Critique: Deconstruction – “The Cask of Amontillado” Edgar Allan Poe’s, “The Cask of Amontillado,” is supposedly a revenge story: the wronged Montresor finally gets justice out of punishing the gross Fortunato. The driving force of the piece is Montresor, who narrates the whole tale, and his need to right the wrong that was done to him by Fortunato, thereby “punish with impunity” (Poe 65). Montresor’s reasons, however, are extreme and hard to accept, and the contradictions and ambiguous content within Montresor’s narration expose Montresor as an unreliable narrator, and Fortunato as not a despicable man, which makes the theme of revenge seem as unbelievable as the narrator himself, thus showing him as insane rather than avenged. The story opens with Montresor addressing the reader directly, about the “thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne” (Poe 65), yet it is never revealed what Fortunado did. This exaggeration shows Montresor as a furious man, rather than a reasonable one, and the fact that he refused to explain the insult from Fortunato, despite its supposed severity, has already shown him as an unreliable man. He speaks of being “avenged,” and how he will “punish [him] with impunity,” and that his “smile now was at the thought of his immolation” (Poe 65), which all point to his own fury, instead of his reasoning, that is his driving force, further solidifying him as unreliable. Montresor states that Fortunato, “had a weak point,” that he “prided himself on his connoisseurship of wine” (Poe 65). Therefore, Fortunato had a singular weakness. This could mean he had a weakness in that he couldn’t resist wine, or that it’s Montresor’s way of getting to him, or both. This ambiguity is repeated later on in the story as well. Montresor describes Fortunato as: “a man to be respected and even feared” (Poe 65). However in the next breath Montresor demeans him, calling him a “quack” to his other implied interests of “painting and gemmary” (Poe 65). This contradiction of a respected man and a “quack” shows the divide between the narrator’s perceptions and those that are generally accepted by others who know Fortunato. The contradictions continue as Montresor continues to refer to Fortunato, who is described as his enemy, as his friend. Montresor even acts as a so-called friend would to Fortunato and his deception is somewhat expected in their interactions, but with Montresor’s admitted plan of revenge to the reader, the use of “friend” (Poe 67) toward Fortunato seems contrary to the honesty Montresor wants to give to the reader. Montresor then talks about what Fortunato is wearing, giving the image of a jester or clown. The clown characteristics are used to describe both how he looks and illustrate how Montresor sees him. However, as this is apparently Montresor’s attempt to ridicule Fortunato, it, along with Fortunato’s happy demeanor and kindness to Montresor, begins to inspire pity, rather than excitement for his ultimate demise. Montresor describes “the bells upon his cap [jingling] as he strode” (Poe 67), which makes Fortunato seem like a child, further destroying Montresor’s credibility, and may only succeed in pushing a reader to side with Fortunato rather than Montresor. As the two make their way to the fabled amontillado, Fortunato’s illness and coughing fits again leads readers to sympathize with Fortunato, who is cast as the antagonist, not Montresor, the protagonist, which is a reverse on the normal pattern. Montresor tries to show sympathy and urges Fortunato to go back, knowing that Fortunato will not because of the amontillado. The mocking of Fortunato strengthens the sympathetic approach to his character.
The biggest contradiction in this story is the supposed brilliance in which the story unravels itself most successfully. In order for the reader to believe that the theme is in fact revenge instead of atrocious mental illness, the narrator needs to be somewhat trustworthy and sane. The irony that Montresor uses is what elevates him as well as what degrades his appeal and trustworthiness. It would have been honorable to speak to one’s transgressor and let them know the injustice bothering him. In this case, Montresor should have spoken to Fortunato and solved the problem in a civilized manner. By lying in Fortunato’s face and poking fun at Fortunato, Montresor is degraded and makes his story less believable. When Fortunato is coughing, Montresor begs him to turn back, to which Fortunato replies, “the cough is a mere nothing; it will not kill me. I shall not die of a cough,” to which Montresor replies, “True—true” (Poe 67). When Fortunato asks Montresor if he is a mason, Montresor answers, “Yes, yes,” and then he “produced a trowel from beneath the folds of my roquelaire,” which is his joke because the masonry tool will ultimately destroy Fortunato (Poe 68). This constant embarrassment of Fortunato while he doesn’t know it only furthers the ability of a reader to sympathize with him. Letting the reader sympathize with the transgressor contradicts the purpose of the theme of revenge. As Montresor walls up Fortunato toward the end, we get more insight into Montresor’s possibly demented mind. As Fortunato screams, Montresor replies “to the yells of him who clamored. I re-echoed—I aided—I surpassed them in volume and in strength” (Poe 70). Montresor does not tell him of what he is guilty and never even mentions the supposed attack or explains to Fortunato his motives. He never gives Fortunato a chance to defend himself. This in itself goes against the rules of civility and shows Montresor as ruthless, uncaring person for whom sympathy is a distant thought. He doesn’t give sympathy, and doesn’t get any from the reader as he comes off as mentally unstable. As anyone can see, the more moaning that Montresor does about Fortunato’s trespassing, the more readers can see that the intended meaning of the story seems to fall apart. The deconstruction of this story has attempted to unravel the theme, in an effort to expose it doesn’t actually possess as much credibility as one might first think. Montressor’s unwillingness to explain the insult from Fortunato, along with his contradictions and the way he acts contrary to a normally sane person, makes the whole idea of the story as a revenge tale unbelievable. Just by looking into Montresor’s character as unstable and unvelievable can completely change the theme and presence of the story, which can then change some readers’ thoughts on real life notions of revenge.
Cosmopolitan magazine promotes itself as a magazine for the modern woman. They present a woman who is confident in herself and her sexuality and doesn’t back down. The tagline: “Fun, Fearless, Female” encourages this view of the magazine while the word cosmopolitan builds on this and suggests a certain amount of sophistication and worldly confidence. Perhaps the fact that the magazine is almost universally referred to as “Cosmo” and not “Cosmopolitan” is the first indication that it is not entirely sophisticated. The ideal Cosmo girl is one that sheds previously held social restrictions. She is outspoken, self-assured, and sexual—traits that were traditionally expected in men but certainly not ‘ladies’. The Cosmo girl strides tall through the man’s world rather than demurely behind it. All of which sounds positive and freeing in the modern world, however, the idea that the magazine is driven on empowering independent woman is laughable when one looks closely at the covers.
Sex sells. One could assume that sex sells magazines very well. The cover of January 2012’s Cosmo alone has eight references to it. This is quite the feat as there are only seven blurbs (which just so happen to encircle Scarlett Johansson’s skintight nightie-turned-cocktail dress clad body). Who exactly are they trying to market the sex for? Is the full cleavage gracing the glossy page for the benefit of the reader? As every cover has a reference to the male counterpart one can assume that it is not. Instead, the scantily clad vixens on the cover are something to envy and aspire to be—90% of which further their careers by just how well they can wear lingerie in front of a camera. This seems to be less femininely empowering than, say, images of an accomplished doctor or lawyer. So why should women desire to be underdressed vixens rather than fashionable businesswomen? The answer is repeated twice on the Johansson cover: men. Men’s opinions on the kinky sex moves they desire as well as just how snare them in a web of love are promised inside. Two more blurbs try to entice readers with enhancing their sexual experience and how to achieve the “Sexiest. Body. Ever.” which are only slightly more indirect references to further enhancing relationships with men. This isn’t a freak occurrence either. Looking back at a year’s worth of Cosmo magazines the upper left blurb consistently repeats one word: Sex. The November 2011 issue wraps this theme up neatly; “We reveal the midbooty thoughts he’d never admit to…but you need to know”. Why exactly do women need to know these mid-coital ponderings? More importantly why do women need to “tell your inner good girl to get lost for the night” as is suggested on the opposite side of the very same cover. That is blatantly suggesting that women alter an aspect of themselves to better please a man! With this translation in mind, Cosmo not only finds itself lacking in female empowerment but it seems to be supporting a malicious conspiracy to craft the perfect man-pleasing woman. There is a repetition of damaging themes across the Cosmo covers such as that sex is more important than love, being naughty is better than being nice, learn best how to pleasure your man, and by the heavens don’t let your body fall anywhere below the bombshells pictured or you will never find love—which, of course, comes only after you alter every aspect of yourself to suit the average man’s desires. With such themes, how could the fact that there is a spinoff magazine, CosmoGirl, which is aimed at teenage girls be anything short of terrifying? Occasionally the magazine does mention the how to keep yourself healthy but as most of the health topics revolve around the vagina it feels that the concern for the woman is once again lowered. If there was any further doubt over the real focus of the publication, one only has to wait a year to find out.
T.S. Eliot’s “Preludes” at first glance appears as unified and coherent a poem as any. However, when we apply a deconstructionist analysis of literature derived from Jacques Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction, an interesting thing occurs. The unity that appears present in the piece falls away and the text is exposed as a series of conflicting contexts. According to Derrida, words gain meaning not only from their oppositions but from their contexts as well. For example: the opposite of black is white, but this opposition has other contexts such as racial conflict, good and evil, or light and dark. With this in mind, deconstructionism reaches the conclusion that true meaning cannot exist because with every sign (word) there is a never-ending chain of contexts which alter our perceptions. Derrida’s philosophy adds that to convey meaning one must repress the alternate meanings of the words in a sentence, thus only making visible, so to speak, the desired meaning. Deconstructionist literary analysis begins when we strip away the repression and analyze a group of words for all of its contexts and connotations. Thus we are brought back to T.S. Eliot’s poem “Preludes”. Upon first reading this poem, images of urban squalor come to mind, as well as thoughts of intimate encounters with women of possibly ill-repute. The unity of the poem stems from an assumed central theme; that being the speaker has become disillusioned with urban life and struggles to see any meaning in it, and also that he has a seemingly empty relationship with the woman in the poem. Now, when one applies deconstructive criticism to this poem, the meaning falls away and we are left with disunity. Take for example line nine; “The showers beat”. Showers can be used to describe light rain, the act of cleaning oneself, objects falling from overhead, inundating one with gifts, or a bridal or baby shower. The second word, “beat” means to assault, to tenderize, or can denote rhythm of some sort. Now that we have stripped away the illusions from the text, it is revealed that there are quite a number of contexts in which the sentence can, and must, be interpreted. So with this sentence we see that what Eliot most likely intended to mean the rhythm of the rain actually means many different things simultaneously. In essence, the true lack of meaning is revealed when we tear away the thin veneer of the sentence’s context, or its intended meaning. Another example of this is line thirty-four; “as the street hardly understands”. This sentence is riddled with meaning-altering context as this very sentence could be construed as “because” or “while” “the path firmly stands under”, which not only makes very little sense but it is completely unrelated to the original intended meaning that Eliot was trying to convey, and thus we see how deconstruction shows that true meaning cannot exist because nothing exists without context.
In addition to this, we also see in this poem a fundamental concept that deconstructionists refer to as hierarchical opposition. That is to say, by choosing a word we omit its opposite, and thus establish that the chosen word is superior, establishing a miniature hierarchy. For example, the author uses the word “grimy” in line five. We know that grimy is what it is because it is not clean. Clean is the opposition of grimy. By choosing grimy Eliot omits cleanly, and therefore counterintuitively presumes that grimy is superior to cleanly. However this hierarchy is inconsistent with the author’s intended message that urban life is negative. This hierarchical opposition throws the entire credibility of the piece into question, as is the goal of deconstructive criticism. In sum, a deconstructive analysis of T.S. Eliot’s poem “Preludes” comes to the conclusion that the meaning that the author intended, that urban line is negative, is contradicted by the context of the very words the author chooses, and since words have no meaning without context, defining true meaning is possible. This is not to say that literature says nothing, this is to say that literature cannot say only one thing, but in fact must say everything due to context.
When reading a poem, it is not always black and white; there is not always one true meaning which the author intends. A poet, using different aspects of language, may hide an entirely different meaning, feeling, or idea within a poem. In “My Papa’s Waltz,” Theodore Roethke embeds these ideas within a poem, so that it is only through close analysis that one can uncover these ideas. Word choice can alter the meaning of a line when analyzed carefully. Although a reading of this poem may seem to reflect a meaning of a close relationship between a father and child, it can also be analyzed in a quite different way. When one first reads this poem, it may seem as though it is a fond memory a young child has with their father, namely a “waltz” or a dance of some sort. The situation, especially when considering the first line consisting of alcohol, seems as though maybe the father was out drinking, and then came home in a good mood and began to dance with his child. However, maybe the alcohol has another meaning, or possibly a vital sense of importance throughout this poem. For many people, alcohol can lead to a different state of mind. If the father is drunk, he may be acting in a way different than usual, perhaps. When the poem is read through, it is apparent that this is a story of a family that may not be living an upper-class life, but seems to make do with hard work. However, the word choice that the author uses throughout the poem can be analyzed to determine an entirely different story of abuse and a scared child. “My Papa’s Waltz” consistently presents lines that could be seen as a dance shared between father and child. Lines 3 and 4 read, “But I hung on like death/Such waltzing was not easy” (Roethke). The idea of a child “hanging on” to their parent seems understandable, especially in the sense of a dance where a young child may need to grasp their father in order to follow the steps. However, it is possible to see that there is an entirely different, underlying meaning to these lines. Although the author could have used another word in place of “death,” the word death was ultimately the chosen word. The word “death” could have been used to imply a sense of fear, doom, and the possibility of abuse. A reader may begin to wonder if the young child in this poem is afraid of death, or if this child can see death in the near future. In stanza two, the word “romped” is used, which implies a sense of giddiness or joy. Does the child feel happiness during this “waltz?” Does the child recognize this as a happy time? Also, “the Pans slid from the kitchen shelf,” may imply a sense of uneasiness felt by the child. Instability can be felt by the reader, as though the child may be in a situation which they are unaware of or do not know how to avoid. The next two lines, “My mother’s countenance/Could not unfrown itself,” implies a sense of constant uneasiness or unhappiness. Although one might read this to mean that the mother is unhappy about the pans, it seems likely that the mother is in a situation which she does not know how to avoid. The mother could be exasperated with watching a dangerous situation, unable to help her son and fearing for her son’s safety.
As the poem continues, more choices made by the author seem to stand out as contradicting. Lines 11 and 12 read, “At every step you missed/My right ear scraped a buckle,” (Roethke). Although it is very likely that a young child may be about the same height as their father’s belt, therefore implying that if one does not follow the dance steps correctly the child may scrape the belt buckle, it is also clear that the choice of the words may have diverse meanings. One could refer back to the “whiskey” mentioned in line 1 and consider a drunken father to be responsible for slight missteps or sloppy waltzing. However, when a child “missteps,” that child may receive some form of punishment from parents. The “buckle” noted in these lines, though still referring to a belt, may actually represent the child being beat by the belt as a form of punishment. In this situation, the whiskey may or may not be responsible for the “missteps” or the use of the belt. Line 13 reads, “You beat time on my head,” (Roethke). The word “beat” could be used in compliance with the waltz, referring to the child and the father dancing to music. The father could be lightly tapping his hand on the child’s head in rhythm with the music, which would seem to be a loving gesture. However, it is also possible that the word “beat” could involve abuse. The father may be beating the child but hitting the child in the head, in which case there is no loving relationship present. Later in this stanza, lines 15 and 16 read, “Then waltzed me off to bed/Still clinging to your shirt,” (Roethke). The child could be seen as clinging to his or her father’s shirt in order to beg the father to stop doing wrong, or worse yet; the blood of the child may be on the father’s shirt. There are many ways to analyze these lines, though the poet may or may not have intended to imply abuse. Using a deconstructive approach, the poem “My Papa’s Waltz” can be seen as a contradiction to the intent of the poem. Though a superficial reading of this poem may imply a sense of giddiness and dancing, it seems as though the word choice has given this poem an underlying meaning. Using this approach of literary analysis, one can see that this poem has multiple meanings, and that the reader can ultimately find contradictions within the work based on the Roethke’s literary choices.
A Community of Damned Fools Mark Twain, while better known for his novels and quotes of wisdom, composed a number of burlesques and satires that are relatively unknown. Among these is the short work “Autobiography of a Damned Fool,” which gives the personal account of the naïve and ridiculous Bolivar on his exploration of different social and religious institutions. Twain left the story incomplete, but Bolivar’s tale of young adulthood does the author credit. Though Bolivar’s first person narrative is intended to exasperate the reader and satirize the life of the village idiot (if that is possible), it is not the blatant naiveté of the protagonist, but rather the inconsistencies of society that undo Twain’s story. The incompetence of Bolivar’s friends and neighbors reveals who is really to blame for his social ineptitude. Furthermore, “Autobiography of a Damned Fool” demonstrates that individuals are a product of their cultural context, and that regardless of the reasoning behind a person’s actions he or she will be judged according to local social norms. The protagonist’s troubles begin when he is asked to teach a Sunday school lesson, without having any real experience or basis of faith to speak of. In his debut as a teacher, he lectures his pupils about the improbability of the great flood, reasoning that the likelihood of the earth being flooded in a period of forty days was low (Twain 138-139). After presenting numerous other flaws in the logic of that chapter of the Bible, he concluded that the majority of it should be discarded. He was later reprimanded for his heresy laden lecture, but rather than being dismissed from his post, he was allowed to continue teaching the Bible. In this situation, I think that rather than blaming Bolivar, it is the minister who should be held accountable for what happened at the local Sunday school. Bolivar’s qualifications for the post included nothing more than a public display of burning his cigarettes (Twain 136). The minister’s faulty assumption regarding Bolivar’s faith reveals his own incompetence, as well as the inability of churches to find qualified and willing teachers in their respective congregations. After being confronted by the minister about his misinformed lesson, Bolivar is given a copy of the Koran, so that he might be able to refute the beliefs of the “infidels” (Twain 142). Rather than being outraged at the beliefs presented in that text, Bolivar found sense in the words and immediately converted to Islam. In a high-strung Christian community, his new beliefs were not well received. This was especially true when he attempted to establish his own harem by inviting the most upstanding middle-aged virgins in the area to come and share his bedroom at his master’s house (Twain 146). Although Bolivar’s approach may not have been in the realm of tact, the reaction of the townspeople was that of violent intolerance. The protagonist’s execution of his newfound religious doctrine may have been worthy of an eye-roll, but his naiveté excuses him from the same level of accountability that is to be given to those supposedly loving Christians.
Social institutions further fail Bolivar when he joins the Paladin movement, which condemns the drinking of alcohol. Through ambition and the reformation of the town lush, he is able to rise through the ranks until he finally is about to be named the Doge. Just before the ceremony, his fellow apprentice gives him a flask that will supposedly help calm his nerves. Bolivar knows that the container holds whiskey, and he initially feels repulsion towards it. However, his inquisitive mind causes him to question his attitude towards alcohol. He determines that he has judged the liquid unfairly because he proclaimed it evil without ever trying it. Before he knows it, he is stumbling around drunk, accompanied by the reformed drunkard. Needless to say, Bolivar’s title was revoked and the Paladins stripped him of his membership. However, the reader once again observes a situation in which the community has the authority to bestow power, and once again, it is bestowed in Bolivar, the inexperienced and easily misled young man. Even though a great deal of power is given to Bolivar, every time that does something of his own free will he is ostracized and mistreated. Hank Flanders, his fellow apprentice, is very similar to him. Bolivar describes him as follows: He lacked stability of character; therefore he was given to taking up with new things and new fancies, all the time, and deserting the old. This was his only serious fault. It did little or no good to try and make him understand that success in life depends upon steadfast fidelity to one’s enterprises. (Twain 155) Bolivar’s characterization of his peer also applies to him, and it is this lack of commitment that is his only real flaw. Hank is almost a mirror image of Bolivar, but he is able to escape many of the hardships because he is able to conform his whims to the “socially acceptable.” Hank may be more respected than his counterpart, but Bolivar’s free-thinking mind is more pliable. Hank is becoming just like the rest of the townsfolk – susceptible to religious assumptions and social norms. Bolivar is very much a product of society. He was a blank slate when the story began, a recent orphan about begin his life anew by burning his cigarettes. His actions were misconstrued by church leadership and when given authority, he was treated poorly by the same people that gave him power. This story operates on two levels, both the individual and the community. Bolivar lacks common sense and could very well fit the title Mark Twain bestowed upon him, but the community in which he resides and takes part displays an alarming lack of sense as well. While Bolivar conducts himself on a basis of logical fallacies, the community works under a set of false assumptions that could perhaps qualify it as being the real “damned fool.”
Work Cited Twain, Mark, and Franklin R. Rogers. Mark Twain's Satires and Burlesques. Berkeley etc., 1967. Print.
“The Man Your Man Could Smell Like”: A Post-Modern Deconstruction Commercials are intended not only to make people want to buy or use advertised goods and services, but they are also designed to grab people’s attention and hold it right until the last possible second. There is one commercial, the Old Spice body wash commercial titled “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like”, that does this quite effectively—but why is it so successful, and what messages are hidden beneath its surface? Through the critical method known as Post-Modern Deconstructionism, I hope to pinpoint the “Other”—the beings, beliefs, objects, etc. that exist outside of the accepted or expected—that lives underneath the cultural values displayed in this advertisement. I will bring to light what is said and what is not said, what these things mean in relation to each other, and how they affect the nature of the message as a whole. The commercial begins with this image: a physically attractive black male is standing in nothing but a towel in a bathroom. His hair is short while the lower part of his face is covered with an even cut of stubble. With his first line—“Hello, ladies”—the viewer notices his deep voice and obvious (and somewhat silly) confidence. All of these characteristics have been carefully chosen to appeal to a human’s basic instinct: courtship and mating, aimed most particularly at the female. Although one could call this advertisement stereotypical, it is so in a way that is outside of the norm. First of all, having a black man as the spokesman in a predominantly white society is unusual, to say the least. Is this advertisement attempting to break an accepted norm? Or do women typically find black men more attractive than white men? What seems to be happening is since a white male would be more normal or “safe,” perhaps the commercial is appealing to the viewer’s sense for the unusual or “dangerous.” There is a stereotype within American society that women are sexually attracted to men who are seen as “dangerous” or outcasts in relation to society’s accepted norms. Second, this advertisement is normal in that there is a man marketing a male body wash for men. What is unusual is that the target of the advertisement is not the male who will be using the body wash, but rather the female partner. The commercial’s next few lines are, “Look at your man, now back to me… Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped using lady-scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, he could smell like he’s me.” When he says, “like me,” he does not literally mean like himself, but rather like the man he represents as he advocates the product. The spokesman is obviously appealing to the person who will smell the body wash rather than the person who will use it; he is basically saying, “If you want your man to smell good, buy Old Spice!” On the surface, he is directly addressing the female partner.
There is another target audience underneath the heteronormative lingo, however. The other major group targeted by this commercial is the homosexual male couple. If any straight female can be generally attracted to the spokesman, so could any homosexual male. It would perhaps benefit Old Spice even more to target the homosexual couple as both people in the relationship could take an interest in the product. Furthermore, anyone can appreciate tickets to “that thing you like,” diamonds, and boats; none of these things are exclusively female interests. Just as boats and diamonds can appeal to a person of any gender, the humor appeals similarly to every viewer. There is a controlled frenzy that runs through the entire advertisement; the quickness of speech, the sudden changes in props and scenery, and the attention-grabbing language are balanced by the spokesman’s skillful control of his expressions and the calmness of his voice. He states, “Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady.” This is obviously not true, though the implied adventure and riches add to the humorous tone of the entire advertisement. Additionally, although the text of the commercial is aimed at females, there are multiple instances where the word “lady” is used rather derisively. The first is the abovementioned quote, and the other, “Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped using lady-scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, he could smell like he’s me.” Both of these statements imply that smelling like a lady is bad, though the insult is tempered with the overall absurdity of the advertisement. Similarly, the motto at the end of the ad—“Smell like a man, man”—seems inconsistent when the female is the target of the ad. When all of these elements come together—the unusual target audience, the heterosexuality layered over homosexuality, and the humor and contradictions—one finds there is more to this commercial than meets the eye. There is a subtle prodding at society’s accepted status quo in its use of a black man as the spokesman and the appeal to more than the normal heterosexual couple. In any other setting, some of the lines the spokesman feeds the viewer would be questionable, but this commercial manages to make all of its elements work together in a humorous way rather than an insulting one. All in all, the message this commercial sends to the viewer is attention-grabbing because of its inherent and latent nonconformity.
“The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.” YouTube.com. 4 February 2010. Old Spice. 29 January 2012. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE&feature=relmfu>.
That is fascinating. I like how you point out that homosexuals can be interested in Old Spice, and then both the guys could buy the product! I also like how you observe what the commercial is not saying, as well as what it is saying.
I think Old Spice tends to be a bit offensive, though. Basically, they're telling people like me that using Irish Spring (my favorite soap) makes me a "girly" man -- just because Irish Spring isn't Old Spice.
Your deconstruction of the commercial, though, makes sense. I don't quite understand, though, how you say that it markets indirectly to homosexuals, and then say that homosexuals are being downplayed because heterosexuality is favored as the norm. Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough or something, but I found a bit of a conflict there.
Mini Critique of On Liberty Using Deconstructionism John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is about the relationship of the governing body of a nation to the nation’s people. Mill takes a critical viewpoint of the historical relationship between these two. As such, there are tensions that build up because of the government’s power and control over the people. Even when the government is a democracy, Mill still states that the people can easily become oppressed because their liberty can be infringed upon. Since democracy is supposedly a ruling by the majority of people, Mill says this majority can become just as oppressive as a monarchical tyranny can. Mill says that governments have always ruled “in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people” (qtd. in Solomon and Martin 559). Mill makes it clear that there is a constant tension between the government and the people because the government issues laws and enforces them, often against the will of the people. Therefore, in order to remedy this problem, Mill states that people broke off and formed governments in which people, rather than monarchs, ruled, and in which there were limitations placed upon the governing body’s powers. This, however, just creates a new tension, according to Mill. The new tension is between the government and their limitations of power. Since limited power can be a rather large nuisance to the government, the limitation of their power becomes an obstacle for the government to work around. This democratic system was first devised in order to escape the terrible reality of tyranny by a single ruler. However, this system, Mill says, just divides the people up into two separate camps: the governed people and the governing people. The governing people can become just as tyrannical as any ruler can, though. As Mill says, “The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people”, which may very well choose to “oppress a part of their number” (qtd. in Solomon and Martin 561). Although Mill makes an excellent case for the ruling majority of people becoming tyrannical, he does appear to be ambiguous at times. Terms such as “the people” are used in a fairly arbitrary fashion. Mill also says that “there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” in the event that the governing body “issues wrong mandates instead of right” (qtd. in Solomon and Martin 561). However, exactly what the “right” or “wrong” mandates is not elaborated on in great detail. Mill says that the aim of government over the people is ultimately self-protection.
But the question then arises of what would happen if the “wrong” mandates were issued for reasons of self-protection. If a government majority voted on each family restricting itself to two children, then the minority may view this as a “wrong” mandate that infringes upon the rights of the people to reproduce as they please. The reason for a mandate such as this, though, could ultimately be that it is much more economically sound and profitable to society as a whole for each family to only rear two children. Two children (as opposed to, say, six or seven) could be given more personalized attention to by the parents. Moreover, the finances available to the parents could be invested in the children in greater amounts, since the income(s) of the parents would not be so spread out over multiple children. Therefore, it could very well be that the two children could succeed socio-economically. There is the likelihood of achieving a college education with much greater ease because of their greater finances. To Mill, though, this majority decision, and similarly (potentially) lucrative decisions, would still be tyrannical. Of course, Mill also says that there need to be limitations on what the governing body can do. These limitations, according to Mill, basically form the definition of “liberty.” As made evident from this passage, the term “liberty” is strictly opposed to “tyranny,” and Mill favors the idea of “liberty” much more.
Therefore, liberty is the privileged idea here, and Mill argues in favor of it. Mill, though, does not specifically mention (at least not in this short excerpt) what limitations a governing body should have in order to guarantee its people (both majority and minority) liberty. He does not propose how a system should be balanced between liberty and tyranny. Of course it is a wise idea to keep a society in check by enforcing certain rules and regulations, but it is also important not to leave a people (especially a minority) feeling bitter and rebellious. This is too much like tyranny. Similarly, it is wise to let a people be free, but freedom has to be defined in a certain way as well. “Freedom” is synonymous with “liberty” here, and so freedom must mean that there are limitations to what the government majority can do. There must be a limit to this as well, or anarchy may very well ensue. However, the term “limitations” is also quite ambiguous and highly subjective. One majority may say that their limitations include killing people without trial based on suspicion of insurrection. Another nation’s majority may claim that killing is not the proper method of dealing with suspected or confirmed criminal activities, but rather perhaps incarceration and/or forced labor. Limitations of what a government can do are defined by what the government’s notions of limitations are in the first place. Mill’s critique of government is, ultimately, based on his already-held, culturally-conditioned notion of what a government is. Mill says that the government should be wary of being democratic lest the majority becomes just as tyrannical as the monarchies and dictatorships were (and are). But Mill, in offering what the problems with government can potentially be, does not offer any sort of solution. Mill’s ideas of what a government should be are grounded in his upbringing and culture, which is British. Mill’s culture is stratified, whereas many cultures are egalitarian, for example. Mill’s culture sees a strongly-marked hierarchy between the ruling and the ruled, even in American democracy. So Mill does not offer any kind of solution at all or even any sort of critique of government in the first place. The lack of a solution to the problem, instead the pointing of it out only, leaves questions to be asked. He is critiquing government based on his own cultural standpoint and the lessons of his own nation’s past. Mill’s On Liberty leaves questions open as to what the “right” or “wrong” mandates are. Mill also leaves speculation as to what specific limitations may be imposed on a people in order to balance between tyranny and anarchy. Added to this, Mill’s assertions are all grounded in the belief system and cultural upbringing he already has. Mill’s culture is stratified, etc. Therefore, Mill’s ideas of what a government should be are all filtered through his innate intuitions about government. His ideas of government are all based on what he already holds to be the “legitimate” system(s) of rule. His ideas of the legitimacy of government, of course, are based upon social stratification, the disparity between the ruling and the ruled, etc. So, ultimately, Mill’s argument is rather unsatisfactory.
Work Cited Solomon, Robert C., and Clancy Martin. Since Socrates, A Concise Source Book Of Classic Readings. Wadsworth Pub Co, 2004. Print.
Critique: Deconstruction – “The Cask of Amontillado”
ReplyDeleteEdgar Allan Poe’s, “The Cask of Amontillado,” is supposedly a revenge story: the wronged Montresor finally gets justice out of punishing the gross Fortunato. The driving force of the piece is Montresor, who narrates the whole tale, and his need to right the wrong that was done to him by Fortunato, thereby “punish with impunity” (Poe 65). Montresor’s reasons, however, are extreme and hard to accept, and the contradictions and ambiguous content within Montresor’s narration expose Montresor as an unreliable narrator, and Fortunato as not a despicable man, which makes the theme of revenge seem as unbelievable as the narrator himself, thus showing him as insane rather than avenged.
The story opens with Montresor addressing the reader directly, about the “thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne” (Poe 65), yet it is never revealed what Fortunado did. This exaggeration shows Montresor as a furious man, rather than a reasonable one, and the fact that he refused to explain the insult from Fortunato, despite its supposed severity, has already shown him as an unreliable man. He speaks of being “avenged,” and how he will “punish [him] with impunity,” and that his “smile now was at the thought of his immolation” (Poe 65), which all point to his own fury, instead of his reasoning, that is his driving force, further solidifying him as unreliable.
Montresor states that Fortunato, “had a weak point,” that he “prided himself on his connoisseurship of wine” (Poe 65). Therefore, Fortunato had a singular weakness. This could mean he had a weakness in that he couldn’t resist wine, or that it’s Montresor’s way of getting to him, or both. This ambiguity is repeated later on in the story as well. Montresor describes Fortunato as: “a man to be respected and even feared” (Poe 65). However in the next breath Montresor demeans him, calling him a “quack” to his other implied interests of “painting and gemmary” (Poe 65). This contradiction of a respected man and a “quack” shows the divide between the narrator’s perceptions and those that are generally accepted by others who know Fortunato.
The contradictions continue as Montresor continues to refer to Fortunato, who is described as his enemy, as his friend. Montresor even acts as a so-called friend would to Fortunato and his deception is somewhat expected in their interactions, but with Montresor’s admitted plan of revenge to the reader, the use of “friend” (Poe 67) toward Fortunato seems contrary to the honesty Montresor wants to give to the reader.
Montresor then talks about what Fortunato is wearing, giving the image of a jester or clown. The clown characteristics are used to describe both how he looks and illustrate how Montresor sees him. However, as this is apparently Montresor’s attempt to ridicule Fortunato, it, along with Fortunato’s happy demeanor and kindness to Montresor, begins to inspire pity, rather than excitement for his ultimate demise. Montresor describes “the bells upon his cap [jingling] as he strode” (Poe 67), which makes Fortunato seem like a child, further destroying Montresor’s credibility, and may only succeed in pushing a reader to side with Fortunato rather than Montresor.
As the two make their way to the fabled amontillado, Fortunato’s illness and coughing fits again leads readers to sympathize with Fortunato, who is cast as the antagonist, not Montresor, the protagonist, which is a reverse on the normal pattern. Montresor tries to show sympathy and urges Fortunato to go back, knowing that Fortunato will not because of the amontillado. The mocking of Fortunato strengthens the sympathetic approach to his character.
The biggest contradiction in this story is the supposed brilliance in which the story unravels itself most successfully. In order for the reader to believe that the theme is in fact revenge instead of atrocious mental illness, the narrator needs to be somewhat trustworthy and sane. The irony that Montresor uses is what elevates him as well as what degrades his appeal and trustworthiness. It would have been honorable to speak to one’s transgressor and let them know the injustice bothering him. In this case, Montresor should have spoken to Fortunato and solved the problem in a civilized manner. By lying in Fortunato’s face and poking fun at Fortunato, Montresor is degraded and makes his story less believable. When Fortunato is coughing, Montresor begs him to turn back, to which Fortunato replies, “the cough is a mere nothing; it will not kill me. I shall not die of a cough,” to which Montresor replies, “True—true” (Poe 67). When Fortunato asks Montresor if he is a mason, Montresor answers, “Yes, yes,” and then he “produced a trowel from beneath the folds of my roquelaire,” which is his joke because the masonry tool will ultimately destroy Fortunato (Poe 68). This constant embarrassment of Fortunato while he doesn’t know it only furthers the ability of a reader to sympathize with him. Letting the reader sympathize with the transgressor contradicts the purpose of the theme of revenge.
ReplyDeleteAs Montresor walls up Fortunato toward the end, we get more insight into Montresor’s possibly demented mind. As Fortunato screams, Montresor replies “to the yells of him who clamored. I re-echoed—I aided—I surpassed them in volume and in strength” (Poe 70). Montresor does not tell him of what he is guilty and never even mentions the supposed attack or explains to Fortunato his motives. He never gives Fortunato a chance to defend himself. This in itself goes against the rules of civility and shows Montresor as ruthless, uncaring person for whom sympathy is a distant thought. He doesn’t give sympathy, and doesn’t get any from the reader as he comes off as mentally unstable. As anyone can see, the more moaning that Montresor does about Fortunato’s trespassing, the more readers can see that the intended meaning of the story seems to fall apart.
The deconstruction of this story has attempted to unravel the theme, in an effort to expose it doesn’t actually possess as much credibility as one might first think. Montressor’s unwillingness to explain the insult from Fortunato, along with his contradictions and the way he acts contrary to a normally sane person, makes the whole idea of the story as a revenge tale unbelievable. Just by looking into Montresor’s character as unstable and unvelievable can completely change the theme and presence of the story, which can then change some readers’ thoughts on real life notions of revenge.
The Truth Underneath the Covers
ReplyDeleteCosmopolitan magazine promotes itself as a magazine for the modern woman. They present a woman who is confident in herself and her sexuality and doesn’t back down. The tagline: “Fun, Fearless, Female” encourages this view of the magazine while the word cosmopolitan builds on this and suggests a certain amount of sophistication and worldly confidence.
Perhaps the fact that the magazine is almost universally referred to as “Cosmo” and not “Cosmopolitan” is the first indication that it is not entirely sophisticated.
The ideal Cosmo girl is one that sheds previously held social restrictions. She is outspoken, self-assured, and sexual—traits that were traditionally expected in men but certainly not ‘ladies’. The Cosmo girl strides tall through the man’s world rather than demurely behind it. All of which sounds positive and freeing in the modern world, however, the idea that the magazine is driven on empowering independent woman is laughable when one looks closely at the covers.
Sex sells. One could assume that sex sells magazines very well. The cover of January 2012’s Cosmo alone has eight references to it. This is quite the feat as there are only seven blurbs (which just so happen to encircle Scarlett Johansson’s skintight nightie-turned-cocktail dress clad body). Who exactly are they trying to market the sex for? Is the full cleavage gracing the glossy page for the benefit of the reader? As every cover has a reference to the male counterpart one can assume that it is not. Instead, the scantily clad vixens on the cover are something to envy and aspire to be—90% of which further their careers by just how well they can wear lingerie in front of a camera. This seems to be less femininely empowering than, say, images of an accomplished doctor or lawyer.
So why should women desire to be underdressed vixens rather than fashionable businesswomen? The answer is repeated twice on the Johansson cover: men. Men’s opinions on the kinky sex moves they desire as well as just how snare them in a web of love are promised inside. Two more blurbs try to entice readers with enhancing their sexual experience and how to achieve the “Sexiest. Body. Ever.” which are only slightly more indirect references to further enhancing relationships with men.
This isn’t a freak occurrence either. Looking back at a year’s worth of Cosmo magazines the upper left blurb consistently repeats one word: Sex. The November 2011 issue wraps this theme up neatly; “We reveal the midbooty thoughts he’d never admit to…but you need to know”.
Why exactly do women need to know these mid-coital ponderings? More importantly why do women need to “tell your inner good girl to get lost for the night” as is suggested on the opposite side of the very same cover. That is blatantly suggesting that women alter an aspect of themselves to better please a man! With this translation in mind, Cosmo not only finds itself lacking in female empowerment but it seems to be supporting a malicious conspiracy to craft the perfect man-pleasing woman.
There is a repetition of damaging themes across the Cosmo covers such as that sex is more important than love, being naughty is better than being nice, learn best how to pleasure your man, and by the heavens don’t let your body fall anywhere below the bombshells pictured or you will never find love—which, of course, comes only after you alter every aspect of yourself to suit the average man’s desires. With such themes, how could the fact that there is a spinoff magazine, CosmoGirl, which is aimed at teenage girls be anything short of terrifying?
Occasionally the magazine does mention the how to keep yourself healthy but as most of the health topics revolve around the vagina it feels that the concern for the woman is once again lowered. If there was any further doubt over the real focus of the publication, one only has to wait a year to find out.
[ http://d1535dk28ea235.cloudfront.net/preset_64/SANY0526.JPG ]
T.S. Eliot’s “Preludes” at first glance appears as unified and coherent a poem as any. However, when we apply a deconstructionist analysis of literature derived from Jacques Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction, an interesting thing occurs. The unity that appears present in the piece falls away and the text is exposed as a series of conflicting contexts.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Derrida, words gain meaning not only from their oppositions but from their contexts as well. For example: the opposite of black is white, but this opposition has other contexts such as racial conflict, good and evil, or light and dark. With this in mind, deconstructionism reaches the conclusion that true meaning cannot exist because with every sign (word) there is a never-ending chain of contexts which alter our perceptions. Derrida’s philosophy adds that to convey meaning one must repress the alternate meanings of the words in a sentence, thus only making visible, so to speak, the desired meaning. Deconstructionist literary analysis begins when we strip away the repression and analyze a group of words for all of its contexts and connotations.
Thus we are brought back to T.S. Eliot’s poem “Preludes”. Upon first reading this poem, images of urban squalor come to mind, as well as thoughts of intimate encounters with women of possibly ill-repute. The unity of the poem stems from an assumed central theme; that being the speaker has become disillusioned with urban life and struggles to see any meaning in it, and also that he has a seemingly empty relationship with the woman in the poem. Now, when one applies deconstructive criticism to this poem, the meaning falls away and we are left with disunity. Take for example line nine; “The showers beat”. Showers can be used to describe light rain, the act of cleaning oneself, objects falling from overhead, inundating one with gifts, or a bridal or baby shower. The second word, “beat” means to assault, to tenderize, or can denote rhythm of some sort. Now that we have stripped away the illusions from the text, it is revealed that there are quite a number of contexts in which the sentence can, and must, be interpreted. So with this sentence we see that what Eliot most likely intended to mean the rhythm of the rain actually means many different things simultaneously. In essence, the true lack of meaning is revealed when we tear away the thin veneer of the sentence’s context, or its intended meaning. Another example of this is line thirty-four; “as the street hardly understands”. This sentence is riddled with meaning-altering context as this very sentence could be construed as “because” or “while” “the path firmly stands under”, which not only makes very little sense but it is completely unrelated to the original intended meaning that Eliot was trying to convey, and thus we see how deconstruction shows that true meaning cannot exist because nothing exists without context.
In addition to this, we also see in this poem a fundamental concept that deconstructionists refer to as hierarchical opposition. That is to say, by choosing a word we omit its opposite, and thus establish that the chosen word is superior, establishing a miniature hierarchy. For example, the author uses the word “grimy” in line five. We know that grimy is what it is because it is not clean. Clean is the opposition of grimy. By choosing grimy Eliot omits cleanly, and therefore counterintuitively presumes that grimy is superior to cleanly. However this hierarchy is inconsistent with the author’s intended message that urban life is negative. This hierarchical opposition throws the entire credibility of the piece into question, as is the goal of deconstructive criticism.
ReplyDeleteIn sum, a deconstructive analysis of T.S. Eliot’s poem “Preludes” comes to the conclusion that the meaning that the author intended, that urban line is negative, is contradicted by the context of the very words the author chooses, and since words have no meaning without context, defining true meaning is possible. This is not to say that literature says nothing, this is to say that literature cannot say only one thing, but in fact must say everything due to context.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading a poem, it is not always black and white; there is not always one true meaning which the author intends. A poet, using different aspects of language, may hide an entirely different meaning, feeling, or idea within a poem. In “My Papa’s Waltz,” Theodore Roethke embeds these ideas within a poem, so that it is only through close analysis that one can uncover these ideas. Word choice can alter the meaning of a line when analyzed carefully. Although a reading of this poem may seem to reflect a meaning of a close relationship between a father and child, it can also be analyzed in a quite different way.
ReplyDeleteWhen one first reads this poem, it may seem as though it is a fond memory a young child has with their father, namely a “waltz” or a dance of some sort. The situation, especially when considering the first line consisting of alcohol, seems as though maybe the father was out drinking, and then came home in a good mood and began to dance with his child. However, maybe the alcohol has another meaning, or possibly a vital sense of importance throughout this poem. For many people, alcohol can lead to a different state of mind. If the father is drunk, he may be acting in a way different than usual, perhaps. When the poem is read through, it is apparent that this is a story of a family that may not be living an upper-class life, but seems to make do with hard work. However, the word choice that the author uses throughout the poem can be analyzed to determine an entirely different story of abuse and a scared child.
“My Papa’s Waltz” consistently presents lines that could be seen as a dance shared between father and child. Lines 3 and 4 read, “But I hung on like death/Such waltzing was not easy” (Roethke). The idea of a child “hanging on” to their parent seems understandable, especially in the sense of a dance where a young child may need to grasp their father in order to follow the steps. However, it is possible to see that there is an entirely different, underlying meaning to these lines. Although the author could have used another word in place of “death,” the word death was ultimately the chosen word. The word “death” could have been used to imply a sense of fear, doom, and the possibility of abuse. A reader may begin to wonder if the young child in this poem is afraid of death, or if this child can see death in the near future.
In stanza two, the word “romped” is used, which implies a sense of giddiness or joy. Does the child feel happiness during this “waltz?” Does the child recognize this as a happy time? Also, “the Pans slid from the kitchen shelf,” may imply a sense of uneasiness felt by the child. Instability can be felt by the reader, as though the child may be in a situation which they are unaware of or do not know how to avoid. The next two lines, “My mother’s countenance/Could not unfrown itself,” implies a sense of constant uneasiness or unhappiness. Although one might read this to mean that the mother is unhappy about the pans, it seems likely that the mother is in a situation which she does not know how to avoid. The mother could be exasperated with watching a dangerous situation, unable to help her son and fearing for her son’s safety.
As the poem continues, more choices made by the author seem to stand out as contradicting. Lines 11 and 12 read, “At every step you missed/My right ear scraped a buckle,” (Roethke). Although it is very likely that a young child may be about the same height as their father’s belt, therefore implying that if one does not follow the dance steps correctly the child may scrape the belt buckle, it is also clear that the choice of the words may have diverse meanings. One could refer back to the “whiskey” mentioned in line 1 and consider a drunken father to be responsible for slight missteps or sloppy waltzing. However, when a child “missteps,” that child may receive some form of punishment from parents. The “buckle” noted in these lines, though still referring to a belt, may actually represent the child being beat by the belt as a form of punishment. In this situation, the whiskey may or may not be responsible for the “missteps” or the use of the belt.
ReplyDeleteLine 13 reads, “You beat time on my head,” (Roethke). The word “beat” could be used in compliance with the waltz, referring to the child and the father dancing to music. The father could be lightly tapping his hand on the child’s head in rhythm with the music, which would seem to be a loving gesture. However, it is also possible that the word “beat” could involve abuse. The father may be beating the child but hitting the child in the head, in which case there is no loving relationship present. Later in this stanza, lines 15 and 16 read, “Then waltzed me off to bed/Still clinging to your shirt,” (Roethke). The child could be seen as clinging to his or her father’s shirt in order to beg the father to stop doing wrong, or worse yet; the blood of the child may be on the father’s shirt. There are many ways to analyze these lines, though the poet may or may not have intended to imply abuse.
Using a deconstructive approach, the poem “My Papa’s Waltz” can be seen as a contradiction to the intent of the poem. Though a superficial reading of this poem may imply a sense of giddiness and dancing, it seems as though the word choice has given this poem an underlying meaning. Using this approach of literary analysis, one can see that this poem has multiple meanings, and that the reader can ultimately find contradictions within the work based on the Roethke’s literary choices.
A Community of Damned Fools
ReplyDeleteMark Twain, while better known for his novels and quotes of wisdom, composed a number of burlesques and satires that are relatively unknown. Among these is the short work “Autobiography of a Damned Fool,” which gives the personal account of the naïve and ridiculous Bolivar on his exploration of different social and religious institutions. Twain left the story incomplete, but Bolivar’s tale of young adulthood does the author credit. Though Bolivar’s first person narrative is intended to exasperate the reader and satirize the life of the village idiot (if that is possible), it is not the blatant naiveté of the protagonist, but rather the inconsistencies of society that undo Twain’s story. The incompetence of Bolivar’s friends and neighbors reveals who is really to blame for his social ineptitude. Furthermore, “Autobiography of a Damned Fool” demonstrates that individuals are a product of their cultural context, and that regardless of the reasoning behind a person’s actions he or she will be judged according to local social norms.
The protagonist’s troubles begin when he is asked to teach a Sunday school lesson, without having any real experience or basis of faith to speak of. In his debut as a teacher, he lectures his pupils about the improbability of the great flood, reasoning that the likelihood of the earth being flooded in a period of forty days was low (Twain 138-139). After presenting numerous other flaws in the logic of that chapter of the Bible, he concluded that the majority of it should be discarded. He was later reprimanded for his heresy laden lecture, but rather than being dismissed from his post, he was allowed to continue teaching the Bible. In this situation, I think that rather than blaming Bolivar, it is the minister who should be held accountable for what happened at the local Sunday school. Bolivar’s qualifications for the post included nothing more than a public display of burning his cigarettes (Twain 136). The minister’s faulty assumption regarding Bolivar’s faith reveals his own incompetence, as well as the inability of churches to find qualified and willing teachers in their respective congregations.
After being confronted by the minister about his misinformed lesson, Bolivar is given a copy of the Koran, so that he might be able to refute the beliefs of the “infidels” (Twain 142). Rather than being outraged at the beliefs presented in that text, Bolivar found sense in the words and immediately converted to Islam. In a high-strung Christian community, his new beliefs were not well received. This was especially true when he attempted to establish his own harem by inviting the most upstanding middle-aged virgins in the area to come and share his bedroom at his master’s house (Twain 146). Although Bolivar’s approach may not have been in the realm of tact, the reaction of the townspeople was that of violent intolerance. The protagonist’s execution of his newfound religious doctrine may have been worthy of an eye-roll, but his naiveté excuses him from the same level of accountability that is to be given to those supposedly loving Christians.
Social institutions further fail Bolivar when he joins the Paladin
ReplyDeletemovement, which condemns the drinking of alcohol. Through ambition and
the reformation of the town lush, he is able to rise through the ranks
until he finally is about to be named the Doge. Just before the
ceremony, his fellow apprentice gives him a flask that will supposedly
help calm his nerves. Bolivar knows that the container holds whiskey,
and he initially feels repulsion towards it. However, his inquisitive
mind causes him to question his attitude towards alcohol. He determines
that he has judged the liquid unfairly because he proclaimed it evil
without ever trying it. Before he knows it, he is stumbling around
drunk, accompanied by the reformed drunkard. Needless to say, Bolivar’s
title was revoked and the Paladins stripped him of his membership.
However, the reader once again observes a situation in which the
community has the authority to bestow power, and once again, it is
bestowed in Bolivar, the inexperienced and easily misled young man.
Even though a great deal of power is given to Bolivar, every time that
does something of his own free will he is ostracized and mistreated.
Hank Flanders, his fellow apprentice, is very similar to him. Bolivar
describes him as follows:
He lacked stability of character; therefore he was given to taking up
with new things and new fancies, all the time, and deserting the old.
This was his only serious fault. It did little or no good to try and
make him understand that success in life depends upon steadfast fidelity
to one’s enterprises. (Twain 155)
Bolivar’s characterization of his peer also applies to him, and it is this
lack of commitment that is his only real flaw. Hank is almost a mirror
image of Bolivar, but he is able to escape many of the hardships because
he is able to conform his whims to the “socially acceptable.” Hank may be
more respected than his counterpart, but Bolivar’s free-thinking mind is
more pliable. Hank is becoming just like the rest of the townsfolk –
susceptible to religious assumptions and social norms.
Bolivar is very much a product of society. He was a blank slate when the
story began, a recent orphan about begin his life anew by burning his
cigarettes. His actions were misconstrued by church leadership and when
given authority, he was treated poorly by the same people that gave him
power. This story operates on two levels, both the individual and the
community. Bolivar lacks common sense and could very well fit the title
Mark Twain bestowed upon him, but the community in which he resides and
takes part displays an alarming lack of sense as well. While Bolivar
conducts himself on a basis of logical fallacies, the community works
under a set of false assumptions that could perhaps qualify it as being
the real “damned fool.”
Work Cited
Twain, Mark, and Franklin R. Rogers. Mark Twain's Satires and Burlesques.
Berkeley etc., 1967. Print.
“The Man Your Man Could Smell Like”: A Post-Modern Deconstruction
ReplyDeleteCommercials are intended not only to make people want to buy or use advertised goods and services, but they are also designed to grab people’s attention and hold it right until the last possible second. There is one commercial, the Old Spice body wash commercial titled “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like”, that does this quite effectively—but why is it so successful, and what messages are hidden beneath its surface? Through the critical method known as Post-Modern Deconstructionism, I hope to pinpoint the “Other”—the beings, beliefs, objects, etc. that exist outside of the accepted or expected—that lives underneath the cultural values displayed in this advertisement. I will bring to light what is said and what is not said, what these things mean in relation to each other, and how they affect the nature of the message as a whole.
The commercial begins with this image: a physically attractive black male is standing in nothing but a towel in a bathroom. His hair is short while the lower part of his face is covered with an even cut of stubble. With his first line—“Hello, ladies”—the viewer notices his deep voice and obvious (and somewhat silly) confidence. All of these characteristics have been carefully chosen to appeal to a human’s basic instinct: courtship and mating, aimed most particularly at the female.
Although one could call this advertisement stereotypical, it is so in a way that is outside of the norm. First of all, having a black man as the spokesman in a predominantly white society is unusual, to say the least. Is this advertisement attempting to break an accepted norm? Or do women typically find black men more attractive than white men? What seems to be happening is since a white male would be more normal or “safe,” perhaps the commercial is appealing to the viewer’s sense for the unusual or “dangerous.” There is a stereotype within American society that women are sexually attracted to men who are seen as “dangerous” or outcasts in relation to society’s accepted norms.
Second, this advertisement is normal in that there is a man marketing a male body wash for men. What is unusual is that the target of the advertisement is not the male who will be using the body wash, but rather the female partner. The commercial’s next few lines are, “Look at your man, now back to me… Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped using lady-scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, he could smell like he’s me.” When he says, “like me,” he does not literally mean like himself, but rather like the man he represents as he advocates the product. The spokesman is obviously appealing to the person who will smell the body wash rather than the person who will use it; he is basically saying, “If you want your man to smell good, buy Old Spice!” On the surface, he is directly addressing the female partner.
There is another target audience underneath the heteronormative lingo, however. The other major group targeted by this commercial is the homosexual male couple. If any straight female can be generally attracted to the spokesman, so could any homosexual male. It would perhaps benefit Old Spice even more to target the homosexual couple as both people in the relationship could take an interest in the product. Furthermore, anyone can appreciate tickets to “that thing you like,” diamonds, and boats; none of these things are exclusively female interests.
ReplyDeleteJust as boats and diamonds can appeal to a person of any gender, the humor appeals similarly to every viewer. There is a controlled frenzy that runs through the entire advertisement; the quickness of speech, the sudden changes in props and scenery, and the attention-grabbing language are balanced by the spokesman’s skillful control of his expressions and the calmness of his voice. He states, “Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady.” This is obviously not true, though the implied adventure and riches add to the humorous tone of the entire advertisement.
Additionally, although the text of the commercial is aimed at females, there are multiple instances where the word “lady” is used rather derisively. The first is the abovementioned quote, and the other, “Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped using lady-scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, he could smell like he’s me.” Both of these statements imply that smelling like a lady is bad, though the insult is tempered with the overall absurdity of the advertisement. Similarly, the motto at the end of the ad—“Smell like a man, man”—seems inconsistent when the female is the target of the ad.
When all of these elements come together—the unusual target audience, the heterosexuality layered over homosexuality, and the humor and contradictions—one finds there is more to this commercial than meets the eye. There is a subtle prodding at society’s accepted status quo in its use of a black man as the spokesman and the appeal to more than the normal heterosexual couple. In any other setting, some of the lines the spokesman feeds the viewer would be questionable, but this commercial manages to make all of its elements work together in a humorous way rather than an insulting one. All in all, the message this commercial sends to the viewer is attention-grabbing because of its inherent and latent nonconformity.
“The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.” YouTube.com. 4 February 2010. Old Spice. 29 January 2012. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE&feature=relmfu>.
That is fascinating. I like how you point out that homosexuals can be interested in Old Spice, and then both the guys could buy the product! I also like how you observe what the commercial is not saying, as well as what it is saying.
DeleteI think Old Spice tends to be a bit offensive, though. Basically, they're telling people like me that using Irish Spring (my favorite soap) makes me a "girly" man -- just because Irish Spring isn't Old Spice.
Your deconstruction of the commercial, though, makes sense. I don't quite understand, though, how you say that it markets indirectly to homosexuals, and then say that homosexuals are being downplayed because heterosexuality is favored as the norm. Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough or something, but I found a bit of a conflict there.
Good job, though!
Mini Critique of On Liberty Using Deconstructionism
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is about the relationship of the governing body of a nation to the nation’s people. Mill takes a critical viewpoint of the historical relationship between these two. As such, there are tensions that build up because of the government’s power and control over the people. Even when the government is a democracy, Mill still states that the people can easily become oppressed because their liberty can be infringed upon. Since democracy is supposedly a ruling by the majority of people, Mill says this majority can become just as oppressive as a monarchical tyranny can.
Mill says that governments have always ruled “in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people” (qtd. in Solomon and Martin 559). Mill makes it clear that there is a constant tension between the government and the people because the government issues laws and enforces them, often against the will of the people. Therefore, in order to remedy this problem, Mill states that people broke off and formed governments in which people, rather than monarchs, ruled, and in which there were limitations placed upon the governing body’s powers. This, however, just creates a new tension, according to Mill. The new tension is between the government and their limitations of power. Since limited power can be a rather large nuisance to the government, the limitation of their power becomes an obstacle for the government to work around.
This democratic system was first devised in order to escape the terrible reality of tyranny by a single ruler. However, this system, Mill says, just divides the people up into two separate camps: the governed people and the governing people. The governing people can become just as tyrannical as any ruler can, though. As Mill says, “The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people”, which may very well choose to “oppress a part of their number” (qtd. in Solomon and Martin 561).
Although Mill makes an excellent case for the ruling majority of people becoming tyrannical, he does appear to be ambiguous at times. Terms such as “the people” are used in a fairly arbitrary fashion. Mill also says that “there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” in the event that the governing body “issues wrong mandates instead of right” (qtd. in Solomon and Martin 561). However, exactly what the “right” or “wrong” mandates is not elaborated on in great detail. Mill says that the aim of government over the people is ultimately self-protection.
But the question then arises of what would happen if the “wrong” mandates were issued for reasons of self-protection. If a government majority voted on each family restricting itself to two children, then the minority may view this as a “wrong” mandate that infringes upon the rights of the people to reproduce as they please. The reason for a mandate such as this, though, could ultimately be that it is much more economically sound and profitable to society as a whole for each family to only rear two children. Two children (as opposed to, say, six or seven) could be given more personalized attention to by the parents. Moreover, the finances available to the parents could be invested in the children in greater amounts, since the income(s) of the parents would not be so spread out over multiple children. Therefore, it could very well be that the two children could succeed socio-economically. There is the likelihood of achieving a college education with much greater ease because of their greater finances. To Mill, though, this majority decision, and similarly (potentially) lucrative decisions, would still be tyrannical.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Mill also says that there need to be limitations on what the governing body can do. These limitations, according to Mill, basically form the definition of “liberty.” As made evident from this passage, the term “liberty” is strictly opposed to “tyranny,” and Mill favors the idea of “liberty” much more.
Therefore, liberty is the privileged idea here, and Mill argues in favor of it. Mill, though, does not specifically mention (at least not in this short excerpt) what limitations a governing body should have in order to guarantee its people (both majority and minority) liberty. He does not propose how a system should be balanced between liberty and tyranny. Of course it is a wise idea to keep a society in check by enforcing certain rules and regulations, but it is also important not to leave a people (especially a minority) feeling bitter and rebellious. This is too much like tyranny. Similarly, it is wise to let a people be free, but freedom has to be defined in a certain way as well. “Freedom” is synonymous with “liberty” here, and so freedom must mean that there are limitations to what the government majority can do. There must be a limit to this as well, or anarchy may very well ensue.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the term “limitations” is also quite ambiguous and highly subjective. One majority may say that their limitations include killing people without trial based on suspicion of insurrection. Another nation’s majority may claim that killing is not the proper method of dealing with suspected or confirmed criminal activities, but rather perhaps incarceration and/or forced labor. Limitations of what a government can do are defined by what the government’s notions of limitations are in the first place.
Mill’s critique of government is, ultimately, based on his already-held, culturally-conditioned notion of what a government is. Mill says that the government should be wary of being democratic lest the majority becomes just as tyrannical as the monarchies and dictatorships were (and are). But Mill, in offering what the problems with government can potentially be, does not offer any sort of solution. Mill’s ideas of what a government should be are grounded in his upbringing and culture, which is British. Mill’s culture is stratified, whereas many cultures are egalitarian, for example. Mill’s culture sees a strongly-marked hierarchy between the ruling and the ruled, even in American democracy. So Mill does not offer any kind of solution at all or even any sort of critique of government in the first place. The lack of a solution to the problem, instead the pointing of it out only, leaves questions to be asked. He is critiquing government based on his own cultural standpoint and the lessons of his own nation’s past.
Mill’s On Liberty leaves questions open as to what the “right” or “wrong” mandates are. Mill also leaves speculation as to what specific limitations may be imposed on a people in order to balance between tyranny and anarchy. Added to this, Mill’s assertions are all grounded in the belief system and cultural upbringing he already has. Mill’s culture is stratified, etc. Therefore, Mill’s ideas of what a government should be are all filtered through his innate intuitions about government. His ideas of government are all based on what he already holds to be the “legitimate” system(s) of rule. His ideas of the legitimacy of government, of course, are based upon social stratification, the disparity between the ruling and the ruled, etc. So, ultimately, Mill’s argument is rather unsatisfactory.
Work Cited
Solomon, Robert C., and Clancy Martin. Since Socrates, A Concise Source Book Of Classic Readings. Wadsworth Pub Co, 2004. Print.