YUS

Summary of Discussion on Wednesday, October 29, 2010

The topic of our discussion throughout class on Wednesday was focused primarily around our opinions of "Nature vs. Nuture" and how this concept was related directly to the characters of Tom and Chambers in Pudd'nHead Wilson. We began the discussion on the views of their differing personalities. This stemmed our heated conversation on whether or not we believed "Tom" would have been completely different if he was raised as a slave. Jasmine mentioned within our discussion that the thing we have to remember is that Tom is not going to act like a slave until he is treated like a slave. So, even though Roxy has now confessed to Tom that he is actually her son and he experienced a moment of self-admittance to his actual genealogy; however, after this moment he quickly bounced back into the life he was used to living. Holly brought up an interesting point that even if he was brought up being a slave to "Chambers," Tom still might be the same person that he is presently--he is just an ill-natured person to begin with. At this statement, there was a strong opposing argument stating that nurturing has a whole lot to do with the manners and the beliefs imposed upon a budding-mind. Many then continued to argue that since he was a slave, he would have been punished for being a whiny baby, rather than pampered. What we must keep in mind is what Twain intended for the characters. Does he suggest whether or not they would have been different if raised in their proper social situations--or are they genuinely who they are today, because of their inner biology.

When considering this idea, the individual is most important. The classification is not towards a group of people, but rathe a sole individual. Moving away from the discussion of nature versus nurture, Robert suggested at the end of class the idea of "labels." With this he went on to point out that with their blood heritage, people are given a label....or a title. Instead of resulting in a realization of their racist-nature, these labels that they create exemplify the ridiculousness of how they are and how they act towards certain individuals based on "label" pressed upon them.

Tom and Chambers

Ok so I know we wore this topic out in class but I just wanted to discuss Tom's attitude one more time since the main issue in this reading was Tom finding out he was black.

I do not believe that Tom is ALL bad. Yes, he is mean and arrogant, but he is starting to show some changing. For example on page 46, Tom actually feels bad for being mean to Chambers. He is also actually enjoying meeting with his mom and talking with her and they even started to meet more often than just the times when she needed money (48). I think Tom will grow out of racist ways at least a little and give more respect to black people by the end of the novel. Change can not happen over night and at least he is changing a little.

We haven't really talked about Chambers so I wanted to mention him as well...

First of all, I fell so sorry for Chambers and all the things he had to go through when it was really not his fate. He is such a good hearted person and does not need to be treated the way Tom treats him. He treats him more harshly than his "dad" treated his own slaves and his "dad" was more wealthy and powerful than Tom. I also feel like Roxy should feel bad for what she did. She seems to not care at all for Chambers and not only should she tell Tom he is black but also tell Chambers that he is white. Chambers has suffered enough and needs to put out of his misery especially since Roxy is the one that put him in his position. Roxy should also share the money she is getting from Tom with Chambers because he deserves to be compensated for all the hell he has been through as well.

Title

I know it was brought up at the end of discussion during class on Wednesday, but the idea of labels and titles is very prevalent throughout this novel. As Robert mentions below, the townspeople invariably label and give titles to each other. Where as the townspeople label Pudd'nhead Wilsonas unintelligent and his work as futile, the reader sees that this is just the opposite. This is just one of many examples of the use of labels throughout the novel.

Mark Twain's use of labels ties in with the idea of both nature vs. nurture, and Twain's own abolitionist views. In relating to nature vs. nurture, the use of labels to characterize people, we come to the question of whether or not these characters will live up to these labels, despite what their true "nature" is. Also, relating to Twain's own abolitionist views, we assume that his deliberate use of labels is meant to show that the labels of "black" and "white" are only such, and have no true social basis. This abolitionist stance is also bolstered with his use of dramatic irony in the switching of the "black" and "white" babies.

Seeing Double

So in our discussion on Wednesday, we focused on the "nature vs. nurture" aspect of the novel that we have been presented with thus far. However, we didn't get a chance to discuss the arrival of the twins and the impact they have on the community. Even before they arrive, just word of their arrival triggers an immediate hustle and bustle. I am not sure what to expect of their arrival to the community, but their arrival seems somewhat suspicious. On page 29, Twain writes "They realized that for once in their lives they were hearing masters." Maybe I am looking too far into this, but it seems as though this is a role reversal from their normal life, which suggests that the life they used to live. As Judge Driscoll is giving the foreigners a tour of the town, he begins to give them keys, and it almost seems as those he is giving away the town to two absolute strangers. I think this might be foreshadowing a criminal offense that might be happening in the near future. Or at least I am hoping that it is....What do you guys think? Other than the idea of putting identifying labels onto the characters of the novel, is there any significance to their "identical"-identity?

Nature vs Nurture

I know that in class on Wednesday, we discussed this issue a lot and we came to the conclusion that the answer to the question of whether Tom and Chambers would have ended up the same way had they not been switched was a personal one based on ones belief of either nature or nurture. I, however, would like to give my two cents to the argument as well. I strongly believe that there is no way that the two children would have grown up the same had they not been switched. I do agree with Holly that "fake Tom" could be just a malicious person, but I think the degree to which he expresses that have been different had be been raised a slave. If he had been raised as a slave, we he cried and threw things on the floor as a child he would have been punished, therefore changing his character from a young age. When his actions as a small child were not punished in any way and he was allowed to get away with them he learned that this was acceptable behavior and thus reinforcing his bad habits.On the other hand, maybe Chambers was just a good person at heart. However, if he had been raised as Roxy and "fake Tom's" master there can be no doubt that he would have treated them differently. Maybe he wouldn't have been as arrogant as "fake Tom", but there is no doubt that an individual treats their master different from the way the treat their mother.
So overall I think nurture has a lot to do with the development of ones character. I know that it is a personal decision and I don't expect everybody to agree with me, but if they did it wouldn't make for very good discussion, would it?

The "Detective Side" of Pudd'nhead

I know we have been talking a lot about race and whatnot in class, but I would like to bring this book back to a HUGE reason why we are reading it: we have been reading crime literature all semester, and obviously this book is setting up/already contains criminal activity and detecting.
I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I have LOVED "watching" Tom squirm whenever he thinks someone might be onto him and his raiding, or now, that someone might suspect that, gasp! he's got African American (slave) blood in him. I think the scene I have enjoyed so far in this novel is when Wilson reads Luigi's palm. First of all, it is extremely ironic that even though Tom is ridiculing the art/science of palmistry, the twins actually help out Wilson by making it known that it is in fact practised and is know to have some truth in it. Therefore, Tom's own plan of ridicule and mockery ends up backfiring. In addition, Tom's quotation on page 54 basically makes it clear that, at least in the case of palmistry, he could be found out at any time. The quotation reveals, "It beats anything that was ever heard of! Why, a man's own hand is his deadliest enemy! Just think of that--a man's own hand keeps a record of the deepest and fatalist secrets of his life, and is treacherously ready to expose him to any black-magic stranger that comes along." Tom is obviously extremely worried and afraid that he is unsafe from eventually being discovered as the culprit, both of more gambling and for raiding the town, but especially being discovered as being Roxy's son. Between WIlson's fingerprint collection and now his palm-reading, Tom is probably soon going to be put in a corner too small for him to squeez out of again.

Lesson Learned on Individual Liberty

After reading the chapter where Tom was told he was black, I was left with an overwhelming feel of irony. As an individual, Tom is unique. He has his own personality and way of doing things that is unique to him. He is rude, he is a gambler, and he is free - he is Tom. As merely Tom his civil rights and liberties are protected under the US Constitution as an individual. However, when Tom finds out he is black, suddenly his individuality disappears. He is no longer just Tom, but now associates himself as a "n-word". For some strange reason his right to being an individual vanishes as he is is now classified amongst a group. Ironically, with just a mere title change, the Constitution is thrown out the window as Tom is no longer guaranteed his rights.

I found this series of events to be a particularly good lesson on the idea of individual liberty. The US Constitution does not grant and protect our rights based on what groups we are in - it does so because we are individuals. As individuals of God - or nature - we have certain unalienable natural rights that no man or government has the power to take away. However, when people become classified into groups, they lose their individuality. They are no longer citizen Tom, they are just a member of the group. This can have disastrous affects, because historically civil liberties have been abused by governments by classifying people in groups (ie Jews, Blacks, etc). This concept should be kept in mind as we view the world around us. Be cautious of the way we view groups. We are all individuals who have the same rights. Rather than viewing a fellow classmate as black, white, gay, or something else, view them as who they are - an individual human with unalienable rights.

Mark Twain: Racist or Brilliant Author?

Though I agree that the time period likely influenced inevitable repercussions in Twain’s subconscious view of race, I do not believe that that influence is manifested in Pudd’nhead Wilson. To me, the personalities of characters and the race of those characters exist as they do not because Twain subconsciously associates these characteristics with a particular race, but because these characters must be as they are and they must be the race that they are in the context of the novel’s plot and theme.

Before I elaborate on that, it is necessary to relate the argument of nurture vs. nature to the plot of the novel. I believe in this novel Twain is making the very controversial statement that nature does not influence who a person is, rather his environment determines his personality and his character. The argument for nurture, in this case, makes the claim that the intrinsic nature of a person, the biology of a person, in this case the skin color of a person does not determine who he is. From this, it follows that slavery on the basis that nature is determinate (of worth, intelligence, class, etc.) is flawed, which is the point I believe Twain is trying to make in this novel.

For the purpose of exaggerating the effect of nurture on character, Twain must include two conflicting characters, two very opposite circumstances, and two resulting characters that are typical and indicative of their environment. The new Tom must be a brat because it exaggerates the stereotype of white males. In contrast, Chambers must be very subservient and good-natured because it exaggerates the effects of slavery. The two exist as extreme polar opposites to highlight the effects of the nurture on two boys who, at the beginning of the story, our detailed as being identical and even referred to as the same. The fact that they start so similar, but end up so different, is the point of this novel. , evidence against Twain’s racism exists in the fact that the child brought up by the white family is spoiled; while the child brought up by the black family is moral.

Also, the fact that white characters have better qualities than black characters is just an aspect of the plot that cannot be avoided. Pudd’nhead Wilson cannot be black, or else he would never have, in that time period, been able to enjoy his strange habits, get an education, or start a practice. I think the qualities of Roxy’s character are also central to the plot development. The fact that she is not very smart, and slightly immoral allows her character, her personality, to support Tom’s criminal behavior and to allow the switch to occur in the first place. To me, these characters exist as they are because they serve a purpose to the plot, and they exist as they are as some particular race also to support and progress the novel.

The social construction of race

Within Pudd'nhead Wilson, racism serves as an overaching theme that proves to be multi-faceted and sometimes difficult to grasp. The implied concept that stands out to me the most is that of race as a social construction independent of actual skin color. This is first evident in the large difference in treatment that Tom and Chambers receieve, a disparity that becomes glaringly apparent as the novel wears on. Another clear example is seen in the deportment of Roxy's character. Despite the fact that she shows no visible signs of being of African-American descent, Roxy is socially prohibited from identifying with or relating to other light-skinned individuals in Dawson's Landing. In assigning these differences to his characters, Twain is emphasizing the illogical nature of society's stratified system of racial classification and drawing attention to the absurdity of race-based social bias. All of the characters introduced in the novel were assigned the label of "white" or "black" at birth that are attached to social roles from which they cannot escape, all of which decide how far they can advance in their careers and with whom they are permitted to interact. These unspoken social rules have nothing to do with individual traits or accomplishments and everything to do with intangible concepts used to help the dominant group remain in power.

Twain and Religion

I love the excerpts from Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar at the beginning of each chapter. A lot of the quotations have definite religious meaning, particularly alluding to the garden of eden story. At first I thought this was kind of odd, especially since the book doesn't have strong religious undertones, but maybe that's the point.

I think the calendar quotations may sort of parallel the interjections Jane Austen made within Northanger Abbey; Twain's comments are just embedded into the text a bit more gently (sorry Austen, but you personal tangents were a bit disruptive to the novel's flow). In Northanger Abbey it seemed to me that Austen's use of disruptive anecdotes reflected her intense need to strongly articulate a particular point. The novel itself presents several themes about literature, but Austen seemed to have had such a need to be heard that she literally inserted herself into the text rather than trusting the plot or her characters to vivify her opinions.

In this sense I think Twain's use of the calendar differs a bit since the quotations don't actually disrupt the flow of the novel. However, the purpose seems the same. It seems to me that Twain is also very plainly inserting his own opinions and themes within the text. The calander allows him to make statements about life that may deviate slightly from the themes the plot is building, while still presenting a memorable opinion that is concise and often humorous.

That being said, maybe the religious comments in the calendar are not so much meant to parallel or strengthen a developing religious theme within the book. Perhaps Twain is simply using them as a medium of getting an opinion off his chest. This seems especially plausible when looking at Twain's own religious life. Though he was a Presbyterian, he often criticized organized religion; some of these quotations can definitely reflect that view. I read online that though he believed in God he didn't believe in an afterlife or the Bible as a divine revelation. Many of his statements, like i mentioned earlier, poke fun at Adam and Eve. That could definitely be interpreted as his criticism of organized religion.

With all this being said, I think Twain probably chose this medium to comment on religion as it is fairly non-confrontational. Because religion can be a delicate subject, Twain probably chose to shroud his opinions in harmless jokes, while still intending for them to leave an impression.

labels, labels, and more labels

it seems to me that alot of people chose to focus on the issue of nature vs. nurture in class today, but i took a different approach to the reading. i saw the problems as one of labels being placed on people. i thought that it was interesting how the two babies, one a slave, and one a master were so similar, yet they were treated completely different based on the labels of "slave" and "master". i think that Twain was showing how labels can have a tremendous effect on how people perceive you. this is evidenced by the fact that when the slave, Roxy switches the names aka labels of the children, no one catches on to this, which shows that there wasnt any distinguishable difference in the two. also this is noted in Puddnhead wilson's character, who is quite intelligent, yet no one in the town notices his intellect because they have stuck this label on him as an idiot, and thus they are blind to his real character due to the fact that labels carry these stereotypes which seem to be perpetuated by the people who do the labeling. it was also interesting how, slaves were supposed to be low class, and unintelligent, yet the only one that recognizes wilson's intelligence is Roxy, whom one would assume to be dumb.

Twain- The Reluctant Racist

"This gem...offers a fierce condemnation of racial prejudice and a society that condoned slavery" proclaims the writer of the back summary of Pudd'nhead Wilson. Unfortunately, I just don't see this novel as being solely against racism. It is true that Twain offers a strong argument for the fact that one's environment and childhood can strongly influence who they are as a person, thus foiling the justification for slavery that blacks were born as inferior beings. He also presents a very unfavorable picture of slavery as a whole, describing it as an unjust institution where mothers contemplate such extremes as killing their children and then committing suicide in order to avoid being sold. From this I can almost certainly conclude that Twain was opposed to slavery. However, does this mean he was opposed to racism? That is a separate matter.
Twain was raised in a society where it was almost considered scientific fact that non-whites were in some way inferior to caucasians. Even liberal, forward-thinking northerners who abhorred slavery and worked to end it usually did not believe that blacks were completely intellectually, physically, and morally equal to whites. Though Twain was certainly open-minded for his generation, he probably would have some small prejudices in the back of his mind. We can see this in the novel through the characters. Chambers AKA Tom is considered racially black, and he is probably the most morally corrupt character, caring little for others and actually behaving maliciously towards all. His mother Roxana is the only other non-white main character, and she is sneaky, somewhat unintelligent, and altogether unimpressive. The most morally sound and upstanding characters are Pudd'nhead Wilson and Tom AKA Chambers, both of whom are purely Caucasian. Maybe a coincidence, but I think this division shows what Twain unconsciously thought of non-whites.
While it is notable to consider the idea that nurture, or their upbringing, crafted fake Tom into a despicable person and fake Chambers into a moral one, this doesn't really make sense in the context of the novel. Tom was raised in the same manner as his uncle York, of whom he is put under the care of when his "father" dies. They both were wealthy white men, descended from the First Families of Virginia, practically considered nobility at this time. However, his authentically white uncle turns out to be a relatively fair and good man, while Tom is simply selfish. On the other hand, Chambers is treated in much the same manner as his fellow slave Roxana, but he turns out much more considerate and respectably humble than her. This shows how, although Twain certainly wanted to be a free-thinking, liberal man, he inevitably tended towards a slightly racist perspective.

Discussion Summary

The most interesting thing to consider, I think, is the question of nature vs. nurture and how it pertains to Pudd’nhead Wilson. If Roxy had not switched the children at birth would their personalities remain similar and the only thing to change would be their names and status or would everything be switched, names personality, and status. Also, what exactly which one did Mark Twain have in mind when writing the book. If it is a critique of slavery, than he probably intended for the reader to believe that it is nurture that is more important and ultimately what caused the children to develop the way they did. However, as Ms. Ross said on Monday, not everybody sees the slavery critique and so some people may assume that the children’s personalities are as they would have been had they not been switched. Another interesting part was “Tom,” who is actually the real Chambers, reaction to finding out he is a slave. It seems to change the way he sees himself, his “father,” the other slaves, “Chamber” (who is actually Tom). But this changed view doesn’t seem to last. His life returns back to relative normality and he goes back to St. Louis to gamble again. Has he actually changed or was it only the shock of first finding out that changed his view of slavery and now that the shock has faded he has gone back to being his normal self.

So the discussion was mainly people talking about their personal opinions on nature vs. nurture and how that caused them to interpret the book differently. I think that what we really should focus on is finding evidence in the text to suggest that Mark Twain was intending for nature or nurture to play a bigger part in Tom and Chambers personalities. We also touched on labels and how even though they identify a certain person as belonging to this group of people or that group of people that does not mean that the person innately belongs to this or that group. A lot of people in this book are placed into groups that they don't really belong in because of the labels that they have received from those around them or labels that they have placed upon themselves.

Mystery Enjoyment

I believe that this series of short stories that we are reading truly highlight what this class is about. Sherlock Holmes was something I saw myself engaging in more than most of the other books that we were reading. In classes past we talked about being able to accept the narrator perception as being true, and I feel like Sherlock Holmes was easiest to accept. The reason why I say this is because there is no emotional lock in for the narration, which I believe to be the easiest approach to believe. Facts about what was going on came from a neutral party that was just trying get to a resolution to the various deaths. I believe the problems with the last novels (Wieland, True History of the Kelly Gang) is that our narrator had the temptation to either press a detail to the extreme, or come short on some details that needed to be given. I believe that Sherlock Holmes was definitely the perfect perspective needed to fully indulge into the story. And it was a plus that I love the future adaption television show as a child.

Gender Stereotypes in A Jury of Her Peers

I think it's interesting that A Jury of Her Peers, while it certainly empowers the female characters, perpetuates several common female stereotypes. I'm not arguing that these stereotypes turn out to be bad traits in the women in the story, I'm just saying that they're there.

The most obvious gender stereotype presented to me in the story is the emotional investment that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters have in the case. This presents a stark contrast to Holmes, who always performs his detection with a high degree of professionalism and an unbiased approach. In particular, Mrs. Hale came into the case knowing the accused very well, and her attachment only grew as the case unraveled. Eventually, their bias leads them to hide evidence that would incriminate their friend. This could be viewed as a perpetuation of the stereotype that women's emotional nature inhibit their ability to be rational.

That being said, their emotional investment doesn't hinder their ability to actually solve the case, only their ability to present it unbiasedly in court. The women actually go into the case with a completely open mind, willing to consider anything and everything as evidence. They are able to think rationally and clearly about the evidence they find, and draw conclusions based on an objective approach rather than on their attachment to their friend. The men, on the other hand, have a very closed view of the case, and think that the "evidence" that the women are considering is silly. Their emotion only comes into play when they hide the bird in order to prevent their friend from being convicted. Their emotion did not hinder their examination of the case, but their sympathy caused them to tamper with evidence, which, depending on your view of the story, could be a positive or negative trait.

A Jury of Her Peers a.k.a Let's Help Our Oppressed Sister Get Away with Murder

So the plot of this story was pretty good. It's a classic murder mystery, and while the men, who are trained police officers, go looking for evidence, the women find the actual evidence because they are women and understand the mind of the suspect. They know what it feels to be an oppressed woman living in a society of men and they know why the suspect murdered her husband and why she did it with a rope when there was a gun available. So far so good. The women have solved the murder mystery confirming that the prime suspect did indeed have motive to kill her husband, but then the story takes an interesting turn. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters relate so much Mrs. Wright, the suspect, that they decide not to tell their husbands the about the evidence they found that would surely land Mrs. Wright in jail. What? This woman, like many women at the time, is clearly oppressed and angry at her husband. She is also very clearly INSANE. A lot of people feel like they have been treated wrongly and are angry. Not a lot of people go around murdering their spouses in cold blood. The idea that these two women feel that Mrs. Wright was justified in her actions indicates that they too are probably crazy and need to be sent to an asylum before they too murder their husbands. There are plenty of things that are illegal but not necessarily immoral, interfering with a murder investigation which is already on the right track to convicting the guilty murderer is not one of those things. I understand the point that is trying to be made about women and how they are being oppressed by men, I just think that a feminist author should think before writing about a couple of women who help cover up a murder.

Elementary, My Dear Watson

I found the Sherlock Holmes novel interesting in the fact that the methods used to create mystery were somewhat undeveloped. As opposed to slipping in small clues in order for the reader to figure out what the mystery is, the Mr. Doyle just straight up doesn't tell us things. There is no possible way we could have figured out the mystery based on the clues he gave us. One thing the that wasn't forgotten, however, was Sherlock's brilliance in regards to the case. Holmes is clearly established as the impossibly smart and observant king of detectives.

So the mystery part if the novel was almost juvenile. It explains why Doyle's name and books aren't near as famous as his character. He wasn't the greatest mystery writer, he just happened to create the greatest mystery solver of all time.

I Miss Encyclopedia Brown...

So, I've always wanted to read Sherlock Holmes stories (especially after seeing the move - it's totally uncool to like a movie without appreciating the literature it's based off of) and now I finally have. I'm honestly a little disappointed. I enjoyed the story, don't get me wrong, but this is meant to be some of the best detective writing ever. It's good, but I'm irked by the ultimately opaque nature of the crime. Seriously, I used to be a big encyclopedia brown buff, and those cases were seriously well constructed. Granted, they always had to do with a stolen piece of bubble gum (which you can't be prosecuted for) rather than murder, but I miss the true mystery.

The way Holmes solved this was impressive, but also a little to ridiculous. It's awesome that our hero can pick the correct snake out of an endless bag of possibilities, given the clues of an air vent and a rope. It's impressive that he can whip a snake in the dark to the point where it doesn't lash out at him but instead crawls back through a vent and then releases it's "snakish temper" upon the guilty party. But doesn't that seem a little far fetched?

When I used to turn to the back of my encyclopedia brown books, I would see all of the clues laid out before me, but not understand. Then, Encyclopedia would release his 'encyclopedic wit' and bedazzle me with a solution. I would always go "oh! If only I had been smart enough to see it that way." I missed that feeling while reading about the greatest detective of all time.

Holmes and Mrs. Hale

The first difference between the two detective stories is the motivations of the protagonist. Holmes is motivated "rather for the love of his art than for the acquirement of wealth, he refused to associate himself with any investigation which did not tend towards the unusual, and even the fantastic"(142). In the Adventure of the Speckled Band, Holmes tells his client that "As to reward, my profession is its own reward"(142). Mrs. Hale, on the other hand, is drawn to her case because "Time and time again it had been in her mind, 'I ought to go over and see Minnie Foster' -- she still thought of her as Minnie Foster, though for twenty years she had been Mrs. Wright"(257). From this quotation, we can tell that Mrs. Hale had known Mrs. Wright long ago and feels some guilt for not visiting or being in contact with Mrs. Wright. Thus, the major difference between the two detectives is that Holmes has no relation to the victim while Mrs. Hale knows the victim and feels somewhat guilty. As we keep reading, another difference becomes evident. Mrs. Hale had already arrived at the conclusion of the crime when she went with everyone to Mrs. Wright's house. Throughout the short story, Mrs. Hale tries frame her hints and responses such that Mrs. Wright appears in a good light. When asked about whether the Wright family got along, Mrs. Hale quickly averted her gaze and hinted that Mr. Wright was in the wrong(265). Holmes on the other hand, approaches the conclusion by using evidence. From the sister's statement that she could smell the cigar of the doctor in such a shut room, Holmes came to the conclusion that the two rooms must connect. Holmes then checked the doctor's room and found the ventilator, and so on. One evidence leads to another and finally Holmes pieces the evidences together to form a conclusion. Perhaps, the most important idea to take from these two stories is that the Holme's story is actually a detective story while the Jury of her peers merely uses elements of a detective story. After all, I feel like the most important part of a real detective is that he should not be tied down by emotion.

Same but different, sorta kinda, but not really.

I think that the two stories are drastically different even though they are both detective stories. Gender certainly plays a role in the way the stories are told, but let’s keep in account that Sherlock Holmes is a professional detective that has had great success in his profession. It is the thing he loves above everything else. It is referenced throughout that he doesn’t care for the money, he more so desires the challenge and satisfaction of solving mysteries. While he and Watson are fearlessly looking for answers in their story, Helen and Mrs. Peters are stumbling into clues as they tend to Mrs. Wrights kitchen and collect items to deliver her at her place of detainment.
These two ladies are not detectives; they have no intentions of solving any crime whatsoever. One is there to collets the items for Mrs. Wright the other is there to keep her company. Mrs. Hale even states as they converse about the quilt, the bird, and cats “If they’re going to find any evidence, I wish they’d be about it, I don’t like this place,” Pretty Ironic. It is by luck that they come across the clues they do find and by female intuition that they piece the puzzle together. So in their case they were two non-detectives who assumed what had occurred, a mystery solved unintentionally. If the story had started out stating that the two ladies were going to take it upon themselves to find out what happened there would have been a drastic difference in the story but maybe it would have read more like the Sherlock tale.
I don’t believe that if Sherlock had been put on the case of the murder of Mr. Wright and had come to the exact same conclusion, that Minnie Foster had suffocated the life out of her husband to avenge the death of her beloved bird, he would have hid evidence in an effort to keep her out of prison. I believe that regardless of how he felt, he would resist the temptation to play the role of juror and kept to his role as detective.
But that brings up another point; Sherlock wouldn’t have done so because his profession demands that he stay impartial. But Helen and Mrs. Peters aren’t professional detectives, they’re housewives. Housewives just like Mrs. Wright who empathized with what she was going through because they were going through or had gone through similar events to a lesser degree.

Detectives and Gender

Although we discussed this topic in class on Friday, it was the main thing that was on my mind when reading both of these short stories. It's funny to me how two different interpretations of the same event may lead to the same conclusion, but make an entire different story in the process. Being a huge fan of mysteries, I may have had preconceived notions about this concept. Both Nancy Drew books and the Veronica Mars tv series emphasized the female attributes of a detective-- their focus on emotional attachment, close observance of relationships and behavior, and basing a lot of their research off of hunches or instincts are all distinct from the natural methods of men. The difference in the two short stories makes this clear, but it is also perfectly epitomized in the show "Law and Order: SVU." The team of detectives is composed of one male and one female--Elliot and Olivia. Their success in solving these mysteries is completely based on the fact that they have the best of both worlds--Elliot focuses on mere facts and solid evidence, whereas Olivia is able to look into the depths of emotional reactions and relationships. It may be that they would be able to solve these problems on their own, but being exposed to the other's thought processes definitely speeds up the solving as a whole.

In my opinion, the difference between males and females in detective work can be traced back to the fact that their brains just work in completely different ways. I'm not sure who, but a male comedian recently had an entire skit based off of this concept. He claims that a man's brain is like a filing system-- when they want to talk about cars, they take out the car file. When they're done it goes right back into its place. No overlap with any other subject. Women's brains on the other hand, resemble a huge spider web--every single topic is connected to one another through emotional attachments. This would explain the fact based detective styles of men and the more instinctual and emotional search that seems to be common in women.

Sherlock Holmes' Character and a Symbolic Bird

I enjoyed reading the suspenseful and engaging short stories, especially after completing Northanger Abbey. While reading “The Adventure of the Speckled Band,” I was surprised by Sherlock Holmes’ final reaction after he and Dr. Watson found Dr. Roylott dead in his room. Sherlock Holmes stated that he knew a snake was the cause of the problem before ever going into Dr. Roylott’s room (158). For some reason, I find this hard to believe. Even though the evidence did prove that a snake caused the deaths of both Dr. Roylott and his daughter, I cannot see how Sherlock Holmes would have been able to determine this without first examining the room. As a reader, this allows us to better understand Sherlock Holmes’ character and personality. I believe Sherlock Holmes was trying to make himself seem like a better detective by telling Dr. Watson that he always knew a snake was at the root of the killings.

In our discussion in class yesterday (10/20/2010), we discussed the bird as being a symbol in “A Jury of Her Peers.” First, we discover that a bird was missing in the Wright house and that its cage had been forced open (273). Next, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters find the dead bird covered in silk inside of a box (276-277). I believe that this bird was killed by Mr. Wright in order to anger Mrs. Wright (Minnie Foster). Mr. Wright killing the bird symbolizes the dominance he felt that he possessed over his wife at this time. Therefore, I believe Mrs. Wright then killed her husband as an act of retaliation to show that women are equal, if not superior, to men.

Up next: "Jury of her Peers" only on Lifetime, televison for women

When I was reading "A Jury of her Peers" I felt like it was comparable to a Lifetime movie. My feelings stem from the ways in which the characters were presented. Having the men and women separated into two distinct groups and then having everyone behave in such a stereotypical fashion gave it that feel. Like many movies on Lifetime, the women are in submissive role to the men, but end up out smarting them in the end. The women were also really emotionally invested in the scene and in Mrs. Wright's predicament while the men could have cared less about her. The fact that Mrs. Hale kept repeating over and over again that she should have went to visit Mrs. Wright added to the tense emotion that the women were experiencing. I found the scene at page break 279 when the women were discussing the dead bird, the fact that Mrs. Wright "cried" the line "Oh, I wish I'd come over here once in a while! That was a crime! That was a crime! Who's going to punish that?" makes the women's dialog all the more dramatic.
Going back to the men, I feel like their role was to make the women look smarter. The point of any Lifetime movie is to empower women, so to have the men be so dismissive of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter really contributed to this feeling. When the men were basically poking fun at the women for studying the quilt, it made them look like arrogant jerks. They felt that they were doing important work by looking for clues in the bedroom and the barn, but they failed to notice all of the minor inconsistencies that turned out to be crucial in the end. Had they not been so condescending to the women, maybe they would have been willing to share their some of their thoughts. So yeah, this could totally be on Lifetime!

Sexism in A Jury of Her Peers

Throughout A Jury of Her Peers, underlying tones of sexism and gender tension can be seen frequently. The men in this short story makes constant accusations about how the women care about trivial things and fail to recognize what's really important. We can clearly recognize this accusation as Mr. Peters says, "Well, can you beat the women! Held for murder, and worrying about her preserves!" (264). Specifically, he is referring to Minnie Foster here, but he uses the plural version of "women" not "woman", thus implying that all women worry about such trivial things as preserves even when faced with life-threatening situations like being accused of murder. Mr. Hale goes on to fuel this clear stereotype as he proclaims, "Women are used to worrying over trifles."

The women, especially Martha Hale, experience anger as these men ridicule their sex. For instance, after the men have ridiculed females for their inattention to details, Martha has to release "herself from something strange," implying that Martha's anger is that "something strange," which she feels as these men clearly judge and ridicule all women (266). This is just one example of the gender tension that occurs throughout the short story.

What's ironic about all this sexism and belief that men are superior to women is that it is the women who discover the evidence that would suggest a motive for Mrs. Wright to kill her husband. Mr Hale states, "But would the women know a clue if they did come upon it?" (266). This disdainful remark suggests that women are too stupid and worry about too trivial things to notice a clue when they see one. However, it is the women who discover the strangeness in Minnie's quilt, Minnie's failure to finish her chores, and finally the dead bird, which Minnie loved so much. They discover the motive and evidence that Minnie was extremely stressed and Mr. Wright's murder of her bird would have pushed her over the limit. Meanwhile, the men are busy looking for obvious clues around the house, such as a blood stain, or a note, or anything that would clearly point to Minnie as the murderer. This clearly ironic situation serves to disprove the men's disdainful accusations about women and questions the view that men are superior to women.

Concrete vs. Fickle

To go off of what we were talking about in class yesterday, I noticed another distinction between male and female detection in the stories we read. The female detection seems to be so much more inferior and doesn't matter as much. The evidence Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Wright found in "A Jury of Her Peers" didn't appear to be as concrete as what Sherlock Holmes found. One large distinction is that Holmes' answer and solution was clear whereas the truth of the case in "A Jury of Her Peers" was implied but never confirmed.

I think this is to place an emphasis on the concreteness of masculinity and the supposed fickleness of women (according to the general stereotype). Someone in class yesterday mentioned that the traditional roles and stereotypes were displayed in the two stories, and I agree. The conclusions in each story played more with the generalization of men and women. Holmes was focused on discovering facts and getting to the truth of the matter and Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Wright were more emotionally invested in what they found, though they were not searching for clues like Holmes was. The women did not come to immediate conclusions and it could be said that this demonstrates fickleness and lack of concreteness in decision making and reasoning.

Blog Summary

Perhaps the most recurring theme among the posts this week was the argument as to whether or not Catherine is naïve and oblivious to the people she has relationships with, or if she is just extremely tolerant and should be commended for being so. Many posts, even when discussing other subjects, still brought up how Catherine was too stupid to understand what was going on. Robert brought up that Isabella turns out to be a gold-digger, but that Catherine doesn’t see this. I brought up that Catherine doesn’t understand the allusions Tilney and General Tilney make to her marrying Henry. (Both Abby and I bring up the rose vs. hyacinth allusion, where Tilney is hoping Catherine will perhaps develop a love for him as she develops her love of flowers to encompass a rose). Madolyn also brings up the point that Catherine goes from one extreme (not being able to pick up on these social cues while in Bath) to the other extreme of over analyzing chests and passageways in Northanger Abbey. She is inconsistent in the way she perceives the world.
However, Jasmine and Julie both like Catherine and think her to be someone relatable and just not yet old enough to understand social graces. They also believe her to merely be extremely tolerant of those people around her. Kristel also agrees in terms of Catherine being more a subject of a coming-of-age novel, like Ned and Clara were.


My questions are this:
• Though we have discussed it many times, is it partial to think that, even at age 17, we are unable to pick up on social graces? Does the time period excuse Catherine of this at all?
• What about this “stark indifference?” Does Catherine really go from one extreme to the other?
• Now that we are done with the novel, do we find it at all more relatable?
• How do the letters exactly fit into point of view, and do they help Catherine realize the true characters of her friends now that she is not influenced by their presence?

Blog Summary

After reading the blog this week the only one theme that I say commented on in more than one post was that of Catherine’s naïve mind. Both Robert and Ashley commented on how they felt that Catherine was naïve and maybe not the smartest person. While Ashley commented on her naivety in the context of how even in the face of General Tilney’s obvious allusions to marriage, Robert commented on how Catherine seemed to be the only character who does not see the true character of Isabella, who he also claims is a gold-digger. Contrasting these two blog posts, Julia and Jasmine commented on Catherine’s attributes and how we should give her a break. Jasmine made an interesting point by saying that Catherine is young and may be acting as naïve as she is based on the fact that she has not experienced much of world or of society. Then in a sort of middle ground between thinking that Catherine is stupid and that she is awesome we have Ryan. Ryan posted saying that while how Catherine acts may seem stupid to us, based on all the relevant information she had she is making correct assumptions. Another blog post I found interesting and insightful was Madolyn’s post pointing out Catherine’s incongruence and the two extremes of her actions at different times in the book.
Also both Maria and Holly posted on the subject of narration. Holly posted expanding on our discussion on Wednesday about point of view, saying that the narration is Northanger Abbey is that of a third person limited where the narrator is focusing on Catherine’s thoughts. Maria posted on a different aspect of narration saying that maybe the narrator makes Catherine so average and plan in order for her to be easier to relate to for the audience. Abby posted a close reading of a paragraph from page 137 comparing Catherine’s newfound appreciation for the hyacinth to her newfound understanding of relationships and love. While on the other hand her under appreciation for the rose might stem from the fact that one cannot learn to love but has to discover it themselves rather than learn to love. Tate discusses the definition of a heroine and how Catherine does not fit the conventional definition of this term. He also mentions that there is not an opportunity presented in the book for Catherine to step up and become a heroine or “save the day.” Last but not least, Kristel discusses how every book we have read up to this point, including Northanger Abbey, have been coming of age stories. She compares Northanger Abbey to high school and how Catherine’s life seems like a coming of age high school story.

Coming of Age? Again...?

Maybe, it is just me, but I feel that every novel we have read thus far has had a underlying theme that refers back to "coming of age." With Wieland, The True History of the Kelly Gang, and Northanger Abbey, each story tells of how the main character almost jumps into the reality of the world and they grow up within just a few chapters. Differing from The True History of the Kelly Gang, I see Clara and Catherine as very similar characters. Though Clara is obviously more worldly and knowledgeable than Catherine is, they are both naive to the horrors of the real world. Catherine, hers being a little less mature than the experiences of Clara. Catherine's life almost reminds me of a high-schoolers life. She experiences the pressures of her peers when Isabella and the boys want her to go on carriage rides. At the end of the novel, as the narration is coming to an end, we are able to note that the journey she has endured has been her coming of age story. Trying to find her future husband, through these superficial balls, was her journey, and then the people she has encountered, Isabella and Tilney have helped her find herself.

Catherine follows rational expectation theory

When Catherine first arrives at the Abby, she traps herself into her own fictional delusion. In our discussions in class and on the blog, many people point to this scene as proof of Catherine's idiocy. However, it is important to realize that Catherine's thoughts and actions followed rational expectation theory, and thus we should not be so quick to write her off as stupid.

Prior to arriving at the Abby, Catherine's only information on such places is from novels - particularly Gothic novels that describe mysteries and murders in such places. While novels are by no means a credible source, the credibility of the information is irrelevant. What is important to rational expectation theory is that Catherine uses all available information to her before making a future forecast or expectation. Because Catherine's only information on castles and abbys are through novels, she is still being rational by expecting the Northanger Abby to have similar properties to those she has read about.

Furthermore, when Catherine is on the carriage ride to Northanger Abby, Henry gives her more information on what the abby is like. He tricks her into thinking it is a spooky and dark place. Catherine takes this information into account, as evidence of the fact she searched for the things Henry described as soon as she arrived into her room. When Catherine finds a dresser that matches the description of the one given by Henry, she assumes his information to be credible and in par with every other peice of information she knows about abbys. She then comes to the conclusion that something dangerous is happening and gets super suspicious. Once she realizes that thee is nothing of interest in the abby, she sees her error and becomes so embarrassed and chills out. Was what she did stupid? yes. Irrational? no.

ps does anything happen in this book?

That's what I get...

I should have taken Kevin's advice and not judged the book by its cover. There isn't a single situation within it that involves four women sitting around a table reading books by candlelight in extreme suspense.
I kept on waiting and waiting for it to happen but it never did. I thought the women on the cover were Isabella, Catherine, Eleanor, and Mrs. Allen. Nonetheless I was wrong. But as the conversation we had regarding this was about the power of literature within the story, it still holds true.
There the obvious one, Radcliffe's Udolpho, of which Catherine indulged in a little too much and fell in love with the ideas withing the book. In the initial days of her stay at the abbey it felt as she were longing for something to happen in the way of horror/suspense.
Then there were the washbills that Catherine found in the guest room. It was a bit corny but I found it funny that things were kinda happening to Catherinealmost exactly as Henry had described in his oracle-like predictions he had made in jest on their way to the abbey. The notes had a sense of power in our/Catherine's not knowing of what they were. The fact they they could have contained the whereabouts of the Holy Grail or,as was the the case, nothing at all created a suspense both we the readers and Catherine the character could experience.(133-134)
Then there were the letters written. They themselves became the narrator at times. In this time-period the fact that letters were the dominant and most conventional means of communication, and that one had to wait days for a response alone would magnify the level of importance and suspense. The letters written offered us the emotions of both the writer and the reader. The characters also put forth their personalities in their letters. Catherine and James are truthful and polite, whereas Isabella's and Gen. Tilney's are disingenuous.(159,170,186,198)

Action? Please?

We have had many discussions in class, contemplating the intended audience for this novel with many saying it was directed towards females, or that females might enjoy it more than males. I, being in female, can say that I found this book, not boring, but bland. While they did discuss a lot about fashion, balls , and carriage rides I found no real interest in any of this subject matter. The only thing I found kind of interesting was when John Thorpe told Catherine all about his horse because that was something I could relate to. Which is one reason why I think a lot of people had trouble relating to this story, nothing in the story was really relevant to today's society. While many of the things discussed are relevant they have all been modernized to fit into today's society.
Another thing that made this story difficult for me to relate to is the fact that nothing happens, as we discussed in class the book is not-action oriented. Honestly I feel that that is an understatement. Every time that Catherine created some sort of situation in her mind, like in the novel she was reading, I found myself getting really excited that maybe some sort of crime was going to be discovered. While in the back of my mind I was thinking, wow she is being really dramatic there was a small part of me that wanted it to be true, just so there was some action in the book. While I did find it slightly more interesting when they transported the story to the Abbey, but with the change of scenery nothing really dramatic happened. However I still have about 15 pages left to read, so maybe before the end someone will die and Catherine will solve their murder. One can only hope.

Stop Hating on Cathrine!

Everyone needs to stop acting like they have never been in Cathrine's position. I think it is easy to say that Cathrine is dumb or an idiot when one is looking from a bird's eye view and the narrator is putting in extra details onto every comment made, back ground info etc. Those little descriptions don't happen in real life. As a reader we have time to stop and realize something someone said is mean, but Cathrine is actually in the mix with all this. I think its safe to say that everyone has been deceived by someone you really thought was your friend, a boy or a girl like you and you did not realize they did. Sometimes even other people tell you that person is not good or that person really likes you ( like your parents). I know there are friends I had in middle school, that I am like, "did I really hang out with that person?!" I know that Isabella is close to our age but really you have to think of her like a freshmen in high school or something because she has not really gotten to understand how the social world works.

Cathrine is in a new place, shes there in Bath trying to have fun to have fun, she is excited, this is her first time out in the real world she is not paying attention to everyone's every word, shes desperate to find someone she knows. I am sorry but if I went to Miami by my self and didn't know anyone and I finally found some friends I would probably subconsciously look over some of their nuances es so I could have a good time. We know Isabella is a egocentric witch because we have dealt with lots egocentric witches in our lives, Cathrine has not and I think that we should give her a break. I am very proud of her because once someone's ways have been revealed she doesn't just forgive them like a little lap dog. She has a very distinct moral code like Ned. For example when Isabella writes her letter, despite Isabella's plea to innocence, she stands by her brother and realizes that Isabella has no heart (173). We have all met our first Isabella before and probably got played,but then we learned from our mistake, let Cathrine learn from her's and stop hating! lol

Catherine is AWESOME!!

Ok so a lot of people are talking crap about Catherine but I really like her and her attributes for many reasons:

1. She is different. Catherine is unlike any girl during this time. She plays in the dirt and plays sports and is still a "girl" (9). She still wears dresses and tries to look pretty when most girls like this are "butchy" so guys should be throwing themselves at Catherine because she is so cool and can actually relate to them. She is not afraid to not fit into the normal mold of a girl which takes a lot of courage.

2. She has an imagination. Her imagination is what makes her so interesting. She gets excited about the littlest of things and is overjoyed and happy about everything. Although she sometimes over exaggerates this makes her that much more interesting. If she was boring and never excited, this book would never be read. When she is curious about the chest and the cabinet, if she just said "there is a chest and cabinet in my room and I don't care what is in it" and described all events in this way then this book would be like 5 pages (134). Her imagination and curiosity makes her unique and fun.

3. She is passionate. Not only does she have an imagination but she is passionate as well. We see this in two specific example, one being when she tells Isabella she will not go on the ride and again when she receives the letter from her brother about his broken engagement. I believe, unlike Isabella, that Catherine is a good friend to have. If she believes something is wrong, she cannot be persuaded. Also, if she loves you then you will never have any worries of her not being there for you.

4. She is tolerant. I know most people believe she is stupid, but I think she is just tolerant. She is smart and I think that if Catherine were the narrator we might be able to see more of her actually being tolerant rather than naive. I like that Catherine is willing to give everyone a chance. Most people are reluctant and are easy to judge, however, Catherine is one of the few that does not. She even tries to give General Tilney a chance and not judge him by her first impression. John Thorpe even gets a chance even though he an arrogant *****. She is a VERY good person to be able to deal with Isabella!

Needless to say, I think Catherine is awesome and I can definitely relate to her.

Catherine You Are So Dumb. You Are Really Dumb, Forreal.

In class Wednesday, David brought up the extremely interesting fact of Catherine’s stark incongruence. Surprisingly, I had not noticed, but once David made the matter known, it was glaringly obvious.

When we are first introduced to Catherine, our general perception of her is that she is oblivious. To be more specific, Catherine is unaware of subtle social cues, and subtle suggestions that provide insight into characters and relationships.

The first example is her inability to realize John Thorpe’s feelings for her. When Catherine is in the company of John Thorpe, the circumstance is akin to a “double-date” of sorts with Isabella and James. His overconfidence and inconsistencies are typical of a man trying to impress a woman, however Catherine is not familiar with this kind of behavior, and is thus unable to identify it as such. To the reader, John Thorpe’s insinuations about marriage to Catherine blatantly suggest his wishes. Coupled with his “fidget[ing] about” and his being “wholly self-occupied” (100), it is clear that John Thorpe loves Catherine. He says, “And I hope-I hope, Miss Morland, you will not be sorry to see me” (101). To which Catherine innocently replies, “Company is always cheerful” (101), completely disregarding any reference to his person in particular at all. When she is informed by Isabella of John’s feelings, she responds with “all the earnestness of truth (113) that “[she] never was sensible of them for a moment” (113).

On the other hand, once Catherine arrives at Northanger Abbey, she goes from suspecting nothing, to finding reason to suspect in the most trivial of matters; from something as simple as suspecting a chest (129) or a drawer (134) to concocting this extraordinary scheme of the murder of Mrs. Tilney by General Tilney. Once Catherine discovered that the late Mrs. Tilney’s portrait did not hang in General Tilney’s bedroom, Catherine concludes, “Here was another proof” (143). Furthermore, she decides that “he must have been dreadfully cruel to her (143)! More ‘evidence’ is found when General Tilney prevents her entering a particular room (147), for the room is most definitely where “the dreadful scene had passed” (147).