Not what I expected from a monster story

Gris Grimly's final panel

For being such a standard staple in the pantheon of monster stories, the ending of Frankenstein did not feel at all like what I expected from the genre. I believe it was under Cohen’s sixth thesis that he said something to the extent that, no matter how much we might envy a monster’s freedom, we understand that they have to be destroyed before the story can conclude. And, yes, the creature does go off to die alone, but it is not a victorious moment by any means. It just leaves the reader with a distinct feeling of sadness for all the characters involved. By the end, we attribute so much humanity to the creature, how many of us feel comfortable even labelling him as a monster?  

While I understand that cultural perspectives play a lot into the development of monsters, I attribute the agenda of Shelley’s novel to be more about compassion and accepting that there can be a blurriness between right and wrong. Not at all what a modern audience associates with monsters. In my reading experience, I was not aware of the monster representing any “other” or exhibiting socially condemned behaviors (with the exception of murder, of course) like how Cohen describes in his fourth and fifth theories.  

If anything, I would say the strategy behind the creature’s use of language could lend itself to a nasty subconscious takeaway: that it is okay to perceive those who don’t speak our language as inferiors. Now. That is terrible. And I don’t think it’s the main message of Frankenstein by any means. But many of us don’t attribute humanity to the creature until after he speaks so eloquently, so it is a possible cultural prejudice that slid into the design of this monster.  

Overall, however, Frankenstein doesn’t fit the script of monstrous as much as I had anticipated.  

Boo!

Jeffrey Jerome Cohen wrote, "The monster is born only at this metaphoric crossroads, as an embodiment of a certain cultural moment--of a time, a feeling, and a place. The monster's body quite literally incorporates fear, desire, anxiety, and fantasy (ataractic or incendiary), giving them life and an uncanny independence. The monstrous body is pure culture." (4). This quote from his first thesis very much embodied Frankenstein, particularly this remix of Frankenstein, with a higher emphasis on the physical or visual, having the text paired with illustrations. The reflection of this monstrous body, a product of "pure culture," to the human body makes me question what the human body in this story was also supposed to represent...another facet of culture? Or the same one, being a reflection? The monster in this text is in Cohen's words a product of society's fears at the time the novel was originally written in 1823--which makes me wonder, what similar fears till remained relevant for when this remix was published in the early 2000s?

Visual Impacts

This week's text is a highly new experience for me--both as I am unfamiliar with graphic novels/comics and I have had relevantly little experience with the Frankenstein plot. However, I found the mixed media format of this text highly effective for one main reason: Grimly depicts all characters in an eerily in-human fashion. As a result, I found the lines between those who are "human" and the "creature" blurred.

The Stephen Asma article intrigued me further as he writes, "the uses of monsters vary widely. In our liberal culture, we dramatize the rage of the monstrous creature—and Frankenstein's is a good example—then scold ourselves and our 'intolerant society' for alienating the outcast in the first place. The liberal lesson of monsters is one of tolerance: We must overcome our innate scapegoating, our xenophobic tendencies." (Asma). Again, I personally feel all the characters of Grimly's text have an "other' aspect to them. With all characters resembling something other than what we would typically assign as "human" our mind does not automatically cast the creature as something to be feared due to it's unfamiliar nature. At this point in the text, I have sympathy for the creature and very little for Victor. Combining the ideas of the McCloud theory from last week, I believe Grimly's remix of Shelly's story into a graphic text with visuals makes the overall work more impactful. The reader is challenged to question early on if the creature is, in fact, a "monster." 

What Constitutes a Monster?

After reading the first hundred pages of Grimley's Frankenstein along with Asma's "Monsters and the Moral Imagination," I couldn't help but ask myself, what exactly characterizes someone as a "monster"?

We see monsters played out millions of ways in film, art, music, and literature, but what exactly is the determining factor in their monstrous label? Asma's retelling of the coffee bar story made me wonder if someone with Silva's mental capacity could be a monster, and in a sense, I guess the term doesn't discriminate. It kind of reminded me of a Law & Order episode where a mentally handicapped man ended up killing numerous people because he was convinced they were all agents for the KGB who were trying to keep him out of the Olympics (he was a roller skater, but that's a longer discussion) so he had to kill them to protect himself. Does that make him a monster?

Honestly, I don't know the answer. Obviously killing someone else is morally wrong, but what if your mind convinces you that there is no other choice and you're doing it for the "greater good," or simply to protect your own life? I think the lines get blurry when your mental capacity is handicapped.

After reading Grimley's Frankenstein, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the "monster" who never asked to be created in the first place. I've never read Shelley's novel before, but I would imagine that the illustrations in Grimley's text make it easier to swallow... Although I think the particular illustrations towards the end of our reading made it even harder for me to see the monster as a true monster, and just made me feel even worse for him.

The Monster, longing for interaction. Picture taken from Pinterest

What Makes a Monster

This week's readings of "Monsters and the Moral Imagination" and Grimley's "Frankenstein" really hit home with me.  First before I go into the main topic of my post, I wanted to say that I enjoyed reading this comic version of Frankenstein.  I have always had a hard time reading the original story, I always got dragged down in the language.  The imagery helped to give life to the psychological and moral challenges presented in the story.

In the "Monsters and the Moral Imagination" article, Asma points out that perhaps there has been an increased interest in monsters and mayhem due to turmoil in the society.  Especially as we are going through this COVID-19 crisis,  I wonder if there is going to be even more of an interest in monsters and mayhem.  Asma said, "monsters can stand as symbols of human vulnerability and crisis.  Part of our fascination with serial-killer monsters is that we (and our loved ones) are potentially vulnerable to sadistic violence."  In a crisis such as what has been going on with the virus, people are more prone to become these monsters.  A week and a half ago, a man came driving down my main street that I live on and killed his ex wife and shot one of my neighbor's teenage son dead.  I drove down the road five minutes after this all occurred.  This made me think, what would I have done if I had been directly involved?  Also, what makes someone turn into a sadistic monster?  As I read Frankenstein, I felt sympathy for the creature.  The creature was not given the opportunity to learn right from wrong; it was the job of Victor to give him the foundation for a good life.  Instead Victor spurned the creature leading to both of their downfalls.  Society seems to spurn people that are different and it is society who helps to make the monsters real and imaginary.

Image Source: https://allthatsinteresting.com/serial-killer-quotes

I liked this... but why?

So... I did not love reading the actual book, but I did, however, enjoy watching these videos. I found myself completely captivated and entertained by the progression of things and seeing all of the modern twists they put on the classic story. I think the characters are portrayed well, but I feel like there is just SO much drama, like a whole mess of drama all the time and its exhausting.
There were a few things I did not enjoy too much though, 1. every five minutes having to wait for it to cue up the next video along with ads, and 2. the other videos that branch from this (Lydia's videos, Charlottes sister's videos, etc).  I did find quite a few times difficult to watch because they were over dramatic, and I simply was getting annoyed by it. For example, episode 87... while I understand the gravity of the situation that Lydia is in and that it is a very hard time, I think the acting and such was a tad over the top.
Also, side note: in episode 4 Lizzie says that her mom was freaking out and then mentions that she wonders how many videos will start like that, and let me tell you, its none. Yes, her mom freaking out is mentioned other times, but no other video ever starts on that note.

Lizzie Bennet Diaries

This series was interesting. I definitely see how it connects to the book. The three sisters are taken out of the 1800's and put into the 21st century. The characters are depicted oddly as I would imagine them, in some ways. Lydia is depicted to be extremely boy crazy. I think she is more extra in the series than in the book. I find it interesting how Charlotte Lucas is Charlotte Lu and Asian. I personally enjoyed the book better than the hundred episodes. I found some of the humor a bit wacky, but that is my personal opinion. I do not find many things funny.  Lizzie acts as if she was pulled out the book and brought to present time. I like how she was made a communications major who likes to read and write. She has her typical judgmental and dramatic personality. Lizzie is a mixture of nerdy and hip. Lizzie's ill feelings of her mother are crystal clear. Jane finds Lizzie's opinion of the mother unsettling. Does anyone understand the point of the gelatin green bean dessert? I found it disgusting and did not understand the meaning, if there was any behind it.

family drama? Count me in

As I watched through the series, the thought that kept running through my head was "who on Earth is interested enough to watch this?" I don't mean the series itself, because we have context of course. What I mean is that were this a real vlog, I can't imagine people being interested in it. I find Lizzie to be incredibly annoying, but that's just my personal opinion. It kind of reminds me of iCarly, where it's really funny from the other side of the fourth wall, but I can't imagine they would actually have been popular in real life.

But I guess that speaks to the question of why do we still invest time in this story. It's a story about family drama, and it has a happily ever after. What more could a reader want? People would rather read about family drama than deal with their own, they want to see a character getting a happy ending when they themselves don't always get one. Translating the story into vlog form adds a heightened sense of "what comes next?" This feeling obviously exists in the book version, but you can just continue reading. With the vlog, you have to wait for updates. Perhaps, if you can push how irritating Lizzie is in the series, then I guess you can appreciate her story for what it is.

tl;dr, the story of Pride and Prejudice and, obviously, the Lizzie Bennet Diaries, ticks off two rather large boxes in our literature interests: family drama, and a happy ending. Maybe, because the story includes both of these things, we continue to reread and remake it.

America Still Loves its Outdated Values Concerning Gender & Socioeconomics

This series had me from the beginning point of printing "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" on a t-shirt. Albeit, that quote is probably already printed on many t-shirts around the world anyway, but the presumption that it was their *mother* who put it on the shirt was incredibly hilarious to me, and was largely representative of mothers who still act like this! In the twenty-first century! Still increasingly concerned with whether or not their daughters are single! Ah!

But what was most impressive to me about this vlog series is that it answered the questions that many of us probably ask ourselves while reading classic literature: Are these problems in this novel still relevant today? If this story were in a modern setting, how would it look? Would it be silly? Would it be serious? Would it even work? LBD answered all of those questions for Pride and Prejudice. While this series had a much sillier tone than the classic novel (as it should, since it's literally a series made of vlogs) it still had impactful emotional moments and thorough plot points in-between all of the kind of cringy acting. Lizzie and Lydia were hilariously at VidCon when they meet Mr. Collins, Lizzie (a modern working woman) shadows at Mr. Darcy's communications company--the series presented major plot points in these modern, relatable settings, and it not only worked--but it was entertaining and probably much easier for a modern audience to understand. The plot of Pride and Prejudice was proven by this series to still be largely relevant: Mothers still trying to control their daughters and their romantic lives, the confusing lines and mixed communication that can happen between romantic partners and even family, and both not having to sacrifice your identity for a potential partner, while also having them inspire you to become a better version of yourself.

We try to act like we are past the many dated conceptions that Pride and Prejudice presents to us in its story. But LBD proved that really, we are not, but rather far from it.

Thoroughly enjoyed meta moments like this one that were sprinkled throughout the series!

THE Lydia Bennet

AHHHHH. I love this moment, but I completely forgot to cite it before I closed the tab, and now I can't find it again. FORGIVE ME, INTERNET!

This was my fourth time watching LBD all the way through. Wow. I was 16 the first time I saw it, and it's so wild to reflect on how my perspective has changed. Back then, I really didn't mind the cringe or the overdramatics at all. I loved the story, the characters, I was obsessed with William Darcy (ugh), and I found Lydia obnoxious.

I now consider Lydia and her story to be my favorite part of the whole series.

In modernizing Pride and Prejudice to the 21st century, the creators obviously take a lot of liberties with the text to present it in a way that will resonate with the audience. By far, the best update was the reconstruction of Lydia's ending. The original text doesn't give Lydia growth. Everything Elizabeth says about her is true, and Lydia gets stuck in an unhappy marriage with a mess of a man for the rest of her life.
Here, the way Lizzie insults Lydia is so painful to watch because we can see how much Lydia cares about her and wants to have a positive relationship with her sister. LBD also showcases the extent of Wickham's manipulation. The creators do not use Lydia's story to caution women against a lifestyle or falling blindly into love; they use it to send a message about emotional abuse.

I am very okay with that choice. A lot of times, I can be bothered when an artist tries to take the original text into their own hands and make significant changes to the plot. But, in my opinion, the changes are warranted in Lydia's case. It takes the focus off romantic love and emphasizes family and personal growth instead. Additionally, using media to call out unhealthy behaviors in relationships is really satisfying to me, especially when executed with such care.

Cringe, but Eventual Appreciation

            I was initially so hesitant to getting into the LBD series; I found the acting so cringey and awkward, like the slow was Jane talked and the loud laughing of Lydia and how CLOSE they got when they all talked to each other! The only character I could stand in the beginning was Charlotte (and her hilarious in-video edits of mustaches and much needed commentary). But when I got to about episode 20, I started to really get into it. I was able to look past the acting because I found myself genuinely engrossed in the story, and this was all thanks to its modernization! I mean, the cutting out of coupons, the sock slides, the student debt; it was all so real and relatable (maybe too real, @ student debt). 

             Society and civilization changes over time, so it makes sense that when stories are changed with those times, they are more accessible to modern audiences. Now, that's not to say that people nowadays can't get into the original novel; that is definitely not the case. But, for someone like myself who finds Austen's writing convoluted and headache-inducing, this video series is perfect! I found myself really invested in a story that I honestly wouldn't have otherwise been this invested in! If I had just read the novel, I would have missed out on the beauty of the story. I think this is where the purists come in and say "Hey! You didn't really experience the story the right way!", and to them I say, "why does it matter how I experienced it? At least I experienced it at all". Overall, I'm glad (for the most part *remembers the unbearably cringey flirting between Jane and Bing Lee in episode 28*) that we were assigned to watch this series; I enjoyed something that I otherwise would have missed out on. 

Status and Wealth in Pride and Prejudice

While we all know that Austen is writing Pride and Prejudice to be set in late-1700s early-1800s England and things were very different then, I still couldn't help but notice the very obvious focus on status and wealth. As I said, because this theme is so obvious, I want to delve a little deeper into the character of Elizabeth Bennet and how she perceives status.

In the very beginning, it seemed as if Elizabeth wasn't too caught up in trying to find a wealthy husband, even though she practically had to in order to stay "relevant" in society. Seeing as her father wasn't an incredibly wealthy man and wouldn't be able to leave his estate to his daughters, marrying rich really was the only option for the Bennet girls. However, while Elizabeth thought very highly of Mr. Bingley, she wasn't enthralled with the fact that he was rich. She simply respected the fact that he was a true gentleman, and later, that he treated Jane well.

If Lizzy really did care about status and wealth, she would have accepted Mr. Collins's proposal of marriage. She, however, responded with: "I am very sensible of the honour of your proposals, but it is impossible for me to do otherwise than decline them" (77). At this point, I figured Lizzy was a romantic and really just wanted to find someone she actually had feelings for (i.e. Mr. Darcy), but when she visited Pemberley, my entire opinion of her shifted.

While I believe Elizabeth's change in heart did not derive directly from seeing the grounds at Pemberley, I do think that the setting certainly didn't hurt. The kind words from Mrs. Reynolds the housekeeper definitely made Mr. Darcy seem much more marketable to Elizabeth, and while walking the grounds, she started to picture herself as the mistress of Pemberley. While of course she also wanted to get back at Miss Bingley and make her feel badly about her own feelings for Darcy, I believe Elizabeth may not have had such strong feelings for him if she hadn't visited the estate.

If all of that had happened at Longbourn, would she have felt the same way, or was it the air of wealth and success of Pemberley that pushed her affection along?

Image from giphy.com

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.

Secondary Characters in Pride and Prejudice

I read the annotated version of Pride and Prejudice as well as watched the film from 2005.  One of the main things I noticed about the story was the difference in the treatment and endings between the main and secondary characters.  The Bennett household was not particularly wealthy or of a high status in comparison to the Bingley or Darcy households.  Mrs. Bennett pushes Jane and Elizabeth to get married so the family can be taken care of if something were to happen to Mr. Bennett.  Despite their lower social class, Jane and Elizabeth manage to win the hearts of Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy.  They have the opportunity to marry for love rather then circumstance.  Charlotte Lucas represents the more realistic situation for young women in the period.  She does not choose to marry Mr. Collins because of love, but as a way to live her life honorable.  On her engagement to Mr. Collins she says to Elizabeth: “‘I am not romantic, you know.  I never was.  I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins’s character, connections, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state.'”(PP Ch.22)  Looking at the character of Anne De Bourgh, we do not learn that much about her except that she is sickly and has not been presented to society.  She was also betrothed to Darcy.  What can be made about her character?  Was it her destiny to live out her life as a spinster?  The freedom that the Bennett sisters have is much greater then most of the secondary female characters in the novel, they are able to break social norms.  Why did Austen create this juxtaposition between those sets of characters?

Image Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/108156828531539012/

Is Mr. Collins secretly the hero? No.

Who is the target audience of Pride and Prejudice? I think there's a good deal of irony in the fact that it's widely touted as a rom-com, a genre that sees women as its target demographic. And yet the title and the central theme of the book take to task the persistent habit of people to rely too heavily on first impressions and false judgments. And if women are still (today) the target demographic, what are we to glean from the story? I'm sure this is a widely debated topic, but how do we view this through a feminist lens? I can't help but make a few comparisons to Jane Eyre - how both Rochester and Darcy are wealthy, titled, arrogant men who struggle (to put it generously) with how to convey their affection to their poor, young loves, and how both Jane and Lizzy are furiously angry at the way they (or others) are treated by the men. Both women are trapped by both their gender and their socio-economic status, and are fully conscious of the power imbalance their relationship must have. 

Endofmarch. "Jane Eyre & Mr. Rochester/Elizabeth Bennet & Mr. Darcy." Flikr, 26 Sept. 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/endofmarch/6183231306 , Accessed 26 March 2020.

In a completely unrelated note, I love the scene where Mr. Collins proposes to Elizabeth, and insists that he is well aware that "it is usual with young ladies to reject the addresses of the man whom they secretly mean to accept" (77). This is profound for two reasons: first, Mr. Collins' words prove to be entirely correct, as Lizzy will first reject Darcy's proposal and later accept it. (What a lovely tie-in to the theme - perhaps we all were too quick to despise Mr. Collins out of hand!) Second, this highlights such an important social custom that has complicated relationships for centuries: how can we lambaste men for not taking "no" for an answer when social custom dictates that women feign resistance to prevent being labeled as, for example, a whore for wanting to have sex? (Harsh example, I know, but there are so many ways that women are expected to be coy and coquettish as an expression of femininity that directly interfere with clear communication.) 

The Plight of Pride and Prejudice in Pop-Culture

I am equal parts excited to discuss Pride and Prejudice and completely dreading it. I wouldn't say I idolize Jane Austen; however, I can fully admit she's my favorite writer and at times I can be extremely bias. Now that being said this particular work is my second-to-least favorite Austen text. As a result of this class, I am now being forced to analyse why exactly it comes up short among the six completed novels. I also want to explore why P&P garners the most attention in pop-culture.

To start P&P feels more juvenile than Austen's later work. When comparing P&P to the works Austen wrote after her hiatus the plot is noticeably thinner than say Emma or Persuasion. For example, Austen deals her later heroines harsher consequences and forces them to examine their own personalities and the responsibility they have when making choices. Anne Elliot (Persuasion) rejects Captain Wentworth due to his lack of social status and must live with that choice for six years. After that she must watch as a twenty-six year old--a spinster in the Regency Era--as he peruses different romantic partners before they finally resolve their relationship. In contrast, Lizzie Bennet waits an insignificant amount of time to gain her happy ending after initially rejecting Darcy.

Now my personal issues with Lizzie Bennet. Again my issue becomes one of comparison: when you line up Lizzie with Anne Elliot or Emma Woodhouse she is not nearly as strong or well developed. I have always been fascinated by people's love of Lizzie Bennet- their reasoning being her strong-willed personality. Yes, Lizzie can be strong willed and have a bit of an attitude (in a good way), but the consequences of that attitude are minimal. The greatest tribulation Lizzie must overcome is a lack of dowry and her ridiculous family. Anne Elliot must be alone for six years and Emma Woodhouse is forced to completely take stock of her actions and refine her entire personality, all while thinking she lost the love of her life to one of her closest friend.

With all that being said my main frustration with P&P? It is often times the only work of Austen's that people are familiar. Leading me to ask why? Austen has five other novels that are just as, often times more, entertaining. When I talk with people I am happy to hear they at least know something of Sense and Sensibility, but usually just P&P. Additionally, most people are only familiar with the 2007 Keira Knightley adaption or the Colin Firth BBC mini-series; and not the novel.

One possible conclusion: it's the first published work. Doesn't seem to be enough, though. The multiple adaptations and re-mixes of P&P are definitely a leading factor. Why is this the most appealing Austen work to adapt to film or re-mix? I personally believe it comes back to our instinctual love of fairy-tales; and P&P has all the elements of a Cinderella story. In fact, as an undergrad I wrote an entire paper charting the characters of P&P with their Cinderella archetype. Quick summary: Lizzie = Cinderella, Mrs. Bennet/Catherine de Bourgh = evil step-mother, Ugly Step-Sisters = Lydia and Kitty/Caroline Bingley, Fairy God Mother = Mrs. Gardiner, etc. You get the point, we love the familiar (as we have all learned in this class, nothing groundbreaking) and I personally feel much of P&P is familiar to our childhood stories.

All that being said? I still love P&P. It is still one of my favorite novels. Why I personally love the novel is different than other peoples. My favorite characters? Mrs. Bennet and Charlotte Lucas. Mrs. Bennet while annoying and ridiculous faces a difficult reality: five daughters who cannot inherit and so must marry to survive. She is smart enough, and loves her daughters enough, to know if they remain unmarried after their father's death the world will be a cold place for them. Charlotte Lucas faces a similar reality as Lizzie, but doesn't exactly get her happy ending. She is realistic, though, making the best of the situation she is in and marries Mr. Collins not out of weakness but strength, knowing it is her way to get by.

Alright rant over. I can't wait to read others thoughts. And please, if you haven't already, read some of Austen's other work. Emma is my personal favorite, Mansfield Park is my least (I do not recommend reading it next). 

What makes "Great Art"?

I chose to watch Warm Bodies(2013) along with West Side Story(1961).  I found this version(Warm Bodies) of Romeo and Juliet to be entertaining.  The story was modified to fit pop culture and the intense interest in zombies and the apocalypse.  As I was reading Bourdieu's piece, he included a quote by Suzanne Langer that said, "But now that everyone can read, go to museums, listen to great music, at least on the radio, the judgement of the masses about these things has become a reality and through this it has become clear that great art is not a direct sensuous pleasure.  Otherwise, like cookies or cocktails, it would flatter uneducated taste as much as cultured taste." As I read this quote, I understood it to mean that great art is not something that can just be consumed, you have to be educated to understand the deeper meanings behind it.  Is Romeo and Juliet still a product of high culture?  Especially in the Warm Bodies adaption of the story, I feel like the story has been adapted to fit popular culture and has created new ideas that did not exist in the original story.  Besides R, the zombie, Romeo and Julie being the human, Juliet they were not really star cross lovers and there was less of a focus on the other characters except for the role of Nora as the best friend/advisor.  The major theme seemed to be that love and understanding can change even the toughest of hearts.  That seems to be quite different from the original Romeo and Juliet.

 Image Source: http://rebloggy.com/post/nicholas-hoult-warm-bodies/43178547120

Image Source: https://www.rappler.com/entertainment/20992-warm-bodies-tops-us-box-office

What is Art?

Romeo and Juliet has shifted into the category of “high art” due to its transformation from function to form; that is over time the play began to look less like our own world and more like that of a time bygone allowing it to take on an art aesthetic and move away from resembling our everyday life. The language began to sound less like that of our own and as a result required deeper thought to process and relate the story to our own lives. 

Adaptations, though, re-ground the original story in function. When the plot is re-imagined in our own world and is recognizable we are able to more easily process what we are seeing/reading/hearing. Adaptations allow a modern audience to have instantly recognizable feelings. Bourdieu describes in his article "Distinction and the Aristocracy of Culture" that according to theory emotion makes something ordinary. He writes, “a systematic refusal of all that is ‘human’, by which he means the passions, emotions and feelings which ordinary people put into their ordinary existence, and consequently all the themes and objects capable of evoking them: ‘People like a play when they are able to take an interest in the human destinies put before them’, in which they ‘participate as if they were real life events’” (177). An example of how Westside Story is “functional” as opposed to simply a subject of artistic form comes in the number “Gee, Office Krupke.” In the song the Jets sing satirically of how they ended up in their current situation. They sing of lacking parental love and care, i.e. social guidance to learn right and wrong. This song relates to a social function and as a result shifts it away from simply having an aesthetic form. 

https://ramblingrooby.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/jay-z-the-artist-picasso-baby-a-performance-art-film/ 

Swine.

Pierre Bourdieu’s exploration of the intersection of class and culture (and its philosophical roots) underscores the persistent structures of power and capital. The discussion of form over function is an expression of privilege; as Bourdieu observes about eating habits, “the taste of necessity…favours the most ‘filling’ and most economical foods, and the taste of liberty—or luxury--…shifts the emphasis to the manner (of presenting, serving, eating, etc.)” (502). Food, like other artifacts of culture, becomes a means by which we express our social and economic status, because to have the space or “distance” to explore the form of food means we are not starving. At Marx’s funeral, Friedrich Engels commented that what Marx understood was “the simple fact that man must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before he can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.”  This means, of course, that the superstructure in which culture is housed is necessarily exclusive to the bourgeoisie. (It’s worth noting that these are not observations rooted only in Marxism; western philosophy has long favored distant, rational “viewing” over, as Bourdieu puts it, “the primary stratum of the meaning we can grasp on the basis of our ordinary experience” [499], a viewpoint that not only privileges the educated but also men, as those two qualities were so often linked and as women’s experiences were considered too embodied and intuitive to discern “the secondary stratum of meaning” [499]. End of Marxist feminist rant.)

This all provides an interesting backdrop to question both the role of the artist and the role of the critic. Susan Boyle horrified the classical opera community, because the general public was unable to discern between an entertaining singer and someone with “real” artistic talent. The comments sections of the articles about Romeo and Juliet were filled with people who obviously felt their opinions were valid, and in light of Bourdieu’s article, were probably also expressing their own class status. How concerned are we with how our particular preferences express our education or class? (PS. I drink boxed wine.)

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.