The Kids Are Alright

 Bloodsuckers

First, let me say a few words about your responses to the vampire images.  Overall you did well with them, precisely because most of you focused on or at least called attention to the physical details in the images to provide evidence for your conclusions.  

Here are my annotations for the Dracula image.  

Based upon the physical differences presented in the images--the evidence, the details--I would say that in the Dracula figure we are seeing a less monstrous, more human vampire.  The way Dracula is dressed suggests to me a greater sophistication (which is supported by the fact that in the movie he is referred to as Count Dracula), which further suggests to me that we are beginning to see vampires as more civilized, a higher class of being, perhaps even more--attractive?  Note even the ring on Dracula's left hand, and the handkerchief sticking out of his breast pocket, which further accentuates a sense of style and sophistication. 

Here is also an analysis from one of the students in our class, that does what I've done above more extensively.  This is an example of what a number of you did, and I show this to you so, if it helps, you can see how a non-teacher does this:

Of the three, Nosferatu looks the most threatening and demented. He has large, sunken, white eyes with tiny pupils. His fingers are talon-like and his hand is curled into a claw. His teeth are sharp and he is baring them. His ears are pointy like an animal’s. His eyebrows point downward towards his nose, adding to the wild look.

Dracula, unlike his 10 years older counterpart, looks more human. His fingers have a normal human shape, although his hands are still curled into claws like Nosferatu’s. His eyes are wide, but the pupils are matching in size. His mouth, unlike Nosferatu’s, is closed over his teeth. His eyebrows also point down, however the look is more angry than crazed. He has hair, which perhaps adds to the almost normal look.

The vampire of today has brought beauty to world of frightening things. His hair is cut stylishly. His facial features are more angular and this; perhaps this is in support of the idea that thin is beautiful. His eyes, unlike Nosferatu’s and Dracula’s, are light in color, taking away from the threatening look. His eyebrows, like the other two vampires’, are pulled down; however, Edward’s eyebrows give him a more curious look. Something else that I find curious is that the image only shows Edward’s face. He is not shown in a threatening stance. This is an attempt to draw attention to his face and nothing else; the artist wants his audience to focus solely on Edward’s looks and beauty.

Today, people look at vampires as mythical. And like all mythical creatures, they become interesting instead of frightening. Edward reflects this in that he is beautiful instead of threatening. In the beginning, Nosferatu was something to scare viewers, simply as entertainment. Perhaps Dracula became more human and less “scary” because his was a time during the Great Depression. Perhaps creators thought that reality was scary enough; therefore they changed the looks of the vampire so that it could still remain a source of entertainment. The real threat remained outside of their entertainment.

Edward represents what today has become all about: looks. We have dozens of television shows based on changing someone’s looks to make them look more appealing. The people we look up to nowadays are those beautiful stars. We have hundreds of make-up products to choose from, each supposed to make you lovelier than the last one. Our commercials center around sex, featuring beautiful ladies and handsome men. The way the vampire is portrayed has changed to fit this style and mind set.

I would particularly call your attention to the final paragraph and the connection to our contemporary era.

A number of you also made interesting connections between Dracula and the 1930s, including the notion that Dracula's more human appearance perhaps reflects how expensive it may have been to create a Nosferatu-like creature.  Another student made a different connection between Dracula and the economy of the Great Depression, noting that, to quote, "One could speculate that his fancy clothing and monarch-like appearance is a representation of the tough economic times in America during the 1930s.  The rich were evil, and many were poor.  Dracula was a "bad guy" just like the rich."

Fingersnippers

In my previous posting I had talked a bit about how important it is as a college writer to be willing and able to think outside of yourself and your own immediate experience.  Basically, we need to be aware of the context in which a text was produced--was the text produced in a different culture, was it produced at a different time in history, was it produced for a readership different from you, for what purpose was the text produced?  

Those are all questions any writer has to ask when that writer analyzes a text.  To emphasize something I've mentioned before, analysis is one of the most important writing tasks you'll do as a college writer, and part of analysis is also trying to understand the context in which a text was produced.  Now, no one is going to expect you to understand every single bit of context about a text; that's not realistic, since you will likely have relatively short time frames and limited resources when you have to write an essay.  But at least being aware of context is going to be a boost to your writing, and help your teacher/reader see your writing in a positive way.

In the exercise dealing with the vampire images, I had introduced the contextual element of time.  texts change because audiences change.  What people believe and value in one century is not going to be the same as what people believe and value in another century.  Consequently, when you analyze something as a writer you often must be aware of when a text was created.  You can't judge something by your standards if your standards didn't exist at the time that a text was created.  That simply isn't fair, and it's intellectually unreasonable. 

Audiences can change, and that can change the nature of a text.    It may be nice to think that it's the writer, through the power of the pen, that transforms the audience, but in fact that's rare.  Writers for the most part connect with the needs and desires of their audiences.  Now let me emphasize again here that no one expects you, as the writer, to account for every possible variation in a readership.  That, simply, is impossible.  But because you're the writer, you can target your audience--you can determine to whom you want to write.  You can "create" your readership.  That actually is something you'll commonly do as a college writer.  Your teacher may be the one who is grading you, and figuring out what the teacher wants and giving that to him or her is pretty common (and I'd be lying if I said it was never successful), in college teachers generally don't want you to write for them.  To be blunt, you can't, not yet.  You don't yet have that level of expertise or knowledge.  As you start to get more engaged with your area of specialization, you will then start to develop the capacity to write for the teacher.  But not yet. 

Your Turn

What follows is the exercise I mention in the explanation for your first essay: the Struwwelpeter exercise.  I am going to ask you to read two texts--two versions of the same story.  The first text is a copy of a children's story from the mid 19th century.  The story is called "The Story of Little Suck-a-Thumb," and it is one of a series of tales in a book titled Struwwelpeter by Heinrich Hoffmann.  (Loosely translated, "Struwwelpeter" means "slovenly Peter."  The book was originally published, in German, in 1845.  You'll be reading the English translation.)  This tale, and others in the book, are known as cautionary tales.  They are intended to point out bad behavior to children, and warn them of the consequences of continuing with that bad behavior.  After reading the story, it may be tempting to think un-nice things about Hoffmann.  What you need to realize, though, is that cautionary tales were quite common and quite popular, including in America.  One reason why I hammer on the notion of understanding a text in its time and place is the too-common tendency (among all people, not just students) to assume that their values and beliefs have been, and always will be, eternal.  That can become a grave problem with research writing. 

Struwwelpeter

Also keep in mind that "The Story of Little Suck-a-Thumb" was intended to be read to, and read by, children.  There are two significant audiences for this story: children and their parents.

The second text is an updated version of "Little Suck-a-Thumb."  In this instance, "Little Suck-a-Thumb" has been converted to a video.  Here it's important to keep in mind that the video tells the exact same story, word-for-word, but I think you'll find the experience of the video to be somewhat ... different.

So what I want you to do is

1. Read the original version of "The Story of Little Suck-a-Thumb."  Click here to open an e-text of the story.
2. Watch the video, from the 21st century, of "The Story of Little Suck-a-Thumb."  The narration in the video will be in German, but you'll know the story once you've read the English version.  I've included both a link to the video, and an embedded copy of the video below.  (Note--you may want to go to your happy place after watching the video)

   

 3. Finally, let’s talk about these texts in terms of audience.  So what do you think?  As I mentioned earlier, the original Suck-a-Thumb was intended for children.  So, can you imagine someone like Mister Rogers reading this for his viewers, or Sesame Street characters acting out this story?  Can you imagine this story being told at bedtime to little child in 2013?  Would you tell your own child this story?  Why or why not?  What does the original story suggest to you about how children were perceived when the story was originally written?  Assuming that parents in the mid-19th century loved their children (and they did), how do we explain such a story?  How has our world changed to make stories like this "unacceptable" as children's stories now?   

And what about the video?  Remember, it's the same exact story, but it's no longer for children.  So how does the video tell the story differently to make it more--adult?  Again, to beat the proverbial dead horse, both texts are telling the exact same story--however, they are telling the story in two different ways, and ways that are appropriate for their respective, and different audiences.  While I don't want you to overlook the most obvious differences (video didn't exist in the 19th century), I want you to try to tease out how the video changes the story in more ways than just using a new medium. 

Post your responses to Piazza.  Please post your responses by Tuesday, Feb 4.