noting that she was not with him in the present. This comment made immediately brought me back to a passage where Nabakov's character's wife leaves him. His mentioning his wife in the past tense crossed those passages in my mind.

The sexual nature with which these books are both written is something with which the boundaries of both books is blurred. This is not to say that both books are inherently the same, they are by no mean interchangeable, however this similarity is important to note. The sexual nature with which both of these books were written arouses the same feelings. Feelings of moral boundaries being crossed and the peaked interest of a form of sexual connection that is not the same as your own. Both books do these things wonderfully.

Both of these novels were written in the first person, which gives them both the feeling of a diary, or confessional of desires and acts to the reader. The use of first person is the most practical reason that these mix-ups can be made.

I find it interesting how our minds can meld two completely different novels in to one, and how we begin to blur the details.

Re: Attachment to the self

I agree with you on some level; Miller's character is incredibly self-obsessed. But this book is intended to be in the stream of consciousness style, sort of like being in someone's head (which seems to be the impression a lot of people in our class are getting). So, in your own head, aren't we all pretty self-obsessed? Constantly thinking about how things affect us, what we have to do, how things are related to us, etc. I'm not so sure Miller's narrator isn't showing a fairly accurately portrayal of what we're like in our own heads, whether or not we want to admit it.

Sex vs. Death

I'm not entirely sure where this whole sex versus death discussion is going, as I was sick the day we discussed it in class, but I think I can safely agree AND disagree with points both Glo and Alex made. 

To summarize the exact portion I'm referring to: Someone said something along the lines of "sex is an important physical experience, whereas death is an important spiritual experience," and someone else refuted that statement.

I think you are both correct. I think the reason why sex and death have many parallels is because they are both situations that nearly every human being will experience. But despite their omnipresence, both are sort of taboo topics, often not to be discussed (at least in our society). It would probably be considered rude to ask a couple about the details of their first time together, just as it would probably be rude to ask someone the details of their grandmother's death. If these situations occur in almost every single human being's life, why are we to be so hush hush about them?

As far as sex being physical and death being emotional, I'm not so sure about that. I think a more correct assertion would be that sex and death are both extraordinarily physical AND emotional actions in the grand scheme of things- that's what makes them important. A very stoic individual may view both as purely physical actions, just as all other mammals do: sex is for pleasure and reproduction, whereas death is simply part of our life cycle. Another may view both as purely spiritual actions: sex equates to love, death equates to an after life. Another may think both of these things simultaneously, another may think sex is physical and death is spiritual, another may think they're both only sort of spiritual, etc, etc. It is a spectrum of beliefs and emotions. 

re:Glo

I agree with you Glo! I dont think that my theory should reign true for everyone , and it was simply my opinion. Also, i think you might have misinterpreted what i was implying or maybe i'm misinterpreting what you wrote. Basically i think we have the same religious beliefs. My opinion in response your question about "how does the beauty of conception change when an "accident" happens?", is: it's still a beautiful, remarkable, physical exchange no matter what circumstances it's under just because it equates in the creation of life...but let me stress that's just my opinion. And, I don't think there is anything wrong with being apprehensive about subjects that challenge spiritual values. Im with you in not feeling excellent about sinful practices being glorified, but i am a sinner and so is everyone else if you follow the standard christian doctrine, so once again in my opinion, glorify "sinful" practices and chains of though... i were prefer not to...but explore it and recognize it as an evident force in life (as i believe TC makes us do)...probably so. was that an accurate response?i knda feel it was akward? 

Re: To Sex and Death

Alex, I feel that some of your reactions towards sex and death may seem a bit questionable. You  mentioned on your blog that, "sexual intercourse leads to conception equating in a new physical life, and death as some believe users the deceased into a new "spiritual life"". Indeed, this statement can be backed up with factual evidence, but it is difficult for me to defend that this may be absolutely true for all. Where do you think someone who is sexually active, solemnly for pleasure with no regard for the beauty of life, may feel when an "accident" happens? Or how about a non-believer or a sinner who is anticipating a life below what is spiritually ideal in heaven? I guess I am only responding since reading your blog has made me afraid of my own approach towards subjects such as these. Sometimes, I just can never find anything positive in activities that I associate with sin. I admit that the subjects and the students this class make me realize that I may be uptight. I like to root the basis of this on my religious background, which I understand that my continual use of this  may be annoying to some of you. But seriously, can I get some help out here?  I want to be cool and have fun too!

Standards for Art vs. Standards for Literature

I've been thinking about the different standards for art and literature. In the post modern art world artists are constantly being challenged to push the envelope. And, as far as I can tell, one of the goals of artist's now is to create something "new" and often times "new" is associated with "shocking." In the case of art there appear to be no real boundaries or taboos limiting creativity and execution. So I'm wondering, why do there seem to be different standards for literature? Pornography is not new, and although it is still shocking to most, it is not a new concept or form of expression. Why are the standards for art and literature different? Is it because when dealing with literature the tendency is to impose more preconceived notions? Is it because when creating our own visual images the intellectualization of sex becomes more erotic than if we are just handed the images on movie screens and magazines? Even elements in some scenes of Blue Velvet that could be seen as pornographic, the mechanized expression of sexuality shown in Blue Velvet resembles the descriptions of intercourse in Tropic of Cancer in the sense that the purpose of the sexual element in both the film and novel are not meant (in my opinion) to "arouse" the reader/viewer. Still, somehow Blue Velvet retains the classification of "murder mystery" and Tropic of Cancer is labeled as pornographic. How did that happen? Again, I think that the differentiation, in this instance, between "high" and "low" art depends a great deal on determining whether or not the film/novel is exploitative in nature. But the standards for judging the two mediums of expression are different. For one reason or another the literary standards for judging and classifying seem outdated, and because of this, a whole category of literature is pushed to the side. A category that many would argue has an abundance of "high art" to offer, and in the face of so many sexually exploitative, "low art" movies and novels widely available to the public, why should pornographic literature not receive its dues?

sex & death

We discussed the similarities between sex and death in class on wens. and i couldn't follow very clearly bc it was early and i was sick, but it made me think about why we are being asked to consider them together, to explore their similarities. There is the obvious, they are booth taboo subjects because of their controversial nature. But they  also share in common that inherently they are intended to be beautiful phenomenons of life. Sexual intercourse leads to conception equating in a new physical life, and death as some believe ushers the deceased into a new "spiritual" life. I believe sex and death are related in that sense. And adding to that thought, when sexual intercourse produces conception there is no memory of it for the conceived,(i am glad i have no recollection of my conception...gross) as prof. Piekarski stated for the dead the brain has died as well, so there is no memory of death for the deceased either. Thus there is no real existing memory of conception or literal death, making both quite allusive.

However the intense feelings conjured during sex and the memorable parts of the death process are unforgettable. There are few people who don't remember their "first time", and most people having been with multiple partners throughout their life can easily remember the fist sexual exchange with each partner. The adrenaline, fear, freedom, physical euphoria, (insert intense sexual feeling) make it hard to forget. As with death, those surviving near fatal experiences never forget. When i was 8 i lived on an island and went into the ocean as i normally did. There was a hurricane blowing in from the south and the waves were immense. I swam too far out and a large wave crushed over me and trapped me beneath. I will never forget the sensation of death, not being able to rise up from the water, the panic followed by peacefulness i experienced, the total loss of awareness of  time, the virtual silence and finally the beautiful colors i saw as i lost consciousness. (two immigrants in a boat saved me) The adrenaline, the panic, and the soothing reality of the finality of death was euphoric, much like sex...spiritual. This is how i also feel the two are related...Far fetched maybe...but i needed something to blog about before friday...

Responce to Doug and "Tropic of Confusion"

Doug,

I agree with you when you say that Miller probably wrote this book to challege the norms, especially with the stream of consciousness style writting and sexual content. Although the book may be difficult to read at times, I actually enjoy reading this type of writing. I feel as though, it is ok for me to miss bits and pieces of his ramblings, but he seems to make clear the important notions or relivent stories. Another thing I like about Tropic of Cancer is the fact that Miller specifically states that what he writes, he will not edit. So, as a reader, we are not only able to get into the mind of the author as things are happening, but we get to see things in the raw. By that I mean that we are able to see what he experices and his first thoughts (which cannot be biased by time or revisions).

Response to Maddie on Re: Re: Tropic of Confusion

I don’t necessarily like or dislike the narrator. I do appreciate his blatant honesty and I do appreciate the style in which Miller writes this ‘song’. I was re-reading the very beginning today and there is a line in the paragraph in which Miller states that this is not a book but it is a song; the line states that this is a spit in the face of art. This makes me think that all of this ’tropic of confusion’ style of writing, pornographic content, lack of a clear, causality plot line and anti-hero protagonist is Miller’s way of saying something similar to what the artist said – the one with the upside down urinal he put into an art exhibit. I think the message is who are we to say Miller’s thoughts, experiences, emotions and this work is not the way it should be done or it shouldn’t have this content in it or that content. I see this entire book as Miller’s way of challenging the norm – in plot structure or lack of, sexual content, stream of conscious style of writing and characters who do not have a clear cut role (as good guys or bad guys).

Nabokov v. Miller

Two people mentioned in class today that they thought Miller and Nabokov wrote very similarly, but I was sort of confused by this. The only similarities that I saw between the two writing styles was that both were written in 1st person, as Nabokov, although he writes in a very lovely and descriptive fashion, usually has a point with his sentences and paragraphs whereas Miller doesn't necessarily.

Does anyone else who's touched on Lolita and Tropic of Cancer have an opinion on this?

Dear Student Who Didn't Do the Required Reading,

My wife and I have been discussing the difference between pornography and literature, and can come up with no consensus. I believe that purely sexual scenes can be given the proper credentials to be art, and she argues that without well-defined characters and human interaction, artistic inclusion is lost. Can you recommend any texts that may be able to shine some light on our debate?

Sincerely,
Scholarly in Saskatchewan

Dear Scholarly,

Not necessarily, but one good book I've read lately is Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller. It's a really good novel because it was written in 1934, the same year as the Great Dust Bowl, and helped to change American views on the French during World War II. Henry Miller wanted to write a book that would show France in a more positive light, but it was banned because the government (like president Theodore 'Teddy' Roosevelt) didn't respect the French until after the war. France is described as a tropical paradise, and the escape of reading is like taking a vacation to Cancun or other beautiful destinations. It's not just a vacation though, the plot arises when the main character is found to have melanoma from the sunny Riviera. His chemotherapy causes him to be very hungry all the time, but luckily there is plenty of food and women who pity him have sex with him. So, because of this book a lot of people fled to France to escape the Great Depression. I can recommend this book not only for you, but if you two decide to have children its a good way to teach them about other fascinating parts of the world.

Re: Tropic of Confusion

I highly agree with you Alex that the purpose of this reading is highly questionable. I think for the most part the majority of the class feels the same way. This was evident in today's discussion when Gloria argued that it may be Miller's personal stream of consciousness which gets the best of him through the entirety of the novel. Will a plot be revealed later in the story? Or will Miller choose to continue to entice us, solemnly through his vulgarity and skeptical ideals? Maybe some of you have already read far enough to answer this for the rest of us. If so, please respond. 

re: to maddie

Nope. I actually can't stand him either. It is strange as you mentioned though, because in general the reader enjoys the protagonist instead of detesting him. But i think that for those of us who resent him it helps make the book more interesting (at least it does for me). It seems to go along with this different style of writing. It adds to the idea that this is written as a "stream of consciousness" as discussed in class and not a a stylized "story." In stories there is thought put into establishing the plot and clarifying the characters, not to get back into any sort of Blue Velvet discussion, but it seems that Miller neglected the reader in the sense of not trying to make that all clear. He just wrote to express his observations and emotions.(that's how I feel anyway) But to tie this back in to disliking the character, it's like he just wrote to be himself as the character just lived to be himself, not trying too hard or at all to impress anyone.

Human Psyche

Today in class, it was mentioned that one extreme end of the spectrum was the viewpoint that Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer was immoral. I feel that this fervent standpoint is due to the narrator's intimate connection with the human psyche. Admittedly, the human mind is not the most scrupulous niche for ourselves. The stream of consciousness mimics the way our minds functions. We filter through everything, whether it is good or evil. Our innermost thoughts and desires are perpetually being absorbed through our subconscious. The role of an artist is to explore different realms in which the ordinary person would be reluctant to expose of themselves but eager to observe. However, sometimes this overwhelming disclosure strikes a nerve in which the reserved mind cannot process, thus leaving one feeling as if they are being x-rayed and analyzed. Many in society are unable to handle this mental invasion, and as a result, works like Tropic of Cancer are censored.

Re: Re: Tropic of Confusion

I have to agree that at first this book was a challenge to follow. It sort of goes along with what Miranda was saying in class the other day- the whole stream of consciousness writing style gets me going on my own stream of consciousness and two pages later I stop and realize that I just absorbed nothing I just read. However, I think this writing style serves an important purpose, which was mentioned at the very beginning of the novel: the author isn't writing, he is singing. Often the narrator mentions his annoyance with constant talking, he does not seem to give much merit to his conversations with others. He seems to always be quelling the women that he associates with, be it Mona or Ilsa. Similarly, Moldorf speaks very highly of his wife Fanny who "listens intelligently" and "writes in a language that even [his young son] could understand." I suppose this serves to illustrate that both the narrator and the author value human emotion over eloquent language, hence the writing style. Once I came to understand this, the book seemed to make more sense, and reading became easier. 

On a totally different note, this story seems to be full of little symbols that occur only once, and I can never tell what purpose they serve. For example, the narrator talks simultaneously about a beautiful American woman and a bird sitting on his windowsill. "Amazing how easily the sparrow is provided for," he says. "It is raining a bit and the drops are very big. I used to think a bird couldn't fly if its wings got wet." 

Are these tidbits of insight, or mere observations? 

Also, someone in class mentioned their dislike for the narrator, and that it was strange because usually we are biased towards their prospective. However, despite his selfish acts and foul language, I still find it difficult to dislike him for some reason. Does anyone else feel this way?

Re: Tropic of Confusion

At first I was struggling alot with the novel, because I was trying to force myself to find a strand that I could follow throughout the book. I was looking for that underlying plot line that I could walk out until the end, and even if there is an underlying plot there I think its better to sit back and  (especially for the first read) just let his thoughts come to you.

While the stream of conciousness can make the reading more difficult, it is interesting how, from a readers perspective, you have to think quite a bit more than your average novel. It isn't the sort of decrypting I normally go through when I read an older work with strange language and terminology... the kind which stresses your patience and understanding; but it is forcing me to consider the entire thing from multiple perspectives. We know the entire novel, and the events in it are being viewed through the eye of one man, so I find myself interpreting events and the author's interpretations of those events from other perspectives. I'm just closely considering the biases that are going to be written into the text, no matter how 'honest' Miller is. 

RE: Tropic of Confusion

I have also had some trouble reading through Miller's Tropic of Cancer. My reason being that his stream of consciousness makes me go into a stream of consciousness (as discussed in class). And as a result I am having trouble remembering what I have read. I am well into the sixth "part" (can you call them chapters?) and can only remember the really unique experiences that the narrator describes. Maybe that is his intention, but it is making my reading difficult. After the first two parts, Miller does start concentrating on a story and that has helped my thoughts calm down, making it easier to read. I just hope I am not lagging and can try to focus on the story and take away something from it.

Re(x5): The Pornographic Imagination

I absolutely agree. Sontag's labyrinthine examples were very confusing and more than anything made me want to check out some of these works to check on Sontag's assertions. I don't know about anyone else, but I had never heard of "Story of O" or any of the other pornographic works that she referenced before reading this article and I felt like Sontag should have used some more accessible works if she really wanted her notion that pornography can be literature to be taken seriously. I personally think that this is a very flawed essay and I expected more from it given the buildup given to it in class.

Reply to Leslie's The Pornographic Imagination

You said:

"I believe her article could have been more effective if it were more succinct and concise."

I could not agree more! I also feel this way about so many different things that we've read. Being wordy is NOT the best way to get a point across, and more often than not just confuses readers. I don't think that an article or essay need be so many pages long if it is saying the same thing over and over again. I don't necessarily feel that the Sontag essay did this specifically, but I might point the finger at Eagleton instead. It's not that I think everything we read should just be a paragraph long, stating the point and that's all. Backing up points with evidence is a must, as we all know. However, sometimes too much is just too much.

tropic of confusion

I am having trouble keeping up what is happening in the story. I have always had a preconceived understanding that Tropic of Cancer is in reality just Milton's delusional sexual ramblings, but I don't know where i got that idea from, because this is a legitimate story with characters and something of a plot ( his stay in Paris). There are just so many characters and tangents and time period jumps that I'm am caught in a whirl win of confusion. The interesting thing about this is that overall it has not impaired my interest or  general understanding of the novel (i hope). Is anyone else feel a bit overwhelmed?...for lack of a better description

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Pornographic Imagination

Although I do agree with what was said about Sontag's conclusion being direct, I still had difficulty grasping its idea. I do not agree that the conclusion drawn was "obvious", as Taryn commented on previously. As was mentioned during class, this was an extremely challenging article to read, and I agree. My prior knowledge of pornography as literature is extremely limited. Rather than facilitating my understanding, the examples used confused me, even though CMcLeod stated in her earlier post that they were mainly close reading of relevant works. To any one who had a deeper grasp of the subject matter, this may have made perfect sense. Even though, typically, examples are used to support one's position, many of these examples seemed to be circumlocutory, and deviated from the point. It is evident that this article was directed toward those with an advanced understanding of the subject matter and needed reinforcement as to whether pornography constituted literature. Once I reread the article minus the examples, Sontag's conclusion seemed to be clearer and direct as it was meant to be. I believe her article could have been more effective if it were more succinct and concise.

Tropic of Cancer Reactions

So yesterday I thought it would be a funny idea to have my Christian friends read one of the first paragraphs in Tropic of Cancer. It was the where where he talks about Tania's cunt and how he wants to "ream out every wrinkle in it". Good time actually, just seeing their reactions was priceless.  Through this stemmed many new nick names for me, such as immoral, pervert, and nasty. One of my friends, Nick, actually showed up in class today out of curiosity of the content in a subject called "Banned Books". 

 So I had an idea that I thought may be fun. Sure, this may sound a little immature, but I challenge you guys to test this out for yourself.  Find a friend who you think may act surprised to the material in the book, and observe their reactions, then post it here! I think it would be entertaining to read each other's experiences, what do you all think?

3 Magical Words

I won’t tell you the person who said this because I want you to gain this knowledge without preconceived notion of who the author is (a New Critics approach if you will) but someone recently said that there are only 3 ‘magical’ words in the English language. These words are magical in the sense that they stir up such strong emotional responses that their effect when spoken or written have a magical effect.
The first of these three words is of course tied directly to Tropic of Cancer; cunt. The first time I read this word in Tropic of Cancer, I was thinking wow he must really hate this girl because in our modern society this word is considered by many to be one of the worst possible names you can call someone. This word is so vulgar by today’s standards that I can guarantee that if I call anyone this, especially a woman, that I’m going to get swung at. Now with that being said, you can understand my reaction (and probably yours) to the use of this word the first time in Tropic of Cancer. And then the word was used again, and again, and again – and again. Because I have read it so many times over and over now, it has lost its magic. Before reading this book I had used the word like 2 times in my whole life. Now, my brother does something as simple as drinking the last of the milk and I’m like “You fucking cunt”. J/K - but you could imagine. To him this word would still sound pretty offensive but to me the word has lost its magic, thanks to Miller. So maybe if we get everyone to read Tropic of Cancer, we will have to come up with a new, magical word to replace this one word among the three magical words in the English language.
On a higher level, I think what my point with all this is and what it has to do with censorship and what we’ve discussed in class is the more we are exposed to something, the more acceptable it becomes. Which is why people choose to censor these things in the first place – to keep it from becoming common; things like children’s exposure to violence, sexual promiscuity, nudity, etc.

Re: Re: Re: The Pornographic Imagination

I think Sontag is trying to argue not only that pornography has the potential to be literature, but that pornography should not be so removed from all other forms of art like it is because it has the potential to be literature, just like a number of other things. This is why she makes the points she makes.

I also don't think that just because a number of people chose to take a banned books class means that those people are all comfortable with reading pornography just because they might understand that pornography could be literature, which goes to say that pornography might be literature, but it still contains erotic content, which makes people uncomfortable. As for things we knew already, add this to the list.

I do think, however, that any book that might possibly be considered pornography, or even another genre like science fiction, could be applied to this essay in order to have its integrity has authentic literature preserved.

Re: Re: The Pornographic Imagination

First, I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean that the idea of pornography having potential as literature should be obvious to everyone, but at least should have dawned on the people taking this class. If this is the case, then why are we reading this essay? For me, it was just confirming something I was already aware of.

The argument concerning Blue Velvet doesn't refute the obviousness of pornography having potential as literature; in fact, it really just confirms Sontag's ideas. With Blue Velvet, we didn't argue about whether or not pornography could be literature, we argued whether Blue Velvet, being partly pornographic, was literature, a debate that Sontag clearly supported. And quite a number of people in the class were at least open to, if not actively supporting, the idea that Blue Velvet was art, suggesting that my original point has some merit.

I've seen Sontag's argument for Sci-Fi having potential as literature a couple times, and I feel that this is no different than her pornography as literature argument; really, what I feel Sontag is doing by saying that pornography can be literature is opening the door for anything to be literature, provided it has certain qualities.

Although I feel Sontag had a few points of interest intermixed with her essay, most of it was a close reading of a couple of pornographic works which, frankly, any of us could have done (although probably not as eloquently). And after I did all that work looking up these obscure literary works that she referenced, the conclusion she drew was disappointing.

Pleasure and Horror

This is my second go 'round with reading the Pornographic Imagination and I have to say, I much enjoyed it more the second time. When I had to read this originally, it was for my Gay and Lesbian Literature and Culture class I took last fall. We were reading it in response to "Tipping the Velvet" and all the erotic text it included. My first impression of this essay was not a positive one. I saw Sontag as overly passionate advocate of pornography, which I was not condemning, but felt as though she was trying to take everything and gear it in her favor. In fact, I didn't even complete the reading because I felt like she was droning on and turning the issue into more than it was. This time however, I not only got all the way through the essay (although, I still felt at times she was elaborating on more than needed) but I actually enjoyed it. I was able to see the connections she was making to Science Fiction and deadpan humor in argument to why books with pornographic content were more than a simple way to get cheap thrills, but as having literary ties.



Her extensive evidence for why The Story of O and Historie de l'Oeil is more than a face value, toilet-read really captured my attention, especially when she speaks of what makes a "strong and upsetting impression". The fact that she says that pornography is ultimately about death and not about the sex is conclusive in itself, to me, as to why it should be considered a work of literature. To this she says that pleasure is dependent on perspective and that it is "open to death as well as joy". Later, she goes on to state that "most people try to outwit their own feelings; they want to be receptive to pleasure but keep 'horror' at a distance". This is exactly why most people would argue against porn and erotic content being literature. They only see the pleasure (as most graphically described), but fail to recognize that "the truth of eroticism is tragic".

Response to CMcLeod Pornographic Imagination

I have to disagree with your thoughts on Sontag's conclusion. Though, I did think it was a little obvious, especially to students in a banned novel class, I thought it's simplicity was magnificent. Throughout her entire essay, Sontag brought up complex ideas about what constitutes pornography and sites examples of how literature distinguishes itself from it. Throughout all of this I was sometimes baffled and left behind, but it was still clear what she was trying to get to. Then at the conclusion of her essay to wrap up her argument with the idea that it is about the quality of a text which separates it from pornography, I thought that was so interesting and relieving. It puts all of her ideas from her long essay into a nice little package for us to take with us, and I think that is why it is so great because everyone understands and can comprehend her take home message. So, she does not leaves us with an empty thought that anyone of us could figure out, but with a small concept that she has infused with so many other thoughts and references that can resonate within us.

The Official Drink of the "Under World"

When I was standing in line at the Spider House, waiting for my double-shot latte in an attempt to avoid the suddent winter chill, I noticed this...

------------------->

I was glad to see that the Spider House carries the official drink of the Frankan "under world". Up until now, I had only heard of the drink (in all honesty, the movie introduced me to this brand), so I was very delighted to see that it was still being brewed, and for that matter consumed. Ironically, "HEINEKEN!!!!" was sitting next to it on the shelf. When I saw this, I thought it was kinda funny and immiedetly got out my phone to take pictures. Of course I probably looked prude-ish for being astonished by the beer cabinet and got the confiming stares as I proceeded to take pictures.

This is a perfect example of what Lynch sought to demonstrate with Blue Velvet... that the two worlds really are not as far apart as they seem.

Future of Tropic of Cancer

My feelings towards this book prior to entering it in depth are a bit fickle. I admit to being excited about reading in an adult level of content, since never in my life have I been exposed to it through a learning medium. In addition, I am curious and eager as to our reactions as a class when openly discuss these topics with one another. I am foreseeing a level of uncertainty from all of us, as far as where the line between appropriate and inappropriate lies. Surely this will arise many awkward moments.

At the same time, I am also feeling some shame and discomfort due to the level of immorality that is contained in the text. Just reading the first few pages got me feeling guilty, imagine talking about it!  I am definitely excited about observing our reactions towards it. It should be fun.

Re: The Pornographic Imagination

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't say that I completely agree. 

Your argument that because we are enrolled in a banned books course studying texts that could be labeled as pornographic literature shows that most educated people understand the potential coexistence of these two topics (pornography and literature) makes little sense to me.

I think most of us can agree that the most explicit work that we have studied thus far is Blue Velvet. Based on what I gathered from discussions, more than a couple of students in our class found this work to be unnecessarily unsettling. While the characters in this movie clearly had motives for their actions that were not purely sexual, some of the scenes have been called out as dispensable, as they are difficult if not impossible to interpret correctly (i.e. Dorothy's nudity towards the end of the film). Some have even wagged their finger at this film, essentially deeming it "NOT art," as some of the content can be confusing, graphic and disengaging to the viewer. While the topic of pornography may not be the only justification for this label, it has certainly been a component, as Dorthoy's nudity has been discussed time and time again. Clearly, the topic of literature/pornography coexistence is still under the microscope, even for those enrolled in a banned books course. 

Also, Sontag's essay may arrive at a fairly simple conclusion, but I believe that the steps she took to get there, as well as her evidence backing it, are complex. For example, comparing the literary merit of pornography to that of science fiction is, in my opinion, a very clear argument that I think many people can relate to. While science fiction novels are not always socially relevant, their "originality, thoroughness, authenticity and power of the deranged consciousness" may allow them to be classified as literature. 

Drawing comparisons between pornography and humor also made Sontag's argument more clear to me. The idea that pornography works in a way that is similar to deadpan humor in that "incredible underreacting of the erotic agents to the situations in which they're placed" causes a release of emotion from the reader- be it laughter or sexual reaction, seemed to legitimize pornographic content. 

Comparing Sade's idea that people are inherently "things" or "objects" to O, a character who consciously decides to objectify herself in exchange for mystery and what she perceives to be happiness showed that Sontag believes there is a very distinct set of rules that determine which type of pornography can be deemed literary. 

A side note: I thought the part about how "Experiences aren't pornographic; only images and representations- structures of the imagination- are," seemed to tie in nicely to Reader Response Theory. 

The Pornographic Imagination

The conclusion that Sontag came to at the end of her essay was that it doesn't really matter about whether or not something is pornography, but what the quality of it was, what the quality of its consciousness and knowledge was. And although she put it more eloquently than I might ever have, I was sort of let down by this conclusion. To me, it seemed rather obvious. After all, isn't the fact that all of us are taking this class testimony to the fact that we've understood this beforehand? Otherwise, we would just be taking a class on pornography, not literature.

Did anyone else feel the same way? Or oppositely?

Re: Skepticism

I just realized that I was responding to something from the other class, but I still think it's an interesting topic.

I definitely understand where you're coming from on this; it is very unsettling to come to the end of a book, especially one written in first person, and realize that none of what the author is writing about is true for themselves. However, I feel like that's what you agree to when you allow yourself to do as Nabokov suggests and "creatively imagine" yourself into the world of the author; whatever the author says is true for that world. In that way, you're not really being manipulated or lied to, you're being drawn into the author's world and if you go outside that with that realization of "Hey, this isn't true at all!" you're breaking your contract with the author to commit yourself to their world and their world alone while reading their book.

Also, I wonder if a story really is more entertaining if it's true. After all, I could write a story about how I got my teeth pulled at the dentist and my mouth was numbed up for a while or I could write about how when my teeth got pulled, they turned into a bunch of unicorns. Personally, I think the unicorns are more entertaining, even if I know they aren't real. But despite fact in this world, if I write a story about my teeth turning into unicorns, then for you, while reading my story, should genuinely believe in those unicorns.

"Song of Myself"

I agree with all of Leslie's assertions regarding "Song of Myself" and the Whitman picture, but I'd like to elaborate.

Regarding the picture, Whitman appears to be very relaxed- his hands are in his pockets and his hat is tilted to the side. His attire and posture suggest confidence without arrogance. Confidence is certainly vital to the poem "Song of Myself," as Whitman states that if he was to "worship one thing more than another it shall be the spread of my own body, or any part of it." This statement does not seem to reflect arrogance, but his belief that all humans and all things are not only equal, but they are connected. If all things are connected, then why worship God or nature or other humans, why not worship that which you have the most control over- yourself?

Whitman also seems to be donning "every man" attire in this photo, which to me just ties in with the idea of universal connectedness. 

He has a very direct, personal, inviting gaze towards the audience, which I believe ties in with the following portion of the poem:

"I tramp a perpetual journey, (come listen all!) 
My signs are a rain-proof coat, good shoes, and a staff cut from the 
woods, 
No friend of mine takes his ease in my chair, 
I have no chair, no church, no philosophy, 
I lead no man to a dinner-table, library, exchange, 
But each man and each woman of you I lead upon a knoll, 
My left hand hooking you round the waist, 
My right hand pointing to landscapes of continents and the public 
road.

Not I, not any one else can travel that road for you, 
You must travel it for yourself."

It is as if he is offering his assistance in self-discovery, but in the least dogmatic, preachy or condescending way possible. He wishes to serve as a guide.

Finally, I thought this line was very interesting, and loosely represents the idea that meaning exists because of language:

"A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands; 
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more 
than he."

Song of Myself

Walt Whitman reaches the heart of the Transcendentalist movement in his epic poem, "Song of Myself." There seems to be something exhilarating and celebratory about humankind. At the same time, he encourages one to delve deep within in order to further understand and accept oneself. In his portrait, he displays rugged individualism, a quality highly praised in the Transcendentalist movement. The tilt of the hat on his head and his fist placed casually on his waist clearly displays his confidence and security. He stands comfortably, self-assured of his own identity. Whitman's direct gaze toward the viewer appears to beckon and entice us in a celebratory embrace of mankind. After several weeks of studying Blue Velvet, which delved on the darker aspect of humanity, "Song of Myself" was a pleasant change as it focused on a more optimistic view of humankind.

response to Taryn & The Pornographic Imagination

I would say , in response to your question : "Have we halted another art form because of our expectations?" that I don't think we have halted an art form... but we have halted the appreciation of that art by a wider audience. I think the art/literature is still going to get made or written but it is going to be secluded off in some far off realm of the art world, where it won't become a classic, or even analyzed as would another piece that stayed within social norms.

I think it is interesting that Sontag expresses how we look to our artists to push the boundaries but at the same time (in the case of pornography) cut off a whole section of literature from even being looked at. The novels she talks about should have been considered with the same viewpoint that David Wallace speaks about when accepting that art has the chance to be good or bad, but due to its classification as pornographic it will just be thrown into another bin without the same weighing of qualities.

Response to Alex89

I'm not implying that we shouldn't appreciate anything we don't understand - although I do love the occasional book burning ;), I'm stating we can't appreciate something we don't understand. In order to appreciate any form of art, you have to 'get it' or take away something from it. For example, if someone were to read "The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka and they didn't get the symbolism or the connection to Frank's own life or the characters' relation to one another, etc, etc. - and all this person could say at the end of reading this story was "it's a story about a giant bug". Could that person truly and honestly say "but I appreciated it"? I would ask that person what they appreciated about it and if they said "I don't know but I appreciated it", then I would have to question whether or not they really do appreciate it. In your original blog, you stated "We should acceept artistic works we don't undersatnd, and apprechiate them especialy for that very reason", what I'm saying is you have to get something out of art or understand at least something about it in order to appreciate it.

The Pornographic Imagination

Sontag, in her essay argues that one of art's tasks is to "invent trophies of his experience" to entertain an audience. The artist tries to make his art "repulsive, obscure [and] not wanted." It is funny that we have these expectations of what an artist should be. We, as an audience, consciously or unconsciously, want something new, different and to ignite controversy. We indirectly, put pressure on an artist to fit these criterion. We want the artist to be edgy and dangerous so as to live vicariously through him. I find some truth in Sontag's assertion. Some of the most famous artists are often troubled or live dangerously and it reflects upon their popular artwork. Have we as a society forced art? Have we halted another art form because of our expectations? Though no one can separate themselves from some sort of expectation or standard from art, it is interesting to think how people's social influence can mold our way of thinking, creating social norms, mostly everyone follows.

response to doug

Of couse MGM paid David Lynch do ecaxtly what he did. They are no idiots; it's not like they weren't familure with his work. And yes we all paid for an experience, but we paid for a David Lynch experience if  the audience member wanted their hand to be held and their tummy to be rubbed, then they should have gone to see Mulan, Finding Nemo, or anyother Disney movie. (I'm not ragging on either film. I mentoned them because they're my favorites.) 

 And obliously art is about expression, the artists expression. Are you implying that we should'nt apprechiate anything we don't understand? I beleive that is where the notion of book burning began. If i speak to you in a language you don't understand that does not make me a bad communicator; it just means simply you don't speak my language. Just because some of us don't understand David Lynch's language doesn't mean what he said wasnt important or that he's "defeating the purpose of communication" as you stated. You are ignoring the use of communication as a form of self expression.

I think the things we don't understand should be celebrated the most. If we were to disregaurd everything we dont understand as unimportant we would miss out on allot. Also Doug, you need to remember that film and "musem" art (i.e. paintings, sculptures ect.) are dead mediums. They are one sided. You can talk back to a painting but it will just keep saying the same thing. You can yell at a David Lynch film but every time you pop in the DVD the same scenes and lines will play. Art and films are not like this blog; they are not interactive. They talk at us not with us. That's what's beautiful about them...it's not about us... unless we of couse we keep insisting that it is.

Response to Climax Questions by Doug

I'm going to disagree with Doug and defend the choice for "You're like me" for climax of Blue Velvet. I think that Jeffery's punch is more a reaction to a reaction that he has to Frank's words and the truth in those words.

It's been noticed that Jeffery freezes when Frank says the line to him, but I think that this is where the tension for the climax comes from. It feels more like Jeffery is going through flashes of emotion when he hears that he is like Frank. It's unnatural for someone to tell you something so unthinkable and for you to have an immediate, active reaction to the statement.

Of course Jeffery didn't punch Frank right away, but I don't agree that he punched him in direct reaction to Dorothy's pain/humiliation(which is questionable in the first place-- just look at the half-closed eyes and slack mouth, hinting at sexual arousal). I think that it is more a visceral way of seeing that Frank's words are true, but not wanting them to be and perhaps hitting him as a punishment for seeing through the "good boy" facade. How many film heroines slap the hero for saying something true that she didn't want to hear? These are more immediate and perhaps a bit canned, but the idea is still there. This could open up the argument of who the real "hero" or "protagonist" of the movie is: Frank or Jeffery?

But back to the original discussion... The Climax comes from the visible tension in Jeffery that we see as he grinds his teeth for a faction of a second, realizing that the psycho called him out. It wasn't a strong enough statement for Sandy to say "I can't figure out if you're a detective or a pervert." It takes one to know one I suppose. That's why I don't see a problem with that scene being the climax because "light" and "dark" connect and you can't separate them in the scene.

response to Alex89 On David Lynch and the Audience

I am going to have to politely disagree. Yes, it is all about us – especially when it involves film as the art medium. When you are making commercial art for purposes of profit, you have to think about your audience. David Lynch is a filmmaker and MGM gave him money to make this film and they expected profits in return. And WE all paid to see it – some with money, others with just time, others paid emotionally. So high art, low art, bad art, good art – none of that matters when you’re a paid artist because you are getting paid to cater to an audience.
And yes it is mostly about us even when it doesn’t involve film because art is a form of expression so the “what’s in it for me” aspect of that communication is the message you are receiving from the artist. You can’t accept artistic works you don’t understand because that kind of defeats the purpose of the communication going on between you and the artist. That would be like reading a novel and taking absolutely nothing away from it but then at the end saying, “well, the author tried so I appreciate the effort”. You just gave that author, that artist, hours of your life and you got nothing in return? Why would you celebrate that?
I think of art much like I do talking one on one in a conversation with somebody; if you got something to say, speak up and say it but when you do speak – don’t mumble, don’t speak gibberish, don’t make it a one sided conversation and basically don’t do anything else that makes it impossible for your audience to understand you and do involve your audience or else they will walk away.
Alright, I’ve said too much. I can already see Mr. K lining up the chairs tomorrow for another great debate. ;)

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat

While reading a clinical study done by Dr. Oliver Sacks, titled "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat", a study about a patient with visual agnosia, I was struck by the similarity between the way Dr. P, the afflicted patient, viewed the world, and its connection with the New Criticism theory. Dr. P was unable to identify people solely by looking at their face as a whole; it was all part of the disorder at hand. When shown pictures of his family, he recognized nobody, lest they had a distinguishing characteristic. For example, he could identify a picture of Paul, not by looking wholly at his face, but by taking into account "that square jaw" and "those big teeth." In essence, Dr. P's disorder was the new criticism theory brought alive as a disorder in an actual patient. As the theory ordains, one with this particular disorder relied heavily on analyzing detailed parts of a whole.

Just like the new criticism theory, which required close analysis of details, Dr. P used it to identify and verify certain objects he could not visualize. For example, when shown a rose, he went into great depth describing it, as an object "about six inches in length, a convoluted red form with a linear attachment", but he was unable to actually identify it as a rose until he smelled it. In another instance, when he was presented a glove, he again went into great depth describing what we would normally perceive as a simple object. He defined it as having "a continuous surface infolded on itself" and containing "five outpouchings." Dr. P acknowledged that it could contain contents, maybe a hand, but he had no realization what it actually was until he tried it on and discovered that it was a glove. Just as the new criticism theory ordains the reader to identify intimate and specific details, Dr. P also does so, but instead of perceiving the object or work as a whole, then breaking it down, Dr. P works from the bottom up, using descriptive detail to allow himself to identify the object.

Dr. P's visual processes were intact, but there was a deficit in his visual object recognition, which was the reason why he relied heavily on his other senses. As a music professor, he especially had a strong inclination to rely on his hearing to operate in the outside world. It is touching and admirable that Dr. P did not allow his affliction to affect his outlook on life. To the end of his day, he lived and taught in a world of music.

response to On David Lynch and the Audience

I agree completely with the idea that Lynch took the audience into consideration in Blue Velvet. Anyone who has seen any other of Lynch's films would also recognize that in Blue Velvet in particular he seemed to have payed a much grater amount of attention to the audience than usual. You made an excellent example of this by pointing out that more than half of the opening scene is geared towards acquainting the audience with Lumberton and setting them up for the plot of the story.
Independent from my agreement with Tyler's blog, I would like to ask the question that even if Blue Velvet had no scences explaining a plot or was in no way at all catering to the audience, why would it be such a big deal? What i was trying to say in class this morning (but failed to effectivly do because i was so sleepy) was that i think as a viewer or "audience" member we shouldn't always be looking for what's in it for us. We should acceept artistic works we don't undersatnd, and apprechiate them especialy for that very reason. And celebrate artists who create just for enjoyment or shock value and not nesscarily to communicate anything to a viewer instead of labeling them "irresponsable" or lazy. It isn't all about us.

On David Lynch and the audience

After our discussion today, and the realization that for art to be art it has to at least allow some sort of audience in I just wanted to raise up a few things from Blue Velvet I think are evidence that David Lynch is recognizing his audience.

I close-read the final scene, which has a few elements in it that are directed directly at us, the viewers. Right up until Frank dies there is this great build up of tension, and action and then that abrupt gun shot that relieves all of that. The audience has been caught up in this and completely consumed and then David Lynch does something strange. If you can remember, it zooms in on a light bulb which quickly grows in intensity and "explodes." A parallel could be drawn between the action that just happened and the action of the light bulb, but more importantly, it was a sort of shot at the viewer, that purposefully takes you out of the scene. Then the screen goes black and you have a moment to sort of gather yourself.

When the movie resumes Lynch goes back to the same camera technique he used in the very first scene, that slow pan down onto (in this case) Dorothy's apartment complex. It is an attempt to re-settle the audience, get you back into the movie, but eases you into it after being a part of the violence that just happened. (Just like in the first scene where he is acquainting you with the "set" that is this little town)

There are a few scenes like this where Lynch manipulates the audience and how it views the movie beyond just telling a story, which I think only add to the experience.

Response to MartinL on With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

You mentioned in your blog about scenes being nonsensically added in at the artists’ discretion. I know we mentioned this in class once and I have to say I disagree. With as much interpretation as we have gotten out of every other minor detail from this film, I am sure we can come up with a reason for every scene being in the movie, especially in this movie where reality is intentionally a little distorted to contrast Jeffrey’s simplistic life and the ‘strange world’ he gets mixed up in. Another question you posed, was “What’s the point in having an audience” and this made me think of a quote from one of the founders of MGM studios, “If you’re going to send a message, use Western Union” Basically his message was film is a medium of entertainment and should not be exploited as a medium for artists to send a message. I’m not saying I agree with him and of course film has evolved into a much more complex medium than it was 100 years ago; however, it poses an interesting question – Was Lynch trying to send a message or just trying to entertain us? Or himself? .

What is the climax of Blue Velvet?

We were asked this question in class recently and while watching some of the clips over again I realized that Jeffrey did not respond to the line, “You’re like me". Jeffrey didn’t punch Frank after he said that, he punched Frank after Frank started groping Dorothy. Jeffrey in directly responded to Frank’s comment but he directly and immediately responded to seeing Dorothy being victimized by Frank and embarrassed in front of all the people in the car. This is the first time Jeffrey makes an active decision to do something and take action. Turning points in films are often focused on a character’s action every 30 minutes or so. And so I had to ask myself, did Jeffrey really punch Frank when Frank said “You’re like me” and no he didn’t. He just sat there but then when Frank started molesting Dorothy, that was the catalyst where Jeffrey said, “Okay I can’t take this anymore” and he reacted with violence. Now, to take this a little further, every movie has two plots at least the good ones anyway; an emotional plot and an action plot. So one could argue that Jeffrey’s emotion plot deals with his confliction of feelings about his repulsion to Frank and that when Frank said, “You’re like me”, it really hurt him emotionally and then when he saw Frank groping Dorothy, that was a representation of the action of the story and he reacted to it with action. So in a sense, this scene was the climax of both plots; action and emotion.

Richard Schickel's Review of Blue Velvet

I must say, I quite enjoyed reading Schickel's review of Blue Velvet. I think he accurately touched on the meaning of the movie and gave an entertaining review. I agree with him when he states that the story line is really of no importance. I like how he points out that there is no logic in the tale, but that its imagery will forever be embedded in my mind when thinking of this movie. For me, it was not that these images were disturbing, but rather the way they were created to satirize movies in general. I really liked how he recognizes the parody this movie makes on "fifty's teen romances" because that was one of the things that stood out to me as well. Like Schickel says, this movie forces us to remember that things have always been awful, but rarely were they ever portrayed that way. His qualifications as to why this is a parody greatly amused me, and I found it happened to be the same things that made me laugh during the movie. Take the scene where Dorothy is standing naked in Sandy's front lawn for example. As Schickel points out, this is "so traumatizing to everyone that they forget to throw a humane blanket over the poor creature, forcing her to stand around nude while the rest of the characters discuss what to do with her".

I think Schickel best sums up Blue Velvet by saying, "all movies become not representations of reality, but commentaries on it".

Response to what disturbed me

I think you make a very vaild point in saying that as a class we needed to take this into consideration, but I would have to disagree with you in saying that Lynch had no intentions of portraying Dorothy's life as being controlled by men. Like you said, Frank quite literally had Dorothy in the palms of his hands and Jeffery had the power to stop it. I think this is intentional because it goes along with the theme of this "underworld" being interconnected to the "pure" world. If you analyze just this, it would seem as though there was a difference between Frank: the bad and Jeffery: the good, but what you also have to take into account is the fact that 1) Dorothy never tried to stop Frank, nor did she seem to not like it and 2) Jeffery became even more connected to them by becoming a voyer and sometimes participant in this acts. I also disagree with you in saying that we were subjected to the idea of Jeffery's penis solving all of Dorothy's problems. I don't think Dorothy had a problem that needed to be solved. I feel as though she activly participated in the sadomasochism. Granted Frank did take her Huband and child captive, but that didn't mean she had to enjoy the "raping".

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Lynch undoubtedly has an enormous amount of creative power at his disposal, but to this power he owes a great deal of responsibility. This is where Lynch dropped the ball for me. As an artist, especially an artist who has an agenda, message, central concept, underlying theme, purpose, what have you, you must take into account your audience. First I must consider the fundamental question"Can art exist without an audience?" For the sake of this argument I will say, no. At parts of this film I felt like the audience was completely left out of consideration. If there is no point to an action or a scene other than the artist liked it and it has some significance in his mind that he alone applies to his piece of art, particularly in film and theatre, than the artist has a responsibility to his audience to clue them in on it. This is not theatre of the absurd, or abstract art, this is a cohesive work of cinematography (for the most part) and I think that the fact that we have spent the last two weeks of class talking about it and analyzing it points to the notion that it indeed contains some significant message or theme. If an artist requires that I enter his world in order to fully appreciate the work he is presenting to me, than I expect him to at the VERY least not pull me out of the world without purpose, and maybe even make certain concession to ensure my involvement in that world. Lynch, obviously disagrees. Lynch pretty much expresses that if you don't get it he doesn't care. So my question for him would be, if your audience is working hard to try and understand your vision and you purposefully make that exceedingly difficult than whats the point of having an audience? Why not just watch it at home?