it is clear from watching the thing that it is a battle of masculinity. in what way does the thing, the monster, relate to the "sex which is not one" and women in general? like the female genitalia, the monster does not possess a visible sex, but still has the capacity to reproduce by taking a small sample from man. it's sex is hidden, like it is in females, allowing for a phallocentric society in the movie like in our world. rather than sitting back, however, and allowing its sex to be ignored, it revolts against the male-centered base.

based off of this i was curious what the significance of the thing's ability to perfectly imitate the male characters besides reproduction. i think it had

to do with the threat of losing one's identity. the characters are all constantly questioning wether the others still have their original identity, making them fear the loss of theirs, much like the effect the fear of castration like mulvey disc

ussed in her essay earlier this year.

kurt russell defending his masculinity with his phallic weapon.

as i was watching "far from heaven," i could help thinking of mulvey's writings because they had been so center to our discussion recently. i found it confusing to pin down 1 person we objectify and 1 person we identify with. how could i reconcile this while still sticking to mulvey's ideas? i decided that there were almost 2 separate movies taking place. it sounds kind of odd, but it helped me make sense of the movie. the first movie is the story through kathy's point of view. in this plot we are obviously invited to identify with kathy who takes on a male role in both her marriage (having her husband go to the doctor and finally ending it altogether) and her ensuing love interest. with kathy, we objectify raymond, gaze at him.

the other story is one where we are a member of the community. in this second movie we identify with the community and objectify kathy. different scenes from the film are pieces of 2 distinct stories. for example, the scene where kathy has a "breakdown" is part of the movie where we identify with her. nobody else is there, and there is a definite gaze on raymond. however, the scene in the art gallery forces the audience to identify with the community and objectify kathy. we even watch everybody watching her, like a piece of art in the gallery (how fitting).

i then wondered what effect the setting (mostly in reference to the date) had on these interpretations, or at least what significance it had. i think the objectification of raymond was certainly enhanced by the decade. the fact that he was the only black person who tried to fit into white society already directed everybody's gaze at him. the time setting also made the control that kathy had in her relationships and her forward manner stand out more, because this was a time when women rarely were so bold. the decade also helped set up the facade of the perfect family. to a modern audience, language like "aw shucks" seems fake. however, it fits in the context of the story, while also still calling the viewers' attention to it. this made the family seem falsely perfect right from the start. it's hard to stay perfect while the world is constantly gazing.

loss of self or loss of job

it's quite clear to see the effect of the working class environment on selma, but a character that i was particularly intrigued by was bill. at first i wondered would he be considered a "capitalist" in the terms of our good friend karl? after looking further into his character, i decided he should be lumped with the workers because of his obsession with money and his inability to have enough to sustain himself and his family. "so much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the fewer he can possess and the more he falls under the dominion of his product..." says marx. although technically this quote relates to the decrease in laborers' worth as their labor increases, i thought it also could apply to the situation of bill. bill came into a lot of money from an inheritance and it was only then that his money was enough. once he had to work for it again he fell "under the dominion of his product" and alienated himself from his wife, his friends, and obviously from himself considering his desire to ultimately eliminate himself. the more money he had, the more money he needed , so even if somebody is able to make a lot of money, "the fewer he can possess."

so then what about selma? she manages to take on a job in the factory and add extra work onto that. when she alienates herself from herself and just focuses on her job, she is capable of doing the work. however, whenever she lets her own identity interfere, she can no longer be a part of the system. she gets in trouble for bringing her music to work and is ultimately fired because she is thinking of music while laboring. this really demonstrated the point marx makes about having to give up one's identity to the system. because selma is unable to do that, she can no longer labor.

narrative, truth, morals

for some reason when, when we are children, we are programmed to think that an autobiography has to be boring. we assume that it is told as a "chronicle"(as White depicts it) rather than a "history" (containing the word "story" for a reason) and is mostly a list of facts and events. it seems, however, that people take their story and make it more readable, more literary. why document your story though if it isn't even exactly your story, how it happened? i presume that the autobiographer picks a theme and chooses out the important parts that support the concept they are trying to portray through their narrative. Satrapi certainly had to do this to make her story specifically about the effect of the war on her coming-of-age. besides that, she probably said things that didn't happen. this makes me think of the "the things they carried." in that novel, tim o' brien talks about how sometimes when telling a story, one must exaggerate to share an honest feeling. essentially, in order to make the reader feel what the narrator was feeling, the narrator must change or amplify the actual events because reading them cannot simulate experiencing them. the desire that White talks about, the intrinsic desire to tell one's story, is rooted in the need to make others feel what you were feeling.

was there a moral in "persepolis?" i got the feeling that starapi was trying to stay away from inserting a specific lesson into the story. this is one things that sort of opposes what white things a narrative is. i suppose there are a few things that the reader could take as morals. the closest i can think of is the idea of a "rebel with a cause." it is your prerogative to rebel against a dictator (especially a dicktator) or unjust ruler. however, there were also scenes of misguided rebellion, and the initial rebellion lead to lifestyle even more unhappy and dangerous for the families of iran. so the question of whether the rebellions was successful or not is never answered in the book. i feel that satrapi wanted to leave a lot of metaphorical doors open for the readers to explore after reading her story.

synesthesia and symbols

one thing that i think really stands out in "jimmy corrigan" is ware's style of drawing. he uses bold lines and fills those in with solid colors. those colors are mostly dull, and combined with the 2-dimensionality of his images, this creates a very flat and monotonous tone for the reader. i wondered how he could use this style to his advantage. so i noticed that there are parts where the background (which is often one dull color) behind a close-up of jimmy would sometimes change color based on his mood. mccloud talks about synesthesia in art saying that "line, shape, and color [can] suggest the inner state of the artist and provoke the five senses." chris ware employs this concept by portraying jimmies emotions through the color of the space surrounding him, suggesting the "inner state" of jimmy rather than the artists. this color usually stood out against the normal colors of the comic. unfortunately, there are no page numbers to offer, but one specific example i remember is when the other children are making fun of his horse and there is a progression of close-ups on jimmy. the wall behind him goes from blue, to greenish, to goldish, to bright vivid red. this helps the reader feel his anger even before he expresses it.

were there any other effects the occasional bright backgrounds had on the reader? i think that it added the carnival motif that persists throughout the story. when his face is stationed on sheet of bright blue or red, it looks like poster, like it doesn't belong with the rest of the story. it isolates him even more from the people he is around; he becomes more of a spectacle.

i also just wanted to address the fact that this book had symbols. this is the first time i felt myself trying to figure out what certain symbols meant while i was reading, symbols in the literary sense. the ones that really stood out to me were peaches, the red bird, and the robot. off the top of my head, i think that in some cultures peaches symbolize longevity. if that is what ware intending, i find it quite appropriate. it fits the concept that the corrigans go on and on doing what they are doing and being a straight-up dismal bunch. any other ideas on the peaches? i could be totally off base. the red bird seemed to express jimmy's desire to escape his life, to "fly" away. the robot, much more obvious than the other too, obviously identifies his inability to express his emotion. any other thoughts on symbolism in "jimmy corrigan," fellow students and/or teacher?

relating to dream

Preludes & Nocturnes is obviously a very vivid and colorful graphic compilation. I would even go so far as to describe some of the images as being psychedelic. Something that really stood out to me was the fact that Dream and Death (as characters) were both very colorless. What is the significance of their very black & white complexion in contrast with the rest of the graphics? I can think of a few reasons why Gaiman decided to do this. The most apparent would be to make them stand out in the novel, make them obviously different from the rest of the cast. Reflecting on McCloud though, I thought it could be for another reason. McCloud talks about how when something is a cartoon, it becomes more subjective and relatable. I think that could have something to do with why Dream has no color. It makes him look less like a human other than ourselves so we can relate to him more. We can become part of the reality that is not matter.

Why would Gaiman want us to relate to the Sandman? I think because this story follows a more traditional "hero has a goal and he goes through trials but overcomes" scenario, the Sandman could appear to be too much of a perfect hero figure. However because of the artist's decision to make him colorless, along with the way the character is set up, (which we discussed in class) as if we are him, he is made to seem less iconic and heroic. Obviously, the plot helps with that, considering the fact he is trapped by humans for a lifetime and eventually wins out because of luck. But I think it was integral to the story that we relate to Dream.

question 2 and q&a x 2

Describe the difference between a cartoonish face and a more realistic face in comics. What is the effect of each? What is the significance of their differences?

some artists draw with more detail than others in their comics. the more detailed and realistic an image is, the more separate we feel from it. for instance, when we see a photo of a face, we know it is not our face and so feel totally outside of the image. however, when we see a cartoon face with fewer features, we are able to see ourselves in that image and relate better to it. when we cannot see things, they are often a part of what we are doing, like when we are driving our vehicle. we therefore imagine it in less detail than we would see it in. so the less realistic a cartoon is, the more we can feel a part of it.



i also found the concept of closure very interesting. i wondered if, based on different experiences, people sometimes connected two images with something different. the writer/artist of the comic probably has to create a detailed enough sequence, or to include enough information in the images being viewed, to allow all readers to imagine similar closure. however, wouldn't that be difficult to do, considered the writer has his or her own experiences to draw from and could assume that everybody would close the gutter in the same fashion they would? i suppose occasionally people read things differently than others. i just realized this also happens in poetry and books, just there is not visible gap to close in those types of communication. it probably doesn't change anything drasticly, but could create infrequent confusion.