*sigh* Let's Talk about Rape

I wanna start by saying that I enjoyed this book. It was really interesting, it was thrilling, and creepy as all get out. But going from Pride and Prejudice to Dracula really made the disappointing quality of the female characters in this novel glaringly obvious. So, who are the female characters in this novel? Lucy, Lucy's mother, Mina, and the three vampire brides. First, Lucy's mother is just a bafoon, and largely one of reasons that Lucy ends up dead. Then, let's look at the remaining five characters. The main purpose they serve in this universe was to be figuratively raped by the Count. Yes, I said rape. What the Count does to them is an unwanted, penetrative act that leaves these woman forever changed. There has always been a sexual tone to vampire stories, so the scenes between Mina and Count Dracula have a very "rape-y" feeling to them. Additionally, after the scene with Mina, Dracula, and Jonathan, when Mina is burned by the Communion wafer,  she claims that she is "unclean." This idea is one that is often shared by many initial sexual assault victims because of the trauma that has been forced upon them.

Then, lets think about the differences between the male vampires (the only one we have in the novel is Dracula) and the female vampires (Lucy, the brides, and sort of Mina). Dracula is sentient. He is aware of his surroundings and he is smart. He plans things out meticulously enough to transport 50 boxes of dirt to 4 different locations for safe keeping. Meanwhile, the female vampires are animalistic. They don't seem to be able to control themselves.  Lucy especially does not attempt to hide herself when she is hunting and is see by so many that she earns a nickname for herself. I've always been a big fan of the movie Van Helsing and I really love the Vampire Brides in that movie, but now because of this book, I worry that I'm never going to look at them the same way again because they are just not strong characters.

The Good, the Bad, and the Misunderstood

I was really excited to read Susan Greenfield's article. I think I've always been a bit annoyed by the obsession with Mr.Darcy, and I'm even more puzzled by it after reading the book. I just couldn't
understand why he became this literary heart throb. I'm not really a fan. The reasons I enjoyed this book had nothing to do with the "romance" aspect and everything to do with the snarky commentary and the variety of female characters. In an interesting twist, the men are kind of just objects in this book. So, it was really refreshing to see that Greenfield shared my opinion on this. In addition, I appreciate that she took the time to explain where the Darcy-heartthrob-phenomenon originated from, which is that BBC miniseries, which certainly has its strong points but misses the mark on other topics, like Mr.Darcy.

This brings me to my next point, which is the fan fiction. The pieces of fanfiction that I read are the embodiment of this misunderstanding of Mr.Darcy which was brought about by that miniseries. The Rated R fics and "Mr.Darcy Steals a Kiss" are particularly strong examples of this--I will focus on the latter. While this fan fiction does have some redeeming features in that it does focus on some of Lizzie's inner dialogue. Her mother is still very much in the picture and she is still pretty crazy. She attempts to give her daughters marriage advice which she obviously has never followed herself and Lizzie points this out. However, this is the extent of Lizzie's inward thought. This is the extent of Lizzie interesting dialogue. The rest if ewwy, gooey, gushy, lovey dialogue between Lizzie and Darcy as he tells her that she talks to much and plots to shut her up with a romantic kiss. -gag- This is not what Austen would have ever done with these characters, in my opinion. I wasn't surprised when I got to the bottom of the page to find that this was posted on "Firthness" in reference to Collin Firth who played Mr.Darcy in the miniseries. So we've come full circle to explain why we have Darcy the heartthrob appearing in this fan fiction, because it is not Austen's Darcy, but Firth's Darcy.

Finally some action!

Not that I'm not liking the plot of Pride and Prejudice, but it is nice to finally see some conflict that is  not created by Mrs. Bennet's neurosis. While I'm disappointed in Lydia, I can't say I'm surprised in the least. All the signs were there in the way she was constantly doting on the military men. Given this new type of conflict I'm much more interested in finishing the novel now, but the more I think about this, the more I have to ask why this makes my interest any different than Mrs. Bennet's. Lydia isn't in any real danger. Sure, Wickaham is an ass and he's probably going to leave this poor girl broken and shamed, but the only thing in danger here is the Bennet's reputation, which has been the case the entire novel. Why do I suddenly feel different? Is it because there is now someone in the novel more dislikable than Darcy? Because Wickham is so nasty, he needs to be punished. Darcy was just dislikable, so there was never going to be a solid solution to that. Wickham's indiscretions require action and timely action at that.

While we're on the topic of Darcy, I'm still not quite understanding why he is the way he is--that is, two-faced. Why is he so rude when he's at Netherfield, but so kind at Pemberly? I would almost understand his rudeness and distrust of the lower class after the incident with Wickham and Georgina, but it does not explain his two completely different personalities. Suddenly after this reading, Darcy is a knight in shining armor?! What happened?! I'm not buying it.

I'm not even old but you all made me feel old.

So, I've always been really into game shows, and I'm not just talking about "Jeopardy" or the "Price is Right" (though I do still love watching those). I mean all the game shows. I grew up watching them. I would go to my grandmas when I was little and get really excited to watch and play "Shop Till You Drop." When I was home sick from school, I was always watching Game Show Network--"Card Sharks," "Press Your Luck," "$100,000 Pyramid," "Password" and more. I absolutely love them. I guess I'm an old lady at heart. So, yesterday, when people seemed confused about the activity, all I could think was, "This is just 'To Tell the Truth'," but nobody even knew about it. From wikipedia, I've gotten so basic info--most important being that the show has been airing since 1956, and that "the show is one of two game shows in the United States to have aired at least one new episode in at least seven consecutive decades." I've included an old episode below, with an all time favorite--Dick Van Dyke.

So, you can see, the activity that we participated in yesterday was basically the same thing. We used the same investigative tools that the celebrity panel uses.

But I didn't want to make this post just to point out the game show. That would give us nothing to even talk about when it comes to this class. So I just want to talk about game shows in general. Every game requires a certain amount of knowledge, a certain amount of investigation, and a certain amount of strategy. "Jeopardy" requires trivia knowledge, "Password" requires vocabulary knowledge, "The Price is Right" requires product knowledge, and "Card Sharks" requires knowledge of probability. No one goes into these games unprepared, sometimes, even the audience is included in this statement.  

Like Sherlock Holmes, game shows were created with the express purpose of entertainment after the day to day drudge. Like Sherlock Holmes, the reader/viewer has the opportunity to participate. When Sherlock is compiling information about the human anatomy, contestants on "The Price is Right"are compiling information about the prices of every day items. Sherlock must observe small details at crime scenes, while contestants need to observe the prices of items that they might not even be buying. The contestants start to use reason to understand why some things cost more than other, and more. I know it's hard to think of the overly-excited contestants on "The Price is Right" or other game shows as Sherlock-like characters, but in many ways they are.

I Feel Like I Should Have Been On Drugs

From beginning to end, watching West Side Story was a psychedelic roller coaster. For the first five minutes, I actually though the DVD I borrowed may have been so old that it didn't work anymore because it was just lines and changing colors for so long. Obviously, the director's choice of lighting and trippy scene transitions isn't as important to our discussion as the choices he made when it came to adapting Romeo and Juliet. Since we will be discussing a minimum of three things we liked about this adaptation in class(though three was the maximum for me), I will use this post to talk about the things that I did not like.

• I actually felt the need to take a side from the beginning. I think one of the things in Romeo and Juliet that is so important is we don't know why they were fighting, and we don't feel the need to take a side. From the opening scene I very strongly hated the Jets. It wasn't until half way through the movie that I actively hated both gangs. Perhaps taking a side is supposed to be part of the adaption, since Dr. MB mentioned that this movie/musical was pretty revolutionary at the time. Perhaps by taking a side, it drew in the viewer and made them a part of the turf war, but viewing it strictly from a adaptation stand point, I feel like they dropped the ball on this one.
• The authority figure/ Prince Escalus figure was extremely unlikable and also seemed to take a side, rather than being neutral in the conflict. Though Detective Schrank didn't appreciate the gang violence, he definitely seemed to have his prejudices against the Puerto Ricans. It was fairly clear from his first scene, but became even clearer in Doc's shop when he was antagonizing the Sharks. I feel like this was another failed attempt to adapt something key about the play. For there to be any real threat from the authority, I feel like he shouldn't be taking sides.
• Though Maria was engaged to marry Chino, there wasn't the same sense of urgency that there was in the play because of Juliet's engagement to Paris. Maria and Chino's engagement was barely referenced, and he is simply not in the forefront of the action enough to remember he is there (until Bernardo is killed, of course).  Unlike Paris, there is actually something likable about Chino. I cannot place what it is, but he is not the total ass that Paris is.
• I know we were told to look past the dancing and that the older the musical, the more ballet-like the dancing, but it really made it hard for me to be scared or concerned about anybody's actions. For the longest time, I wasn't concerned about anyone getting hurt because they we just pirouetting around each other. I feel that if the choreography was updated, I might actually feel a bit of a sense of concern for these people. The hatred was downplayed because they were doing plies and such.

As it's own entity, I don't hate the movie, but as an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, I definitely see some problems.

What's in a name? Meaningless Labels

The first time that I read Romeo and Juliet, I was a freshman in high school. I hated it, and my teacher hated it just as much. Unfortunately, it was a part of the curriculum, so it had to be taught. I remember my teacher stressing over and over again, the small details about the play that proved that it wasn't a love story, as well as the great comical moments. The most memorable comical scene is actually the opening altercation of the play between Abram, Sampson, and Gregory. I know that this is such a small section of the play (it doesn't even take up an entire scene), but it's importance is obvious simply because of its position at the opening of the play. So, for this post, I'm going to break down the first eight pages of the play and show why everything we possibly need to know about this play is right there.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I came into this assignment greatly distracted by the current political climate. I have said multiple times in the last two weeks that I was going to step away from social media, especially Facebook, because, too often, I was finding myself in frustrating comment exchanges where I was trying my best to remain calm and logical while the people on the other end had decided that they didn't like me from the moment they deemed me a "liberal." As a result, I began reading Romeo and Juliet through a lens of uneducated hatred.

I believe it was Sean that asked in his post, "why are the Montagues and Capulets even fighting?" I think this is an important question, but I think another question that rises from that is, "why do individuals from each of the families decide that they hate other individuals based solely on their name?" We are told in the prologue that the quarrel between the families is an "ancient grudge," so it's a fair assumption that nothing done by anyone living, from either of the families, could have been the cause of the feud (I.Prologue.3). That being said, the hatred portrayed over and over is simply the hatred of a name--a combination of meaningless letters that these characters deem positive or negative.

The opening of act 1 scene 1 introduces us, first, to two fairly unimportant characters, Sampson and Gregory of house Capulet. For no given reason, they begin gossiping about their hatred for the Montagues, and some of the things that they say are quite concerning. The most alarming thing is said by Sampson in regards to the women of the Montague house:

Sampson: 'Tis all one. I will show myself a tyrant.
When I have fought with the men, I will be civil
with the maids; I will cut off their heads.
Gregory: The heads of the maids?
Sampson: Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maiden-
heads. Take it in what sense thou wilt. (I.i.22-27).

While Sampson threatens physical violence to the Montague men, he is threatening rape against the Montague women--all of these threats are based solely on a family name. These threats and words of hatred seem to be very reminiscent of the feelings of animosity that are filling the air between political parties right now. While many have been peaceful, there have been outbursts of violence or threats of violence simply based on ideas or the labels of liberal or conservative. In direct relation to to the above quotation in the play, I have seen rape threats from both sides. Feminists have received rape threats for words that have been perceived to be against men, while conservative women have received rape threats by people who think it will make them more inclined to support some of the "liberal" causes.

Back to Romeo and Juliet, we soon see these simple words evolve into an actual fight in the streets of Verona between multiple members of both families, even the heads of each household. Even the civilians choose sides in the quarrel, for reasons unknown. The entrance of Prince Escalus is a breathe of fresh air in the midst of the hatred. The Prince is level headed, and, to relate him to my political commentary, he might be considered a centrist since he chooses neither side in the feud. While the entire exchange passes quickly, it gives us everything we need to know about the characters in the play. Their feud exists only in theory. They have been taught to hate each other for no reason other than a name, very much like those who hate others based solely on the assignment of a political label. The only admirable characters are those that acknowledge the futility of hatred (I know this is a stretch considering Romeo and Juliet's annoying naiveté, but that is beside the point).

To conclude, I think that the monologue of Prince Escalus is a perfect call to action for everyone in these divided times:

Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,
Profaners of this neighbor-stainèd steel--
Will they not here?--What ho! You men, you beasts,
That quench the fire of your pernicious rage
With purple fountains issuing from your veins:
On pain of torture, from those bloody hands
Throw your mistempered weapons to the ground (I.i.83-89).

If I'm going to get political, I think we should take the prince's message to heart: perhaps it is time to drop these meaningless political titles that divide us and actually try to do some good for our country, in the same way Prince Escalus wants the people of Verona to drop the empty feud between the Montagues and the Capulets and actually think of the city as a whole.