Here, for your reading pleasure, are three articles by Dr. Kathleen Lubey, one of our department’s specialists in 18th-century literature. Please read at least two — or if if you’d prefer. The article on pornography, which emerged directly out of a grad seminar, might be particularly interesting & accessible to those who are not deep in 18c waters.
This is not really directly related to this post, but I was wondering if anyone was going to be leaving for the NYPL from campus this Tuesday. As a female from New Jersey, I’m not too keen on taking buses and subways alone at night, especially since I’m unfamiliar with the routes. Just wondering if anyone wanted a travel buddy. =)
Hey Nicole,
My husband will be taking me to the subway. You can join, if you want! =Kat
Nicole, I’ll be taking the E/F from Kew Gardens/Union Turnpike. If you want a ride back to campus from there, I’d be happy to give you a lift!
Thanks Kat and Tara! I just spoke with Danielle, and we’re planning on leaving from campus together. I think it’s a the-more-the-merrier situation.
Kat, because I’m travelling with Danielle, I don’t want to cramp your car, though you’re more than welcome to come with us if you don’t want to bother your husband for a ride from campus. I have space for me + 4 if we take my car to Key Gardens. I just have no idea how to get there. I’m also sadly poor at parallel parking (just got a small SUV after driving a tiny coupe for 8 years), so you’d have to bear with my ineptness (though I give you full permission to laugh at it).
Tara, I’d be willing to drive too, as long as you’d be willing to direct. =)
——
As to Dr. Lubey’s work:
I found her passionate stance on pornography a bit shocking. Though 18th century literature is ripe with sexual imagery (Aphra Behn’s work comes to mind here), I didn’t expect her to take up an argument on contemporary pornography. With that said, I find her argument very interested, and I find myself full-heartedly agreeing (though that freaks me out a little).
I thought that it also tied into what we’ve been reading though. Shakespeare’s The Tempest is a performance that eventually becomes self-conscious of its own performance, much like pornography as Lubey sees it, and I guess that is part of the pleasure of watching it. We know its fake, we know that the viewers are conscious of our viewing, and we enjoy the voyeuristic pleasure. I think there is much more to be said, but for the moment, NOOKstudy is being uncooperative and refuses to let me see my notes!
Two quick comments on this thread:
First, I’m glad you are all helping each other with logistics in getting to the library on Tues. I emphasize that learning the way to the NYPL — by bus, subway, car, walking, whatever — is a *major* part of this assignment. You’ll be a much better DA student at STJ if you use that resource. You should, I think, be sure to have at least a few semester-long periods in your DA research during which you get to the NYPL more than once a week. Start planning!
Second, I’m glad, and I feel certain Dr. Lubey feels the same way, that her article was “a bit shocking.” It’s important for all of us, as scholars & writers, to remember that it pays to surprise & shock our readers — that’s one good way to make them think. Your comments about The Tempest also suggest that pornography shares some characteristics with any other kind of theatrical/fictional performance, which I think is probably right, though Catherine MacKinnon obvious thinks pornography crosses an important line through the use of real bodies. (There’s some legal debates about this currently that have to do with computer-generated images: is it child pornography, with its attendant legal penalties, if the images are fake but realistic?)
Nicole and co:
I nominate that we squeeze into the SUV and I will direct us to Kew Gardens/Forest Hills where we can find someplace free to park and take the train.
Having taken one of Dr. Lubey’s classes which dealt with sexuality, I didn’t find the article shocking, though it does aim to (and succeeds in) raising eyebrows. The pornography debate will probably always rage on, though the article, focusing on MacKinnon, appears to want to portray men and women against each other in terms of pornography. The type of pronography being discussed in the article obviously is targeted at men. There’s difficulty in finding any creative merit whatsoever in pornography, though intent can clearly be desseminated. I am sure pornography for women exists more now than even in the recent past (I didn’t dare try and do a search for that, I respect my computer) What would an article say about that?
I bring this up in relation to a comment I made two weeks ago in class. The Tempest, for instance, has been interpreted and reinterpreted as times have changed and perspectives have widened and narrowed over the centuries. The subjugation of women in men’s pornography clearly presents itself and might act as a constant, but we would need to analyze it further (talk about an interesting research project) to see how its changes have reflected new eras of thought. I look at texts this way, reading criticism from the past and present, along with wondering what a critic 50 years from now would think. I mean, by doing so, I can try to envision what our future society will be like, which I guess would come directly from my own perspectives.
I’d also like to interject something else. Video games have become artistic mediums, at least in terms of how they deliver story. Argue this if you want, but all you have to do is play a game like Heavy Rain, Mass Effect, or Bioshock to see they at worst, parallel movies. With that in mind, this third-person element discussed in the article comes into play, and there has also been a heavy debate that performing violent acts in video games could relat to real-world violence. Can it be possible that our minds can immerse itself in fantasy without the lines being blurred? And how does this translate to the stage, where the audience’s suspension of disbelief enables them to be that extra participant, something Shakespeare obviously liked to endulge and even exploit.
Sorry for the ‘all over the place’ post, but the article sparked this in me, and I wanted to get it all down so I could save it and remember it for later conversation.
I realize I lost part of my first paragraph by accidentally hitting the back button. What I intended to say was that the intent of pornography for men is to cater to male fantasy, and surely something so base as pornography will aim for the most primal to achieve its effect. I wanted to know if pornography designed for women has the same effect. My instincts want to say no, but then again, even something like Desperate Housewives portrayed young men as nothing more than toys, which I see somehow related to male pornography’s portrayal.
And to make one more Tempest connection, should we look deeper at Miranda and how willing and obedient she is, almost as if she serves as nothing more than an object for male satisfaction? Just a quick thought, and I’d like to say I am really not trying to connect Shakespeare to pornography.
How submissive is Miranda? She tells Ferdinand her name when she’s not supposed to, offers to carry logs for him, appears recalcitrant enough in 1.2 that Prospero several times asks if she ‘attends” him. “Your tale, sir, would cure deafness,” is a difficult-to-read line: might she be ironic or even cynically subversive here? I certainly think that Shakespeare is attuned to male fantasies of controlling women, but even in this play, I’m not sure the women are that easily controlled. Comedies like *Merchant of Venice* or *As You Like It* obviously have even more powerful heroines.
I’m not sure we can get a good enough read on Miranda to categorize her one way or the other. She does not always obey Prospero but does seem submissive to Ferdinand, which of course begs the notation that one is a sexual relationship (or soon to be) and one is not.
If nothing else, I see a strong urge to control women here, with Caliban’s mother illustrating what happens when a woman runs rampant, at least in Shakespeare’s eyes.
In reading the Haywood article I was surprised by the lengths Haywood goes to in trying to impart a moral practice to her female readers. There is something peculiar about reading erotic material in order to practice keeping your desires in the imagination. This obsessiveness would seem to fetishize the act to the point where it would be all-consuming to it’s readers, ethier in indulgence or negation. I did find it interesting in a mad science type of way that an author’s aim in writing would be this specific towards influencing the very thoughts and practices of her audience. It makes you think the power of writing and how it could be used influentially, but not in a traditional sense.
If I may relate this back to Prospero, I wonder about the legitimacy and morality of using your wares, science and magic towards influencing people’s fate, behaviors and thoughts. I also sometimes think about this in my teaching; how am I influencing my students? But, in this day and age, I think they are more influenced by the movies, video games and other media they engage in than their teachers, or even their parents for that matter.
Perhaps it’s worth trying to draw some distinctions here: Prospero seems relatively unconflicted about his efforts to manipulate his charges, Haywood wants to channel the sexual energy and excitement of her readers, and you, David, are troubled by your possible influence on your students. Makers of video games, I believe, are very conscious of their potential influence, and they want to maximize it.
I don’t think movies are more influential than parents, btw — but perhaps I’m an optimist.
I would like to respond to the idea about pornography and The Tempest being self-conscious of their performances and introduce the idea of power in regards to this topic. I think that while the actor in pornography loses part of his power with this consciousness, the viewer gains the power. The actor loses his potent ability as he has to rely on his imagination rather than his instinct. With the consciousness that it is fiction, the viewer acts upon his power to react to the show in the way that he desires. He can become turned on or off if he desires.
In The Tempest, however, I see that all the power lies in Prospero’s hands. He actually is the only one that is aware that the storm, etc. is a play performed by him. Towards the end, his enemies somewhat gain the sense that they are at the mercy of another power, such as in the scene when they arrive on the island and Prospero performs magic with the tables. It might be argued that there are moments when Prospero’s power starts to falter as he starts to question the impact of the storm.
Why would video game makers be more apt to maximize their influence than, say, writers or movie makers? If nothing else, movie makers have promoted their own political agenda trying to influence viewers. Ditto when they make movies for children, as this is a tremendous part of their industry (see the long list of actors who make that ‘leap’ to children’s movies) Video games are more interactive, thus have more impact, and I think the general public refuses to see them as art because of this. In fact, it can be argued more ‘artists’ work on a video game than a movie. What is more artistic, drawing a scene from top to bottom or pointing a camera at a particular angle? It used to be a technological argument, that using a bit of tech degrades the art, but movies have been accepted as art now, for the most part.
I think it is easy for all of us to make statements indicating this or that as our problem (I do it often) when it comes to children. If movies and games do have more influence than parents, then parents need to step up, plain and simple. Putting your child in front of a TV at age 3 because it is easy surely does not help. Letting a child watch an adult movie (R rated, I mean) or mature video game because you want to be the ‘cool’ parent (maybe because you weren’t the ‘cool’ kid? sad) creates a serious problem that I think will lead to increased censorship, a bad thing. (Look at the California court case regarding video games…movies are next)
And I wonder, how were movies based on Shakespeare received? We have to remove the child issue of course, but based on my earlier argument of artistic merit, how was Le Duele de Hamlet received? (I think that might have been the first Shakespeare film with sound, at least the first Hamlet) How are the Shakespearian movies received today? Do the experts feel a movie can convey what the stage can? Are they art?
We are headed into a new world of media once again, and for the first time, the public has the technology in their hands. The average PC can edit movies now. Anyone with a modicum of talent can write a game for Facebook. It costs next to nothing to write your own game for XBOX or PS3. Anyone can publish a book through Amazon or Barnes and Noble. We can’t be dismissive of new media, or blame it for our children’s problems. In the 50’s, parents thought Rock ‘n’ Roll poisoned their children, made them more sexually active and even prone to violence. It ‘took them over’ they thought. Movies, on a smaller scale, were accused of the same thing, but censorship was much stronger until the 1960’s.
To add to this lengthy post, I’d like to say that The Tempest has lasted 400 years, a testament to its staying power. It hasn’t penetrated the mass market in terms of direct film adaptation. Will new media ring its death knell? You can’t say people will ‘always’ read it, because the word ‘always’ cannot be possible, it’s a word we use that cannot live up to its definition. Add to this the fact that I have seen a rapid decrease in the amount of my students who read Shakespeare in high school and we have a bit of a problem. So, what would be the next step? I don’t think people will stop reading, and because Shakespeare’s works are in the public domain (free) they have a chance to make the digital transition, if that ever really takes off. From what I have heard and cannot verify, Shakespeare concentration on the doctoral level is not as popular as it was (still many out there) meaning that the very lifeblood of Shakespeare research could be waning. I hope not, and pose this only as a question of how we ensure classics make it to the next stage.
This comment anticipates Taymor’s high-tech Tempest, perhaps? I’m skeptical about both utopianism (media tech makes us smarter!) and apocalyptism (kids these days are getting their brains fried!). But I certainly agree that too much TV is bad for kids.