Outline (so far)

My outline thus far has been pencil to paper, but I'll type it here verbatim. Before getting into transcribe-mode, I'd like to add that I immediately connected more with the Cultural approach, as I felt it would lend itself more easily to the book I chose than the New Historical approach. Anyways, here it goes and when you see pink font that's just me clarifying something in my outline :)))

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My approach will either be New Historical or Cultural

Cultural because it "argues that working-class culture...undervalued" pg. 281
"what forms of art...inferior culture" (connect to bull-fighting)

As a cultural critic im supposed to believe "there is no meaningful distinction between 'high' and 'low' culture..." pg. 281

"For all cultural productions...circulation of power," pg. 281 = art/media from powers that be manipulating us

believe: "dominant class defines 'high' and 'low'...superiority...own power" pg. 281

yet also believe: "...subordinate populations produce forms of art...affect the whole culture as well" like the AIDs quilt changed opinions 4 better

as a marxist, feminist, or latino critic: "analyze and valorize the cultural productions of an oppressed group"

*What I circled on pg. 282 [I circled the three differences at the top] 
*"cultural criticism...does not view oppressed peoples as helpless victims" pg. 282

Texts--as they are art/media themselves--in turn shape the contemporary culture that was reading it --> mold people or irritate people

Marxist would say that For Whom the Bell Tolls: [literally nothing follows the colon, lol]

Feminist would say FWTBT: assuage stereotypical alpha-male (Maria); yet provides a female character whose strength intimidates stereotypical alpha-males (Pilar and how she treats Pablo, and is the real leader of the guerrillas)

I should ask of FWTBT: questions on pg. 282 in this final section im just answering the questions on 282 in relation to FWTBT

1. Subtle, but profound undertones of senselessness/mechanical-nature of war; man must have a woman (though the age difference...) to comfort him, her rape may come into play; manipulative Robert Jordan--would help feminist cause if he was painted in a negative light, yet he is painted as admirable

2. Spanish Republicans specifically may have found the book endearing; people in general were war-weary from WWI; intrigued by Spain--portrayed spanish speakers in respectfully; mentions facism--again, back to WWI; women in war--perhaps led to women participating in WWII (published a year into WWII); men in WWI drawn to longing for a woman in times of war; men in WWI related to being close to death (tolling 4 funeral); compelling questioning of hypocritical practices America is involved in such as homesteading ("...Communism in your country?")
^---automatic weapon makes war less Romantic...not best soldier, but biggest gun

Desire for Romanticized war...which, although is respectable, is still a freakishly obsessive view that certainly isn't anti-war; it could in fact be argued that the book is pro-war

3. I love the theme of enjoying every moment you have until the impending doom=violent death; I love how these Spanish are 3-D--he took care with writing them, as should be taken

4. Women can be used by men; white men are leaders---> Pilar is actually uncharacteristically supportive of and acquiescent to RJ; war is the answer

5. Fascists, pacifists, feminists, spanish community (implicitly), racial minorities in America--off-color remarks here and there

*Ask Laura if she'd be okay w/ a comparison of FWTBT w/ the popular movie adapted from it ! ---mention pg. 283 lol ;)

Though I havent yet read any critiques of FWTBT, Im thinking I will find a lot I will agree w/ (if the critics have the same lines of thinking i've come up with); I'll most likely use the secondary source to agree or use "to lift an idea from", though the other uses are still on the table

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats the outline as of now, as you can see Im about to get into finding the critiques that I feel will help me write my essay, which Im so far convinced will be taking the feminist approach.

Essay Progress

I'm writing a reader-response criticism of Lolita. I'm planning to focus on how the novel's meaning comes from Humbert's attempts to manipulate how readers respond to him and the story he presents. Furthermore, the way readers respond depends on factors such as their willingness to humor Humbert as an unreliable narrator, the views and biases they hold about the novel prior to reading it, and whether or not they believe artistic works portraying abuse are harmful to society. I'll be quoting the text as well as other critics, but I'll also be making hypotheses that are based on my own reasoning. I think I'll worry about organization after I start writing, so that I can have all my ideas out before I put order them.

Developing Thesis for Final Essay

Good Afternoon Everyone,

For our final essay I am happily writing Reader-Response on the novel The Last American Vampire. I am running into some problems finding credible sources to use as my three references to other critics. Since my novel is fairly new I decided to use the genre (mixing real events with fantasy) to conjure up what I need in order to gather enough information.

As far as the rest of the essay, I am really enjoying writing it. I am using the concept of projection and living vicariously through others with my  novel. I am also using what it means to truly be an American, which just so happens to be in the title. The final aspect of my paper is how everything tends to head back to a single person and that is none other then Abraham Lincoln himself.

I am finding that my thesis is very complex and trying to relate every paragraph back to it is going to be impossible. Therefore, I might have to eventually break up my paper into sections, but I was hoping to get all of your opinions on that during our workshop period.

One other thing that has got me worried is the idea of paraphrasing in Reader-Response. I honestly do not think I can paraphrase because the quotations are so vital in order to prove my point. So far the aspect of my paper that I have worked on is very quote heavy and I would love to keep it that way because it helps the reader to fully relate to the main character, Henry Sturges. That is what Reader-Response is after all! :)

Here is my thesis so you all could take a stab at it!-

The Last American Vampire presents the Reader-Response theory brilliantly through the projection of all the characters on Sturges, including the reader, and in turn Sturges resting his own immortality onto everyone who crosses his path while keeping true to the American way and warping history into fantasy.  

(excuse the double space) Thank you! -Kayleigh 

Brain Storming

Good Afternoon Everyone,


I wanted to put some brain storming for our next paper on here because I have a feeling no one has read the novel I am going to be writing about. It is called The Last American Vampire and it is written by Seth Graham Smith. If you all ever get the chance I highly recommend it especially if you are a lover of history.


The story follows the life of Henry Sturges over the course of 500 years. It starts all the way back in the 1500 when Henry is originally plunged into "vampiredom" against his own will. Henry's life if very unique because not only does he not age, but he comes into contact with huge major historical figures and impacts them in many ways. Some of those people include Abraham Lincoln, Nicola Tesla, Teddy Roosevelt, and much more that I will talk about in my paper.


My idea for the paper is to use Reader-Response Criticism to show that since Henry cannot age he tends to project his life onto everyone he meets (Vampire and Human). He is in a way vicariously living through all of those around him because he was never given the chance to age properly. He does this by impacting all of those that he meets in many different ways, but all in ways in which he would not be forgotten. Henry's goal is to not actually live forever, but to have the memories of everyone he meets to live forever.


Although this is just the beginning of my brain storming I hope to conjure up more juicy material to add to my paper. Any thoughts?


Thank you- Kayleigh

Psychoanalytic Criticism

I enjoyed the psychoanalytic criticism chapter.  I've had the thought before, "I wonder what kind of baggage you're carrying," when someone reacts to something small in a huge way.  But this approach really makes a lot of sense to me, not only in literary criticism, but in life.  I think that a huge amount can be told about a person by the way that they react to something, whether it be a book, a movie, or something that happens to them.

Tyson outlines the core issues of people:

1) Fear of intimacy
2) Fear of abandonment
3) Fear of betrayal
4) Low self-esteem
5) Insecure of unstable sense of self
6) Oedipal fixation (complex)

The core issue of a person can be carried with them throughout life, and they shape our behavior.  If we don't identify them and change them, then they stay with us, causing a destructive cycle.

Tyson highlights trauma, death-drive, and tons of ways that a person can be sexually screwed up, but then points out that we need to know all of these things in order to do an effective psychoanalytic reading of a work.  We should be looking for repression, family dynamics, and fears to understand the characters with a work when reading this way.

Tyson's reading of Gatsby points out that it isn't a great love story, but an example of dysfunctional love.  I'm not sure how anyone who reads Gatsby has the idea that it is about great love, but I am not sold on the idea that it is just about dysfunctional love.  However, after the Marxist reading, I am not sure that I can buy into any other reading. Ever.

Marxist Criticism

I really enjoyed the Marxist Criticism chapter, especially the reading of Gatsby through the Marxist glasses.  The idea that "getting and keeping economic power is the motive" of practically everything I think really resonates in the economical and political situation today (51).  The idea of the bourgeoisie being the wealthy class, the one percent, and the proletariat being everyone else, the ninety-nine percent, shows just how times never really change.  The Occupy Movement has died down a bit now, but just a little while ago they were all over the news.  Marx would be thrilled that there are people still fighting.

I also liked the part about the economically oppressed.  I think that these days, we call ourselves 'the working poor', making enough to get by, but never really making enough to improve our situation.  My husband and I joke that we live comfortably enough, as long as nothing breaks.  We are lucky enough that he works for Stevenson, and that I can go to school.  We are going to have the opportunity, I hope, to start climbing out of the whole that we have been stuck in, once I graduate and have my 'grown-up job.'  I have no idea how anyone else does it without going crazy or going into crippling debt.  I really don't.  But on to Gatsby...

For me, Tyson's reading of Gatsby in this chapter is the most different and appealing reading that we've done so far.  We've seen longing, the spirit of the day, and other meanings, but this one, the "dark underbelly", is unique (66).  The deaths of Gatsby and Myrtle never really felt right in any of the other readings, and certainly not in my own.  They always seemed too dark for the book, but with my Marxist glasses on, they make so much more sense.

While I've never liked Tom, the Marxist idea of commodification of people makes his character more believable.  He buys both Daisy and Myrtle, but I never understood his relationship with Myrtle.  She is portrayed as being big and loud, not a woman who would seem appealing at all to Tom.  I would think that he would be more likely to choose a woman who was quiet and obedient.  However, the fact that she is poor makes his wealth more exciting, thus making Tom feel better about himself.  With Daisy, they are of the same class, so his wealth isn't so impressive to her.  Tom keeps an apartment for Myrtle, a cheap, tiny little apartment.  This also always bugged me.  I never bought the fact that Tom would stay in an apartment like that.  But because of Myrtle's social standing, any apartment would be better than hers, and this made Tom's wealth seem more exciting.

Gatsby also makes more sense when you look at socio-economic class.  I always had a tough time with the fact that he had worked so hard to get to where he was, but then to refuse to enjoy any of it.  He was always absent at his parties, and it didn't make sense to me.  Why wasn't he out enjoying his parties, even if only to meet someone who knew Daisy?  Tyson's reading answers this with sing-exchange value: "he wants the image their ownership confers on him and nothing more" (70).

Thank you, Lois Tyson, for this reading.  You have made me love Gatsby again.

My Favorite Criticism

After finally reading up on all of the criticisms of Gatsby I feel the one that resides in me and my own writing style the most is reader response. I love how Tyson went through each character in the novel and explained how they project themselves onto Gatsby. Whether it be the party guests who simply love to gossip, all the way to Nick who looks up to Gatsby as a hope that the American Dream still does exist, Tyson was able to accurately back up her criticism. I also loved how she went through and picked out certain scenes from the novel which negatively and positively affected Nick's view of Gatsby. The Great Gatsby is a novel, that without the reader bringing fourth some of their own opinions and understandings of how the world works, could leave the reader confused because of all the ambiguous imagery and unanswered questions. I am a firm believer that an author simply starts a book, but it is the reader who finishes it. Everyone has their own beliefs about what a novel can produce and as an aspiring writer/critic I want to be able to talk about not only what is in the text but how it effected me as a reader. This writing The Great Gatsby has helped me narrow down my subject for the final paper which I am happily writing as a reader-response critic! -Kayleigh

Good Afternoon Everyone,

Before I dove into the Marxist Criticism I wanted to make sure that I understood the main points from the New Historical Criticism and Cultural Criticism (after not being in class Monday). To begin, New Historical Criticism focuses on how the event has been interpreted and what those interpretations says about the interpreters. It also brings fourth the idea that we do not have clear access to anything but the most basic facts about historical events. There is only the interpretation which could ultimately lead to an objective analysis. Then there was Micheal Foucault who produced the idea that power circulates in all directions through the proliferation of exchange. In the end it states that Historical Criticism cannot be objective, cannot adequately demonstrate that a particular spirit of the times or world views accounts for the complexities of any given culture and it cannot adequately demonstrate that history is linear, casual or progressive. Moving onto Cultural Criticism which draws on political theories, Marxism, and Feminism. It is highly interested in popular culture and it takes into account the way in which media production might not be viewed the way the entertainment industry intends it to be viewed. Cultural Criticism also performs at the hands of those who respond to it. I believe these are all of the major points from this chapter. Do I seem to be missing anything?
Thank you- Kayleigh

The Kristen Stewart Hypothesis

For this post I decided to go further into the comment I left on Kayleigh's post. For me, it's difficult to remember the time period before the Twlight films were out, because they were such a big part of the saga's reign over pop culture. Before that, it was easy to ignore, but when the films came out, it seemed that everyone had an opinion. I think that Kristen Stewart is a huge factor in many people's dislike of Twilight. Throughout her career, she has been criticized for her aloof attitude, subpar acting skills, awkwardness, etc. In reality, she's not much different from most teenage girls, but because of her job, she has been and is being compared to other actresses such as Jennifer Lawrence and Shailene Woodley, who better fit the Hollywood mold (do not mistake Lawrence's attempts to be quirky and relatable for anything other than carefully constructed PR). What I am trying to say here is that if someone goes into Twlight with the preconceived notion that it's stupid, sexist, just for fangirls, ect., they're less likely to change their mind if they find the actress on the screen annoying. There's no way to confirm this, as we can't erase everyone's memories and remake Twilight with a more popular actress, but I believe that the discussions surrounding the franchise would be very different if we could.