To Reappear Someplace Else

"We see the damage that the monster wreaks, the material remains, ...but the monster itself turns immaterial and vanishes, to reappear someplace else.... No matter how many times King Arthur killed the ogre of Mount Saint Michael, the monster reappeared in another heroic chronicle, bequeathing the Middle Ages an abundance of morte d'Arthurs" (4).

This quote seems especially relevant for our class.  Through the lens of Grimley's Frankenstein, it's obvious that the creation from Shelly's original has returned in a new form.  We can also point to several film adaptations, cartoon references, and Halloween costumes.  But what about monsters in texts that haven't been remixed?  If we pretend that Shelly's Frankenstein was the first and last appearance of this sort of monster, how can we imagine his return?  Assuming he fulfills his promise to end his life, ould he continue to exist in-universe through Walton's retelling of the tale?  Would he live on through "new" monsters that may have taken some influence from Shelly?

"I want to be where the people are but hey at least there's Netflix"

At Least I Haven't Had Fast Food in Weeks

To (Let Viewers) See Anything Other than My First Impression

In the 99^th episode of The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, Darcy, in discussing his prior views of Jane, tells us, “it just took a while for me to see the similarities; to see anything other than my first impression.”  

Although the character is only speaking from his own point of view, and about one other person specifically, this line could have come from any number of characters in the series.  Lizzie is obviously neither innocent of prejudice in the novel nor the adaptation.  Since much like the novel, the YouTube series is presented from her perspective, her first impressions tend to be our only impressions – especially when it takes considerable time for her to move past them.  Whether holding onto her first impression of Wickham as handsome and personable (although the series does a great job at portraying his low intelligence), or of Darcy as stuck-up and self-centered, Lizzy never allows viewers a new perspective on people.  The rare instances where Charlotte or Jane stand up for an absent character are quickly brought to an end by our protagonist.

Pride and Prejudice as Reality TV

It looks like I’m not the only first-time reader of Pride and Prejudice here.  Like Mike, I struggled significantly in finishing this book.  Every time I sat down to read, my phone instantly became the most interesting thing in the world comparatively.  How was I supposed to be interested in rich people making the poor decisions only rich people can make?  Why should anyone worry about what Lady Catherine De Bourgh thinks about people? The internet isn’t even around, Elizabeth! It’s not like she can go on a Twitter tirade about how low class you are!

It was only once I got some perspective from my girlfriend that I was able to really appreciate the book.  She told me to think about Pride and Prejudice as if it were reality TV.  Contemporary Austen readers didn’t have 90 Day Fiancé, Big Brother, or even The Real-World Road Rules Challenge to keep them occupied.  Characters in Pride and Prejudice are not unlike people on reality TV today.  Mrs. Bennet is flaky and air-headed, Mr. Wickham is a low-life, and Mr. Collins is more full of himself than anyone has any reason to be.  434 pages may be a bit intimidating, but cut this story into 30-minute segments, and most of America will surely tune in.

We Stan Men Putting Aside Their Pride!!!!!

"'In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.' Elizabeth's astonishment was beyond expression. She stared, coloured, doubted, and was silent. This he considered sufficient encouragement, and the avowal of all that he felt and had long felt for her, immediately followed. He spoke well, but there were feelings besides those of the heart to be detailed, and he was not more eloquent on the subject of tenderness than of pride. He sensed her inferiority--of its being a degradation--of the family obstacles which judgement had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit." (131)

Mr. Darcy's suddenness here of his first proposal to Elizabeth was a significant point in the novel--for the first time Mr. Darcy is setting aside his pride to admit what he really wants--it's the first sign that he is willing to better himself for her. This act of love shocks Elizabeth, and intrigues her. This is one of the moments that always stands out the most to me--and I'm intrigued, especially by the male members of the class, what everyone thinks of this moment? Was he overstepping? Was it too much? Was this a sign of sincerity or his first sign of maturity? Because for me, this novel was filled with a lot of romantic gestures that made my heart swell, and this was really the first one of them. I love that both Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy bettered themselves for one another!!

Reboots and Deviation

In comparing West Side Story and Warm Bodies to the original text of Romeo and Juliet. I caught myself wondering if, outside of context, I would have recognized the films as remixes of the play.  Of course there are the subtle (and not so subtle) nods to the play; the balcony scenes, names of characters, and perhaps even lines or phrases from the original text, but I’m not certain that a love story between two members of opposing parties makes a work recognizable as a Romeo and Juliet remix.  Sure, the folks who wrote Warm Bodies modeled their story heavily off of Shakespeare’s play, but deviations from the source material may lead readers to claim that a reboot does not do the original work justice.  I was dissatisfied with the “happily ever after” ending of Warm Bodies, but perhaps that is simply because it didn’t go in the direction I was expecting.  Had I been unaware that the film was a remix, maybe I would have been relieved, rather than annoyed, that nobody died.

Rome & Juliet...and Romeo AND Juliet...and Romeo and Juliet ON ICE

Wow, I didn't think I'd have to reread Romeo and Juliet again as the last time I did I was only 14 and saying how much I was "not like other girls like Juliet" (technically I didn't read it but let's skip that). When I read the play, in class I remember watching two variations of the play itself: the one that looked like it was going for the original style of the play in Shakespeare's time, and the one with Leo DiCap. Suffice to say, the gif below will show which one I preferred over the other. There was even an episode on The Proud Family that was basically done on it which I HIGHLY prefer.Sure my views on the play has changed over time, and revisiting those feelings I held for both those young lovers  was a bit of a shock, but, the movies are what really gave the story a spark for me. But, as with Star Wars remakes and the unoriginal originality of stories, is this story of death, love, and partying worth being retold over and over again? It is a classic, but what about the authenticity of a classic? Even the play we know isn't even original. The redoing and reposting of this classic story, in my opinion is overdone and makes the original theme of the play: don't be stupid, don't rush into love, make it even more of a joke overall. The variations make a parody of the original that seems to have lost some meaning over time of what was meant in the first place. For the sake of this story alone, we should've stopped at Mercutio in drag! P.S. Lion King 2 is based on Romeo and Juliet.

Not for the Purists

I found Isherwood's article to be pretty compelling, specifically towards the end, where he states, "It’s not for purists, to be sure, but it is showing people a very good time, and maybe, just maybe, inspiring some of them to pick up the play and see what inspired all that spooky, interactive fun."

While I do consider myself to be a "purist" when it comes to some stories and texts, I do believe that "updates" really could potentially create more buzz around original works. What Isherwood touches on in the final words of his text is the fact that a story that has been reworked is certainly not for those who practically worship the original.

That doesn't necessarily mean that an updated version is bad though, and I do believe that it could be beneficial for the same reason that Isherwood states here: it gives more attention to the original, and maybe, intrigues the audience enough to pick up a copy of the original text.

My question is, however, what about those audience members who are affected in the opposite way? Meaning, what about those people who watch something like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet and just think, "absolutely not, this is terrible. I'm never picking up a Shakespeare play because of this." Could this possibly be an indication as to how the updates sometimes "may not work?"

Update GIF from giphy.com

What is Romeo and Juliet about?

(Frederic Leighton)

One of the constant themes in Romeo and Juliet is that of teen angst.  This, perhaps just as much as the romance in the play, is a feeling to which readers of any era are able to relate.  On more than one occasion (and with a variety of levels of snark), I've heard this play described as being about teen rebellion more so than love.  This argument may hold some truth.  From Juliet describing her situation as "past hope, past care, past help" (4.1. 46), to Romeo unleashing an anti capitalist tirade on an innocent apothecary (5.2. 84-91), the text is certainly ripe with teen angst and knowitallness.  But does this attitude take away from the love story built around it?  Which aspect of the text has led to its constant retelling and re-imagining? 

Who is He Really?

After reading Malory's text, I believe it's fair to say that the picture we may have painted of King Arthur's character is now a little blurred. We were led to believe he was a just and noble king, however, some of his decisions are a bit contradictory to that claim.

My concern primarily lies in the fact that Arthur would not be the same person had Merlin never taken hold of his life. In the beginning, it seemed as though Arthur relied on Merlin for advice and guidance, but as the story progressed, it becomes clear that Merlin really needs to be around so that Arthur doesn't lash out and do anything insane.

Merlin is also around because, well, Arthur may not be as strong and powerful as we originally thought either. After all, Merlin saves Arthur's skin on multiple occasions, including the battle against the kings and the confrontation with Pellinore. Merlin also prevents Arthur from exacting his revenge on Pellinore after obtaining Excalibur, saying, "to win would bring you no honor, to lose would be to increase your shame. And lose you might, because he is still stronger than you." This also made me realize - Arthur isn't really a merciful king either. He's perfectly human, but maybe not necessarily perfect for the throne.

There are some instances that display Merlin's rashness as well, including the very obvious example of advising Arthur to send a ton of babies out to die. Taking all of this into consideration, I couldn't help but wonder: who is Arthur really - could he exist without Merlin? More importantly, I just can't trust Merlin as far as I can throw him; something about this puppeteer doesn't sit right with me.

GIF from giphy.com

God and Arthur

One of the quotes I found most interesting in Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth was on page 61 where Merlin is asked to explain the meaning of a star that had just appeared. He proclaimed "The glorious king of the Britons is dead, Aurelius Ambrosius, by whose death we shall all die, unless God brings help."

This really made me wonder what role God and religion played in Arthurian times, and how it weaved its way into Geoffrey of Monmouth's literature. Perhaps he thought that there must be theology, or no one would believe him. After all, aren't we all still asking whether or not King Arthur was "real?"

Merlin from giphy.com

Is the Original Always Better?

While watching Star Wars: A New Hope Uncut, I started to think about "originals" and why there's typically a stigma that comes along with sequels, remixes, or revisions. Why is that, exactly? Who's to say that content that is derived from something else is "bad"? While I do have to say that I believe Uncut to be worse than the original (sorry Dr. MB), I think there are some really creative and interesting takes on the original scenes. That doesn't mean that the film was "bad" per se, but it was just different. Honestly, I believe that's what people struggle with the most.

With films and franchises like Star Wars that have such a strong fan base, there are certainly people out there that want their movies to remain intact. They feel uncomfortable with anything that is different than what they know and love, so they automatically shut their minds to the idea that what is produced could potentially be interesting, and maybe even better. People really don't like change; it makes them uncomfortable and upset. Perhaps that's why we struggle with sequels and remixes so much - we liked the original the way it was, and nothing could be better. Maybe we're just afraid that the new content could potentially make us think about the original in a different way, which would be even more devastating to us.

There are, however, remixes and sequels that are MUCH better than the originals - Jaws the movie was way better than Jaws the novel. The Dark Knight was way better than Batman Begins. The Scarlet Letter (the movie) was definitely NOT better than the book. We still love Demi Moore, though.

But given all of the above, my question still stands: is the original really always better, or are we just uncomfortable with things that are different?

Heath Ledger's Joker from giphy.com

Star Wars Revisions and Ownership

[image source: Star Wars: A New Hope Visual Comparison (HD Branch)]

As a relative outsider to Star Wars culture, it may be easy to dismiss superfans who put so much importance on the integrity of the original cut of the films.  It is, however, important to understand the impact of the originals with which these fans have grown so fond.  Media that we attach ourselves to will always hold an important place in our hearts. And when someone, no matter who, makes revisions to that media, we are left questioning how that revision affects the zeitgeist. When a piece of intellectual property is released, it can change hands multiple times from the creator, to the production company, to any number of conglomerates.  This ownership provides guidelines as to reproduction, licensing, and continuation.  But fans can have as much ownership, albeit less claim to profit, as those who spent billions on a property.  As soon as a film, an album, or a television show debuts, it belongs partly to whoever holds the license, and partly to the world, the fandom, or the culture as a whole.  So get mad, nerds! In revising Star Wars, George Lucas is changing something that belongs just as much to you as it does him.

George Lucas: Perfectionist

This quote strikes me as very odd, especially the part where Lucas says "I'm the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me...for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished." I understand his dislike for an original work, usually when an artist, in my case writer/poet, views their first work as unfinished or the worst copy. He takes responsibility but the two versions can and should coexist because we can compare the old and newer versions, the progress in technology, and in the end it is art. Art improves and continues to grow but to get rid of the original does not fully mean you accept responsibility of how awful it is and how everyone loved it but that you are erasing an original piece of art that was very fine on it's own. Lucas is clearly a professional and before he had edited Star Wars he must have had some pride in the first version. To erase something so impactful and replace with not just some upgrading in shading and tech but to add and replace specific things to fit your own vision is a bit selfish.

Star Wars Revisionism - Protecting the Artist

I just don't understand the literal visceral hate that George Lusicas is subjected to concerning the film he created, he made, and he felt needed revision to better tell the story he wanted to tell.  It's ultimately his vision and creativity, so let's just allow him to make the changes he wanted to make to better tell this story without feeling like he personally insulted all of us by these changes.   

Film is the art of the 20th and 21st century, and George Lucas is an artist.  In my opinion, he has the right to change his piece of art however he likes, whenever he likes, in whatever way he likes.  The film itself is not owned by the people, no matter how much they wish they could own the film.  They may own it culturally, but cultural ownership does not give you creative rights or corrective rights.  What if DaVinci hasd the ability to come back to life, and he decided to correct the Mona Lisa (she doesn't have visible eyebrows or eye lashes)?  Does DaVinci have that right as the artist?  What if his reasoning is artistic?  In my humanities based mind he does.

What George Lucas does to his film is his business.  That business is not mine, not fans, and not some individual in his basement attempting to "right a wrong."  Uploading and maintaining an illegal copy of a film is a clear violation of laws that are intended to protect artists like George Lucas. 

The Enigmatic Journey Within All of Us

Star Wars! And Freud! And Oedipus, oh my! What I really got from "The Monomyth" reading was not the journey of the hero--but rather, what makes that journey possible. With Star Wars, we get the classic hero with Luke Skywalker. He's orphaned from birth, and he then saw the burned bodies of his only other relatives who raised him. He then has a mission, with nothing to lose, because he's never had much. Heroes tend to be born not from upbringings of privilege or excess, but rather they have struggled, continue to struggle, and are able to overcome it through their determination and resilience they have formed from childhood. A quote that particularly stood out to me from this reading was:

Full circle, from the tomb of the womb to the womb of the tomb, we come: an ambiguous, enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is soon to melt from us, like the substance of a dream. And, looking back at what had promised to be our own unique, unpredictable, and dangerous adventure, all we find in the end is such a series of standard metamorphoses as men and women have undergone in every quarter of the world, in all recorded centuries, and under every odd disguise of civilization. 

So what is important here, is not only the journey of the individual, but how every individual journey is affected by each other. This article touched a lot on motherhood and how we as humans are more reliant on our mothers from birth than any other mammal. The compassion we have from a loving mother affects us. The loss we have from an absent mother affects us. What we have, what we have lost, and what we have never known through our relationships and intertwining journeys is paramount. The journey of the hero is only possible, not because of the individual themselves, but because of other journeys that preceded them. Our existences are but fleeting, and is both in our control and out of it.

The predestined hero

Maybe the answer is obvious to some, but nevertheless I'm curious: why is the archetype of a hero detached from their birth parents continually re-written? Examples frequently appear: Simba (The Lion King), Harry Potter (Harry Potter), Peter Parker (Spiderman)...and of course Luke Skywalker (Star Wars). Upon further reading this quote from Campbell slightly clarifies the point: "...for now it appears that the perilous journey was not a labor of attainment but re attainment, not discovery but rediscovery. The godly powers sought and dangerously won are revealed to have been within the heart of the hero all the time" (39). Still I'm curious what others think in regard to why were drawn to this story-line.


Disney's The Lion King (2019). Image sourced from Amazon.com. Originally distributed by Walt Disney World Pictures, visual effects supervised by Robert Legato, Elliot Newman and Adam Valdez.

The Hero's Journey For Normies

The structure and idea of The Hero's Journey, is great for us all to enjoy as we live our normal day to day lives. It gives us an insight on worlds unimaginable, of problems and scenarios only in our dreams that we can experience in a sense. We can't contribute to the story ourselves but it gives us a sense of vacation from the norm. In Star Wars, we are in the distant past in a galaxy not like ours. We follow the story of a young white man and his journey. As a black woman myself I couldn't fully immerse myself but the challenges Luke faces, his mentor and other characters who help and join him along the way we can see through his eyes and ride along with him as we too are experiencing this other world together. Luke's right of passage in a way is also our own that lead into the other movies following. The structure may be reused and done over and over but it has a purpose, and what isn't broken shouldn't need to be fixed, only tweaked.

The Victory of Death

Campbell writes, "Only birth can conquer death - the birth, not of the old thing again, but of something new. Within the soul, within the body social, there must be - if we are to experience long survival - a continuous 'recurrence of birth' (palingenesia) to nullify the unremitting recurrences of death" (16).

While I understand and agree with what he is saying, he seems to directly contradict himself a few sentences later when he states, "When our day is come for the victory of death, death closes in; there is nothing we can do, except be crucified - and resurrected; dismembered totally, and then reborn" (17). Perhaps he is not contradicting himself necessarily, rather, he is not being specific enough. When we experience the "victory of death" and then are suddenly dismembered and reborn, are we to come back the same, or does the dismemberment result in something new? Does it really matter, or is the resurrection itself the vital step in our transformation to become something entirely different and therefore "heroic?"