Paper draft/paragraph ideas

Basic idea: Robinson Crusoe as a proof (in 18th century terms) of ability of European (white) to master savage (land/people).  (the empty boxes are formulas in Microsoft Word).  
Introduction - will explain 18th century concept of proof, focusing on (probably), examples as proof of general by outlining algorithm/procedure for example (exactness/concreteness being valued over abstractness).

In Arithmatick books in the 18^th century, mathematical operations, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. operate by means of an explicitly defined procedure for proving, or solving.  By following this algorithm, one is able to solve any problem of that type (i.e. addition, division, etc.).  Further, this algorithm, in order to arrive at the correct solution, must be done in a certain order, and arrive at only one solution.  That is, up to equalities (i.e. 1 gallon is 4 quarts), the solution is unique.    For subtraction, say 5842 – 2751, as outlined in Spence’s Arithmatick compendiz’d..., “The Operation is thus. Begin at the right Hand, and say, 1 from 2, there remains 1, which set down.  Next 5 from 4, I cannot but from 14 (borrowing 10 as was directed to make it 14) there remains 9.  Then proceed, saying, 1 I borrowed and 7 is 8, from 8 remains nothing, for which set down a Cypher [0].  Lastly, 2 from 5 , remains 3, which set down, and the Work is finished” (12).  This algorithm has two parts.  Let’s say we’re subtracting  If the first number is bigger than the second, “say,  from , there remains ”. If the second is bigger than the first, “say  from , I cannot but from 1 (borrowing 10 as was directed) there remains , and proceed, saying 1 I borrowed and  is , from  is , which set down.”  For each column of numbers, this procedure holds. What is not explained here, or in any other arithmatick treatise in the 18^th century, is why this works.  However, because mathmaticians know that the algorithm works, following it is the ‘reasonable’ approach to arithmatick. 

Similarly, Crusoe knows algorithms work, so, in order to help make sense of his surroundings, solitary existence, and apprehensions of danger, he uses reason, exemplified by this procedural, mathematical approach to his environment, to create an ‘empire’ of his island.  After acquiring supplies from his wrecked ship, Crusoe’s first endeavor is to secure himself from savages or wild beasts. Such a dwelling must have four characteristics,LIST? limiting his options greatly, but, finally, allowing him to find one spot.  Once he finds the appropriate spot, Crusoe explicates his procedure for securing himself against those things which would threaten his livelihood.  “Before I set up my tent, I drew a half circle...[and] in this half circle I pitched two rows of strong stakes ... [which] did not stand above six inches from one another. Then I took the pieces of cable...and laid them in rows one upon another ... between these two rows of stakes ... about two foot and a half high ... so I was completely fenced in, and fortified, as I thought, from the world...” (90-91).  This follows the pattern of the subtraction algorithm, beginning with a half circle, moving next to pitching stakes; then proceeding to lay cables; and ‘there being nothing’ left to do to secure the wall, he, lastly, “lifted over [a short ladder]” (91), ‘and the work is finished’ (for the wall).    

Week 10: ToM, Part Two

NOTE: I'm having a hard time getting a handle on this week's readings.  I'm not sure I'm on a track, much less the right one.


"Where sensibility was the basis for civic harmony, imagination, loosening the hold of the five senses, made people vulnerable to demagogues and was therefore responsible...for...all manner of fanaticism" (14)

So, I'm understanding this chapter (Sensibility and Enlightenment Science) as arguing for an 18th century thinking of morality, emotion, and empathy as something related or the same as the sensations (sentiments) people experience from the external world on their senses (seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling).  And, that not having/experiencing these sentiments would hinder a person's social functioning. Then, thinking about Persuasion I was trying to place different characters within this framework.

There's significant talk of the Elliot pride and Sir Walter's "vanity of person and of situation" (6).  Most of the Elliots, with the exception of Anne, are portrayed as merely tolerated, but also complained about behind their backs (usually to Anne).  Though they are invited, due to their stations, to various households, Anne gets the hints that "it would be a great deal better if she [Mary] were not so very tenacious [during these visits]" (43-44).  Anne, however, seems to be the only one who has the ability to interpret her five senses' information to give her educated guesses on the mental states of others (i.e. has empathy/ToM) with any sort of regularity.  I guess I'm trying to get at the question of if the other, non-empathetic characters in the novel are 'imagining' what people think about them to contribute to their vanity or sense of self-importance? I know Mary imagines herself sick to get attention, but I don't think that's the same thing.

Week 10: Empathy and Theory of the Mind, Part One

I haven't read Persuasion yet, so this is a fairly limited post.  I'll attempt to add to it once I'm able to start the novel.

"Human beings, like other primates, tend to experience empathy most readily and accurately for those who seem like us"  (Keen, 214)

This makes me question if, during some of the more violent/dangerous scenes (the consensual(ish) whipping, the attempted rape by the first suitor, etc.), the men reading Memoirs of a Women of Pleasure experience less empathy for Francis Hill than perhaps the women might? Or, is she too far displaced in time from even the women of today to feel empathy? Do we feel sympathy for her?

"My research suggests that readers’ perception of a text’s fictionality plays a role in subsequent empathetic
response, by releasing readers from the obligations of self-protection through skepticism and suspicion." (Keen, 220)

Does this theory also function in Hill's naivety at the beginning of the novel?  That is, because this world is so different from what she knows, does she let herself empathize with the other women more than she does later in the novel when she understands what women are expected to do to survive in her world?

Each article also mentioned mirror neurons, involved in empathy as well as seeing/reading actions.  The brain also activates similar structures toward words as what those words represent in real life would activate in a brain.  This felt like what the class talked about last week when we mentioned the way Hill's voyeurism of the varied sexual acts she sees seem to arouse her.  We had touched on the idea of the involvement of mirror neurons, I believe, and I wonder if the physical feelings within her body are a sort of empathy she feels while watching these acts.  Or, are they something different? If so, what do we call it and how does it work?

Week 9: Sensation, Sensibility, and Senses

In the Starr article for this week, art and mental images supposedly derive their power from a mix of sensory images, allowing them to blend/work together, as "texture or temperature contribute fundamentally to taste." (286).  Toward the end of the article, Starr seems to come to the conclusion that the mental image of motion is this mix of other sensory images.  Starr also reminds us that a mental image often activates, though somewhat less intensely, the same brain regions as the actual sensations of such stimuli.

I haven't finished the book, Memoirs of a Women of Pleasure, yet, but the descriptions of Francis Hill's excitement while watching the Madam and, later, Polly engaging in sex reminded me of these two ideas.  That is, she's not experiencing the physical pleasure of sex, only watching.  She also seems to be imagining Pheobe's fingers the first time, while she experiences them the second.  Hill gets a physical pleasure out of watching the Madam. In fact, she feels the need to masturbate to this sight, "following mechanically...Pheobe's manual operation on it" (25).  Her mental image is tactile, but she also has to imagine what her hand has to do (proprioception) to create that feeling she remembers from Pheobe's hand.  When she watches, with Pheobe, Polly and her man, she again becomes excited, leading Pheobe to make her "stand with [her] back towards the door" while "[Pheobe's] busy fingers fell to visit" (32).

Pheobe waits until after this voyeurism to ask Hill "if [she] was still afraid of him [man]?" (33).  At this point, Hill is excited and can barely wait to meet here proposed taker of virginity.  Perhaps this has something to do with the article's note that "imagined odors...may interfere with or alter our perception of actually present tastes" (285).  While the senses are different, it seems the expectation of Hill influenced her perception, then of her sexual encounter with the young man who took her away from the bawdy-house.  She refuses to cry out, even though it hurts, and she convinces herself for the second round that it doesn't hurt as much as it is pleasurable.  Perhaps that's true, but given the description of his size, her smallness, and the pain of losing your virginity in general, I rather doubt it.  The question is, then, to what degree can expectations of an event/situation (associated with a mental image of that event) alter our perceptions of those events when they actually occur?  To what extent is Hill able to fool herself, essentially?  (As she does in the beginning when she refuses to "open [her] eyes to Mrs. Brown's designs" even after being paraded in front of an old man obviously appraising her sexual/physical worth. (16)).

Week 8: Sleep and Consciousness

Since I'm doing my presentation this week, I'm not going in to great depth here.  The essence of what I wish to explore is whether the novel supports or refutes Darwin's claim that sleepwalking is a kind of reverie, and not actually sleeping.

Week 7: Memory

Again, I'm just really overwhelmed by this novel, Tristram Shandy.  As I attempted to think about this novel in terms of memory, I kept coming back to the idea that the narrator sounds as if he's offering the reader a sort of stream of consciousness.  Even though we talked of the different styles of narrating, it still feels like more of a stream than any real change.  As the narrator thinks, the way his consciousness is aware of past, present, people, reader, self, environment, etc. changes.  Part of what the narrator says is his reasoning for putting all this detail down is that he wishes to chronical his life. The reader just happens to get this life in awkward excerpts from past conversations, future stories of past events, and impressions/thoughts of the writer currently.  This is confusing, but makes a little more sense in light of the Carruthers reading we did.  


"process of recollection whose goals is to invent and compose in the present - not to reproduce a record of past events"
"good memory...is the ability to move [material] about instantly, directly, and securely"

These two quotes made me think of Shandy's stated goal of setting down his life as perhaps a construction of his life as he experiences/sees it now.  That is, his life story is being composed in the present, which might be why it is harder to follow in a linear chain.  Also, the second quote might add to that too.  Maybe Shandy is trying to show the reader how good his memory is by jumping around to a lot of different things.  He hasn't just 'memorized' his life in a superficial way, but actually has learned his life.  

Lastly, "a memory image...can also cause us to remember 'what is not present'" (Aristotle, as quoted in Carruthers).  This made me think about how Shandy might continually be distracted.  If pictures aren't the only things which can distract, but any visual image can do so as well, then the actual words on the page, or whatever may be going on around the writer may distract him or make him think of something else he want's to be sure to get down for the reader.  That doesn't make it any less confusing, but perhaps more understandable?  

Week 6: Distraction

In reading Tristram Shandy, I wondered how last week's and this week's topics might interact.  That is, the characters in Tristram Shandy seem to be distracted from the conversations they have or the events going on around them because of their Hobby-Horses, as Sterne calls their obsessions.  Is obsession a form of distraction?  But if one is easily distracted, how can one become obsessed in the first place?

"we can attend to but one thing at a time" (Edgeworth).  I felt like Sterne should keep that in mind when writing Tristram Shandy.  Part of what makes this novel so difficult is that it keeps jumping from one situation to others.  The narrator will introduce a conversation, like that of Walter and Toby Shandy on the night of Tristram's birth, but then interrupt said conversation to explain other details, coming back to the situation/conversation a few chapters later.  I felt as though I had to keep flipping back and forth to keep up with what was currently happening, which is annoying for a book that claims to want to keep the timeline in order.  

Yet, this is chronological in a way.  The feeling I get from this is when you let your mind wander from some intended point - almost like a stream of consciousness.  Even though the narrator says he's constructing this intentionally for the reader to engage with the story of his life, the constant interruptions make it hard for the reader to stay attentive, which makes me wonder how carefully he's attending to what his stated goals actually are.  Unless, can we tell when our distractions are distracting for someone else?  Are the distractions distracting, or just the effects of the distractions?  

I guess, overall, I'm mostly just confused by this novel right now. 

Week 5: Obsession

From Introduction to Monomania: "The self will only be convinced of its own worth by the faultless devotion of another." and "Catching the beloved in an act of betrayal affords a...type of mastery"

In The Female Quixote, Arabella acts both of these ideas noted above.  She uses her Romantic novel background to justify a complete and utter devotion by Glansville as the only proof he loves her.  Yet, this show of love must be in a specific way. Namely, Glansville must not say he loves her, but must pine away until he falls deathly ill from keeping declarations of love to himself.  In convincing Glansville to follow her rather hard to understand rules, Arabella receives a confirmation of the superiority of her beliefs, and, therefore, her own correctness in social interaction.
I felt like the second quote fit, but I can't find a specific instance that clarifies why it seems like Arabella becomes a master when Glanville commits some perceived grievance against her.  Is it that she enacts a type of mastery over him here, or is it that the mastery comes from outside either party?  If so, what exactly would that be? Human nature (to disappoint/betray)?

From Mar, Oatley, Djikic, Mullen: "...readers and viewers select entertainment media that will promote or maintain positive moods, or those that will help reduce or circumvent negative moods." and "Anthropomorphisation probably supports the ability to see fictional characters as if they were real, with real human psychologies, perhaps allowing these characters to provide social comfort in ways similar to real peers."

I thought these sentences interesting as they seemed to reflect Arabella's character how our class was talking about her last week.  She used her romance novels to provide support for her arguments with other characters, as well as to confirm her own beliefs (of Ravishers or Robbers or any number of unpleasant situations which could befall her person).  However, we also talked about the fact that she was extremely secluded from normal human interaction.  So, that last quote could help to explain what was going on in her childhood that made these romances so real for her.  She used them as a social comfort.  How does that assumption, then, work with the way her absorption was abruptly disposed of at the end of the novel?

26 September; Absorption

"[Modern fiction's] province is to bring about natural events by easy means, and to keep up curiosity without the help of wonder: it is therefore precluded from the machines and expedients of the heroic romance, and can neither employ giants to snatch away a lady from the nuptial rites, nor knights to bring her back from captivity; it can neither bewilder its personages in desarts, nor lodge them in imaginary castles." (Johnson, emphasis added, 1750).

In the novel The Female Quixote, (1752) we get both a modern fiction as well as a sample of these historical romances.  Lennox writes the modern fiction about Arabella, but Arabella imagines her life and experiences her life as clips from the French Romances she reads and has read since she was a small child.  Last week, we talked about curiosity and how it differs from wonder, as well as how the experiences of each changed over time.  In her insistence on living within her romantic world's rules, Arabella becomes something of a curiosity for the men she meets, and rather ridiculed as a sort of monstrosity (madwoman) by the women she meets.  Arabella, on the other hand, looks at the world through a lens of wonder.  She creates fantasies for herself, and about her life.  These fantasies then become reality for her.

She lets herself get taken in by the stories of romance, unlike Johnson's claim that, "In the romances formerly written, every transaction and sentiment was so remote from all that passes among men, that the reader was in very little danger of making any application to himself".  We see Arabella taking these former romances quite seriously, to the point of calling them histories.  The comedy of the book comes from the reader's awareness of Arabella's fantasies as outside the reality in which she lives.  The reader participates in making Arabella a curiosity, yet are we supposed to get swept up in the wonder she lives in as Mr. Glanville starts to do in some passages?  Does he fully enter into the fantastical world Arabella lives in, or does he just learn how to pretend? Is this pretending a form of that wonder, since he claims to do so out of Love?

19 September, 2012: Curiosity

As I started reading the Daston piece, “Wonders and the Order of Nature”, I found the Descartes idea of “wonder as the first of the passions...useful in small doses to stimulate scientific inquiry” (304) particularly in line with my thoughts on Fantomina.  Fantomina, or the lady who acted Fantomina, was originally simply curious as to what it would be like to be a prostitute.  Where she got into trouble was in her insistence on continuing to explore past the point where she could stay safely within her station/life.  In other words, she used a small dose to stimulate her inquiry, but then kept adding to it, leading her down her own path of destruction.

                I used ‘curious’ where Descartes used ‘wonder’.  In the Daston article, she articulates the history of each term.  Wonder, then, may be used by Descartes in a similar way Haywood would have understood Curiosity.  One thing that seemed to be especially relevant was the connection of curiosity to desire or lust.  We can see that quite strongly in Fantomina.  Her curiosity led her to explore, but her desire, then, to have what her experiment had shown her possible overtook her better judgment.  I am curious/wondering, then, how Fantomina the novel means to explore, if at all, the ideas behind scientific inquiry?  That is, after all, how Fantomina’s tricks and deception started.

                In this case, I don’t think we can just take the evidence that Fantomina ended up alone in a convent with a ruined reputation and no lover for her life as a full commentary on the outcome of scientific exploration.  There was not much procedurally wrong with her original experiment.  She dressed, acted, and spoke in the ways of a prostitute, yet had sense enough to know when to cut off her interaction for that night.  Her mistake was in leaving an opening for the next night.  This made it hard for her to stop the charade.  Yet, is this a mistake/flaw in the scientific way she went about it, or a flaw in her character with her experiment simply the vehicle through which we see her flaws?  

12 September, 2012

I feel like I’m not quite sure what to do with this, so here goes.

The thing that struck me as I was reading Robinson Crusoe was the almost detached consciousness of the style.  Though the novel is written as a first person narrative, it could also read as an almost scientific journal of observations and events.  For example, Crusoe “consulted several things in [his] situation, which [he] found would be proper for [him]: first...secondly...thirdly...fourthly...” (89-90).  This is an extremely linear, logical way of laying out not only action and event, but thought as well.  Though Crusoe the character has no scientific background, he observes and decides like a scientist might. 

When I approached the secondary readings, I felt as if the novel made a little more sense. Ian Watt wrote that "realitst" view of the phenomenon of the original novels (of which Defoe was a writer) as “tend[ing] to differ from the more flattering pictures of humanity presented by many established ethical, social, and literary codes...because they were the product of a more dispassionate and scientific scrutiny of life than had ever been attempted before.” (11).  This made a lot of sense with the detachment I had noticed while reading. 

I’m not entirely convinced that the novel was objective, though, or even that it was trying to be.  Watt seems to concur with that in his denouncement of the realist's claim that the novel was objective.  Firstly, it was written in the first person, as a journal.  A truly objective voice would be outside the action – a mere observer.  Secondly, though Crusoe goes into much detail about certain of his endeavors, such as the circumferance and width of the fence he constructs around his dwelling, there are numerous places where he states that he’s going to skip over this next part, as it is repetitive of the previous.  An objective view includes each detail, not judging which is important or trivial.  I guess I’m exploring the objectivity of the novel, as well as Crusoe himself.