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?

America Still Loves its Outdated Values Concerning Gender & Socioeconomics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!

Romeo and Juilet, more like Lancelot and Guinevere

When I was reading about how terribly sad Lancelot and Guinevere were in last weeks reading, I couldn't help but think of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". Lancelot was rejected by Guinevere, so he attempted to kill himself (if I'm remembering correctly). When Guinevere hears of this, she is so sad that she also wants to take her own life, BUT, what she doesn't know at the time is that Lancelot is still alive. How is this not the plot of "Romeo and Juliet"? He thinks she's dead, so he kills himself, but WAIT, she wasn't dead. I know there are some differences, but the similarities are impossible to ignore. This makes me ask the question I never wanted to ask myself; is Shakespeare not even original? Are all of his plays reminiscent of other works?

Don't Renovate, Definitely Don't Renovate

Leave Shakespeare and his creations alone! No, seriously, while reading "To Renovate or Not to Renovate" I detested the possible sight of Macbeth picking up an iPad or Orlando Bloom aka Romeo taking off a motorcycle helmet! Call me a purist, but any "modern" rendition I've seen of any Shakespeare play has typically fallen flat for me, as said similarly by the author of this article. (However, I am very excited to watch the 1990's version of Romeo and Juliet for class next week because I've heard very good things, so I might be soon completely contradicting myself!) But really, something neither of the articles really hinted much at--is that I think the best modern "versions" of any Shakespeare plays are ones where the stories are inspired by Shakespearean stories rather than direct remakes of. A Romeo and Juliet play where Romeo is an edgy pop-punk fan and Juliet is a rich valley girl who loves mainstream pop and their musical differences can't stop them from being together? No thanks. But an HBO show called Succession REMIXED and obviously heavily inspired by King Lear but with new, modern, and complicated characters? GOLD. The problem with direct modernization of these play productions is that honestly, I think they just really don't make sense. Shakespeare wrote his plays in ways that made sense for the time. In my opinion, keep the live productions traditional to the original writing, and be inspired by, and write new, modern stories of his plays instead. Is that boring? Maybe! But it's better than Orlando Bloom wearing torn jeans as Romeo and declaring his cheesy love for Juliet.

Hardly Believable

         I find this chapter to be quite amusing but at the same time frustrating. This is an iconic piece of history pertaining to our knowledge of the 'magnificent' King Arthur, but with that being said, was anyone actually believing anything Geoffrey said? So many aspects of this tale are so painfully unrealistic and some downright impossible to believe to the point where it cannot be ignored.  For example, the constant supply of thousands of men for Arthur's battles seems endless. The mention of fantastical beast and events like giants and shapeshifting is also unreal. And, of course, the great detail with which Geoffrey describes each event also make me suspicious: “Arthur unsheathed his sword, too, and was hurrying to kill him, when Frollo stood up quickly and, with his lance straight before him, ran at Arthur” (Geoffrey 70).
         Also, Arthur seems way too good to be true; he is great at battle, compassionate, forgiving, competent, and every other great quality under the sun. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I doubt anyone like this existed.
         I think that it is clear that most of this probably didn't happen like Geoffrey said it did, or maybe didn't even happen at all. If this is is the case, why did it stick? Why are these stereotypes still used to depict Arthur, and why are we even still depicting him at all?

Wait, it's that simple?

              After reading "The Monomyth", it is clear that there are certain things that just work. Certain roles, like the hero, mentor, and shapeshifter, can be identified in most movies, but it doesn't stop with movies; these figures and foundations exist in ancient folklore, mythology, sacred rituals, legends, and as Campbell puts it, "even nightmares". It is undeniable to say that there are certain things that humans innately respond to. When we look at old stories like "Beowulf" and "Sir Gaiwan and the Green knight", we see the "separation- initiation- return" pattern Campbell illustrates on page thirty. There is a reason these tales are timeless. 

             But what does this say about us as humans, if anything at all? How come these certain concept work time and time again? I want to attribute it to some evolutionary development, like the reason we admire the hero who has proven his worth by journeying out and returning to improve society is because a person like this would prove useful in a village or a tribe. Of course, I don't know the answer to this question, but I often tend to attribute out characteristics as some sort of process of evolution.