I thought it was cool how each of the readings tied in the same theme. The readings all fit together nicely. The reading I liked the most was Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. I found the idea that something becomes your property only once you exert labor over it to be quite interesting. However I do not think it was necessary for Locke to provide 1000 different examples of all the ways common property can become personal property. (ie: collecting nuts, gathering acorns, fetching water, picking apples, etc). I realize that it is supposed to be taken metaphorically and applied to laws of print property, but after a while Locke's writing became a little redundant. Also there were so many religious references that I felt like I was in church. Although it got repetitive at times Locke's writing was very sensible and well thought out.
I also found Fielding's work to be interesting but not in the same way Locke's was. Locke's writing was sensible and intelligent whereas Fielding's ideas confused me because they were not well thought out. Fielding argues that by plagiarizing one is doing a great service to the author. I think this is ridiculous because the author's name is never mentioned so unless someone reads the plagiarized work and immediately realizes that it is taken from someone else, it would be assumed that the work belongs to whomever wrote it. (Does that make sense? I don't think I worded it properly...) Anyway, I just wasn't sure how plagiarizing can be a great service to the original author when there is no credit given to the original author. Maybe Fielding expected everyone to just know where the plagiarized work originated from, but I'm sure most people did not.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
I love Jonathan Swift!
I liked these readings mostly because they included works by Jonathan Swift. Swift's essays and proposals are so witty and also pretentious but in a good way. Sometimes his works are so audacious, but it seems to work for him. My favorite passage was 'Hints towards an essay on conversation." As I read over "Hints Towards an Essay on Conversation" I realized that his ideas on conversation still hold true today. As I read I thought of people that I know and talk to that display the traits of speech in conversation which Swift describes, specifically "that of those who affect to talk of themselves" and "the men of wit". It is very common today for people to be so self absorbed that a whole conversation will revolve around petty aspects of their lives. I really liked the line where Swift says, "Of such mighty importance every man is to himself, and ready to think he is so to others; without once making this easy and obvious reflection, that his affairs can have no more weight with other men than theirs have with him;" He goes on to discuss conversation in a group of people where two of the people realize they have some connection as in going to the same school or growing up in the same place. From that point forward the two people engage in conversation leaving the rest of the group to listen in silence until someone becomes so irritated that they will burst into the conversation demanding attention. I think I like Swift's work so much because he addresses true life experiences and critiques with great detail and accuracy aspects of everyday things. It almost reminds me of the way modern comedians preform routines making jokes out of things that people experience everyday. Swift's description of critics in "A Digression Concerning Critics" was also quite accurate.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Commerce of Everyday Life pp. 41-168
A found this reading to be long and a little boring, and there were parts of it that I had some trouble comprehending. However, every now and then I would run into an interesting passage.
One of these passages was on pages 90-91 and it discussed why the Spectator would be useful for women. At first the author describes how the main priority of women is to make sure their hair is in place, and then spend the day doing frivolous things like sorting ribbons. The first paragraph really made women sound like stupid people that have no real purpose in life other than "the preparation of jellies and sweetmeats." I was slightly offended when I read this paragraph but I continued reading and to my surprise the author went on to say that these are simply the "ordinary women" and that there are "multitudes of a more elevated life and conversation, that move in an exalted sphere of knowledge and virtue, that join the beauties of mind to the ornaments of dress...." I was pleased to see that it was acknowledged that women actually do have minds and are capable of thought.
Basically what I got out of reading some passages about the Spectator is that it was marketable because of a few main points:
1. The wide range and diversity of writers.
2. Appeal to all aspects of society
3. Appeal to women (an audience that was most probably neglected in other papers)
I also found a passage on pages 97-98 to be rather interesting. The author writes about all the things that his paper does not do thus making it not a real newspaper. The author writes that the paper has very little news or reflection of politics and therefor has "no fashionable touches of infidelity" and "no obscene ideas". I liked this idea because it basically stated that writing about news and politics inadvertently leads to publishing lies and scandals. He goes on to describe the amount of care and precaution he took with writing, to make sure that his words are not misconstrued or considered offensive. He writes, "If I write anything of a black man, I run over in my mind all the eminent persons in the nations who are of that complexion." I think it's amazing that this much precaution was taken in such an early newspaper. I thought people would just write anything as an attempt to appeal to the masses, but I guess I was wrong.
One of these passages was on pages 90-91 and it discussed why the Spectator would be useful for women. At first the author describes how the main priority of women is to make sure their hair is in place, and then spend the day doing frivolous things like sorting ribbons. The first paragraph really made women sound like stupid people that have no real purpose in life other than "the preparation of jellies and sweetmeats." I was slightly offended when I read this paragraph but I continued reading and to my surprise the author went on to say that these are simply the "ordinary women" and that there are "multitudes of a more elevated life and conversation, that move in an exalted sphere of knowledge and virtue, that join the beauties of mind to the ornaments of dress...." I was pleased to see that it was acknowledged that women actually do have minds and are capable of thought.
Basically what I got out of reading some passages about the Spectator is that it was marketable because of a few main points:
1. The wide range and diversity of writers.
2. Appeal to all aspects of society
3. Appeal to women (an audience that was most probably neglected in other papers)
I also found a passage on pages 97-98 to be rather interesting. The author writes about all the things that his paper does not do thus making it not a real newspaper. The author writes that the paper has very little news or reflection of politics and therefor has "no fashionable touches of infidelity" and "no obscene ideas". I liked this idea because it basically stated that writing about news and politics inadvertently leads to publishing lies and scandals. He goes on to describe the amount of care and precaution he took with writing, to make sure that his words are not misconstrued or considered offensive. He writes, "If I write anything of a black man, I run over in my mind all the eminent persons in the nations who are of that complexion." I think it's amazing that this much precaution was taken in such an early newspaper. I thought people would just write anything as an attempt to appeal to the masses, but I guess I was wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)