The Female Quixote

I'm not completely done with the first reading yet but so far, Arabella is completely ridiculous. She is so out of touch with reality and I can not take her or this story seriously at all. The only one that seems to have any sort of sense is her father (and that's not saying much since he is trying to make her marry her cousin.) Arabella is stuck in some sort of fantasy world where she thinks of herself as a heroine in a romance novel. I literally laughed every time she thought a man would kill himself or in her words "commit some very extravagant actions" because of her. The first man mentioned, Mr. Hervey really could have cared less about her but she was convinced that he was stricken with illness because she refused him. In comparison to Pamela Arabella is even more ridiculous. At least Pamela had some sense of reality. Arabella creates these fantastic stories in her head and she just appears crazy to other people. Her maid Lucy is of no help because she listens to Arabella and justifies everything she says. I have no idea why Glanville is so in love with her. She is absolutely crazy and has no sense of reality or how the world works. I can't wait until she is put in a real world situation outside of her house. Her reaction to people's behaviors and manners in the real world should be quite interesting.
I don't understand how one person can be so full of themselves. Arabella is vein to the point of insanity. She thinks everyone loves her and that her own beauty is so captivating that it can drive many men to the point of suicide. This woman is highly delusional. However, since she has never had any real interaction with people other than with her father and her servants, I guess she can't really be blamed for behaving in this manner. From the books she reads, this is really all she knows. I really hope she gains an understanding of how the world functions outside of her own home.

Anti-Pamela

When I first started reading Haywood's Anti Pamela I thought it had nothing to do with Richardson's Pamela. I kept looking for similarities or very obvious differences between Pamela and Syerna and all I could find was the fact that Pamela was very virtuous and Syrena was a complete whore. As I continued reading I began to think that maybe Syrena's actions are the way that Pamela truly wanted to act but could not due to the goodness of her character. It's as if Syrena is the embodiment of Pamela's deepest and darkest desires. She truly is the "Anti-Pamela."
I also found it interesting that Haywood portrayed Syrena as such a slut for lack of better words. Syrena contracts an STD, gets pregnant, has an abortion, and still continues on her sexual escapades. However, even Syrena embraces the fact that she is portrayed as a slut. She does not deny it and she does not try to be any other way. It reminded me a lot of the famous prostitute from the Beggar's Opera... I forget her name. Anyway, Syrena is a slut and she knows it. I don't really know if she likes or dislikes being that way since she shows little to no emotion to the people she sleeps with. One would think that if she didn't like the way she was living she would change her ways, but she doesn't so it makes me think she likes selling herself.
I also liked all the reasoning Haywood provided for why Syrena is the way she is. Towards the beginning Haywood talks about how Syrena was raised only by her mother because her father died. I don't remember the exact wording but Haywood basically says that Syrena's lack of father, and being raised by a whorish mother is why she turned out this way. I think it's pretty good reasoning.
I liked the character of Syrena because she seemed so real. She did not try to hide the way she was, instead she fully embraced it and her whole character was built on it. I liked her openness.

Pamela

I don't think I like the character of Pamela. The story is interesting and is able to hold my attnetion while reading it, but as I read I often say wow I really hate this girl. Instead of feeling sorry for her as she deals with her master constantly pressuring her sexually, I just get frustrated with her character as a whole. She is always crying and whining and complaining, and throwing hysterical fits. I understand that she holds her innocence and virtue at utmost importance but she is just so whiney and miserable. If she was less uptight she probably wouldn't be crying all the time. I'm not saying that she should give in to her master, but her charcter seems to be stuck up. If she loosened up a little she would have a much better time. I wish Pamela would have the mental and physical strangth to just punch her master in the face and tell him to leave her alone. I know that wouldn't exactly be appropriate behavior for Pamela, but I think if a woman is being attacked physically or sexually it is her perogative to fight back physically. Pamela is such a weak character, and the whole story is built around her weak personality and the fact that she succumbs to everything around her. She needs a back bone.
I like the relationship between Pamela and Mrs. Jarvis. Mrs. Jarvis is such a sweet motherly type, and she is very patient. If Pamela came crying to me everyday, I would not have half as much kindness and patience as Mrs. Jarvis.
I'm not sure what to think about Pamela's parents. Pamela writes to them and tells them how distressed she is, and it just seems odd to me that instead of trying to get their daughter out of that situation they just continue to write sappy letters. They give Pamela good insightful advice, but their advice is really of no help when Pamela's master is attacking her.
So far I like the story, I just don't like Pamela.

Property

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.

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.

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.

The Begger's Opera

I enjoyed reading the Beggar's Opera because it was entertaining and humorous, but it also showed true gritty street life. With the two works we've read I have noticed a common theme of the "sweet" girls always falling for the asshole guys. I can't for the life of me understand why Polly would want to be with Macheath when she knows he is with other woman. I also didn't understand why Hellena wanted to be with Willmore in the Rover. These guys are obviously not good people and they treat women like sex objects and property. The women therefor look stupid when they chase these men all the while knowing how terrible the men really are. I find it hard to believe that there wasn't one good man in the 18'th century. All the men we have seen in the readings so far are poor excuses for boyfriends/husbands. I find it ridiculous that the women are actually fighting over these stupid men. Lucy even goes so far as to try to kill Polly all because she wants to marry Macheath. I guess love can drive people to do crazy things.
I found the relationship between Polly and her parents Mr. and Mrs. Peachum to be quite strange and quite unlike a general parent child relationship. Mr. Peachum viewed Polly as a financial asset to the family and discouraged her from marrying because she could make more money single. One of my favorite motherly Mrs. Peachum quotes was, "Can you support the expense of a husband, hussy, in gaming, drinking, and whoring?" Instead of telling her daughter not to marry this man because is likes to drink, gamble, and have sex with whores, Mrs. Peachum simply asks if her daughter can financially support this kind of behavior. I found it absurd that women were expected to not only tolerate this behavior from their husbands but actually support it. It once again made me say, why does Polly actually want to marry this horrible man?
I did not particularly enjoy all the songs in the play. I know it's an opera but I felt like a lot of the songs had nothing to do with the context of the scene. Other than that I enjoyed reading this work even though it made we question the sanity of 18'th century women.