D.W. Harding's "'Regulated Hatred': An Aspect in the Work of Jane Austen

     Popular opinion, D.W. Harding argues, is that Austen's novels offer a sanctuary from the trappings of a critical, harsh, and often sardonic society, a haven for those escapists looking to breathe in a warm-hearted, friendly air. Harding ultimately repudiates this common misconception, contending that woven into the fabric of her novel, Pride and Prejudice in particular, is a surreptitious condemnation of those whom Austen surrounded herself. According to Harding, in an effort to not discourage those members of society whom she is deliberately mocking from reading her stories, Austen hides her disapproval via exaggeration. Her caricature heightens the comedic effect and softens the blow as it lowers the realism. For example, as readers, we find Mrs. Bennett hilarious simply because of how ridiculous she is. So, those readers who inherently share a seed of the same (unfortunate) qualities as she, are often caught chuckling at her ludicrous outlook and are in turn laughing at themselves without realizing it. We are so caught up in the fact that Austen tends to extremity in her depiction of Mrs. Bennett that we neglect Austen's blatant censure. 

     Further, Harding believes that Mrs. Bennett's and Mr. Collin's skewed personalities are contrasted with the realistic and unexaggerated Elizabeth and Darcy, through whom Austen can also reveal her true feelings of her contemporaries. Their untouched, "un-Austenized" personalities invoke a pureness that ultimately attaches the readers to them and makes the reader care about their well-being and future together. Moreover, Harding renders a good example of how Austen's views are portrayed through Elizabeth's character. Elizabeth is detached from the depressing arranged marriages, such as Charlotte's, and she never fully agrees with Charlotte's decision to marry Mr. Collins, similar to Austen's true feelings. 

Wicked

When I first moved from Massachusetts to Arizona, my new friends consistently poked fun at me for using the word "wicked" as an adjective for words such as "cool," "awesome," and "nice." To me, "very" was the intrinsic definition of the word that I used frequently. But these West Coasters rejected my version of the word and accepted the traditional definition of the word: morally corrupt or bad. This regional discrepancy has spawned my interest in understanding the origins of the word as modern slang as well as the conventional interpretation. Further, the history of the nuances of the word has sparked my curiosity; which events or writings fathered these newborn definitions? The intangible quality of the word (is anybody purely wicked? What constitutes wickedness?) bolsters its appeal. Overall, I think it is fascinating that even etymology unveils a lot about the history on a larger scope. 

Mary Poovey's "'My Hideous Progeny': The Lady and the Monster"

-Poovey argues that the monster and Frankenstein's egotism is a direct result of their lack of strong domestic relationships (in Victor's case, the paucity of strong familial connections is when he goes off to study, not all the time). This egotism spawns unchecked imaginations and desires. Poovey writes that it is near impossible for selfishness and tight familial bonds to co-exist.

-She argues that Victor's creation does not stem from his self-assertion, but from his-self denial.

-Poovey argues that it is solely Victor's imagination and unrealistic visions that makes him initially believe the natural world is hospitable, and that these imaginations should not be trusted.

-She contends that Victor and the monster alike have a thirst for knowledge that, while initially thought to be advantageous to their maturation, turns out to lead to the "terrible realization of innate grotesqueness."

-Poovey argues that the mere pathos hints that Shelley identified with, and sympathized with, the victim of Victor's imagination. Because we as readers are able to see the individual events that lead up to the monster's evilness, and because he was fundamentally neutral in the beginning, Shelley has tended to make us bias in favor of the monster.

Beowulf and Dexter: the Similarities Between the Iconic Warrior and the Modern Serial Killer

Throughout history, the human state, from warriors to bourgeoisie to lonely hearts to the common web surfer, is drawn to a story line which characterizes a hero overcoming a seemingly insurmountable villain. This comforting theme repeatedly surfaces under different guises with the natural inclination to value good over evil, a longing reliably fulfilled with the happy ending guaranteed by many romantic, dramatic, and comedic efforts. Beowulf, from the eighth century epic poem entitled “Beowulf,” and Dexter, from the twenty-first century hit show Dexter,  encompass the heroic features that audiences universally enjoy. While each are perceived differently from their fellow compatriots, the confluence of their similarities have transcended time as there are many parallels between their life stories. Both heros constitute a similar purpose among their societies as they act as a shield to mayhem and share many attributes that correlate to a common essence. 

        Beowulf and Dexter are analogous in their societal roles as they ultimately strive to create more concord and happiness within their respective communities. Both characters kill the members of each society who have been deliberately strumming up havoc. Beowulf prevails against the wicked Grendel and his mother, both of whom have been murdering Heorot's citizens, and ultimately rids the city of these calamity-inducing demons. His modern counterpart, Dexter, emulates Beowulf's extermination as he kills the societal hellions in his contemporary Florida town. Similarly, when conducting a “battle,” both exhibit a form of confidence and control over their pray. Dexter has mastered the art of murdering his fellow serial killers, and he executes his hobby with a grace and systematic flair as he is able to catch even the most cunning,  proving himself to be the most successful serial killer. Beowulf mirrors Dexter's supremacy and fortitude as he has become the connoisseur of warriors and enthralls himself in the most dangerous battles. Both perform their duties with noblesse because they operate strictly in a hands-on, one-against-one fashion. For example, while Dexter interacts with his “victims” and   physically takes their life with his own two hands without the assistance of a firearm, Beowulf puts himself in the same position as he sheds his protective gear. Beowulf states the following, “ I hereby renounce sword and the shelter of the broad shield, the heavy war-board: hand-to-hand is how it will be, a life-and-death fight with the fiend.”  However, while Beowulf is labeled a noble warrior, Dexter considers himself a damaged psychopathic. These epithets are strictly circumstantial to the belief systems of the time periods, and they lack validity when both are compared on a broader scope of their role within their given societies. While the moralities have evolved, granted the eighth century's reliance on killing and today's prevalent belief that killing is fundamentally unethical, both Beowulf and Dexter are killing the same type of villains and are thus playing corresponding roles within the grand scheme of their communities, regardless of the terminology used to describe their personas.  

         Further, both Beowulf and Dexter have key nuances that make them anomalies within society, have a shared reliance on the butchery of vile beings, and have developed parallel relationships with paternalistic figures. While Dexter often mentions how he is not normal due to his natural disposition and his thirst to murder people, Beowulf deviates from normalcy as he has the strength of thirty men in one arm. These distinctions connect Beowulf and Dexter as societal exceptions and links them together as destined to murder. Moreover, each rely on killing to satisfy the essence of who they are. While Dexter physically craves hunting other serial killers, Beowulf too craves the fame and satisfaction that stems from his killing demons and other malicious creatures. Murdering thus fulfills both their individual complexes and is the vehicle through which they become complete. Additionally, Dexter and Beowulf develop relationships with fatherly figures who act as mentors. While Dexter is unable to sustain empathetic relationships, his foster father nurtured Dexter and taught him how to cater his need to kill towards positive endeavors. Thus, Dexter often recounts his father's wisdom and cherishes his advise. Similarly, Hrothgar acts as Beowulf's coach as he cautions the “'flower of warriors'” against arrogance and greed, and thinks that “he could not help being overcome: his fondness for the man was so deep-founded, it warmed his heart and wound the heartstrings tight in his breasts.” 

        It is important to highlight the basic parallels between Beowulf and Dexter as it clearly evinces the preservation and continuation of Beowulf's character. Dexter not only mirrors Beowulf's function as society's protective armor against villainous beings, but he also emulates many of his basic attributes in many ways. FINISH CONCLUSION. 

The Practice of the Weregild

-Hrothgar paid a weregild to Beowulf's father.

-A weregild is a value placed on humans/property (the "were" meaning man, and "geld" meaning payment/fee)

If a man is murdered, his value is paid to his family by the murderer (a way to prevent bloodshed).

    - Standard value of a weregild=200 schillings
    -For noblemen=1200 schillings
    - For a King=30,000 schillings (15,000 to family and 15,000 people for kinship)
    -Slaves technically did not have a weregild
     -women=circumstantial (Alamanni=double that of men, Saxons=half)
In some societies, it was determined by religion.

The practice of the Weregild diminished in the Ninth Century, and it became completely obsolete during the Twelfth Century. It was replaced by capital punishment.

High Fidelity and Its Excellent Storytelling-2nd Draft

 Leah Stofko

Mr. Coon

A.P. English 

2 September 2011

High Fidelity and Its Stellar Storytelling

       It is rather uncommon that a book on a school summer reading list has a review from The New Yorker the front cover that says,"'[i]t is rare that a book so hilarious is also so sharp about sex and manliness, memory and music.'" How can a book that deals with such promiscuous topics make its way onto my A.P. English list? There must be some level of noblesse, I thought. But how can an author construct a serious novel with such licentious fundamentals? And so, my curiosity got the best of me, and I found myself making my way to the register with this anomalous book in hand. 

      Notwithstanding my being on the idyllic beaches of Spain with countless opportunities and my new-found foreign friends, I was irrationally engaged in completing Nick Hornby's High Fidelity. The novel delves into the plethora of romantic situations, heartbreaks and disappointments, and other important facets of our daily lives that are so intoxicating as to transport me from Cádiz, Spain to the streets of London, the setting of the novel. Hornby, with his stylistic nuances, successfully employs the literary mechanisms that are essential to great storytelling. Rob, the novel's narrator, uses impeccable word choice with his informal witticisms and satirical remarks, constructs a captivating and complex plot with appropriate character development, and investigates the intricacies of human nature that are stimulating and intriguing. The confluence of these literary devices ultimately constitutes a modern literary masterpiece that embodies the essence of excellent storytelling. 

         Throughout the novel, Rob does not season his story with intricate sentences and words, but his language is consistently informal and clear. He cleverly weaves f-bombs and wisecracks into the fabric of his story. This contemporary flair adds to the novel by creating an element of stream of consciousness; rather than meticulously fabricating a sentence based on the perfect word choice and remaining politically correct, Rob focuses more on what he has to say, rather than how he says it. His lack of care in word selection is not a sign of a dilettante storyteller, but it is inherently valuable because his informal approach adds a layer of authenticity. His word choice allows the audience to feel as though there is no facade they need to break down, but rather his words and story are directly representative of his thoughts. This connection between the teller and the audience is fundamentally imperative in the development of a story because it creates a sense of unity between the two. As an example of his word choice, Rob recounts the following on his lonely birthday that is spent watching movies and eating kettle chips: "Sounds like the sort of birthday a brand-new thirty-six-year-old should have. (Actually, it is the only of birthday a brand-new thirty-six-year old could have--the sort of thirty-six year-old-with no wife, family, girlfriend, or money, anyway. Kettle Chips! F-off!" Further, on a more basic level, his casual language and perpetual swearing heighten the humor in the story, once again enhancing Rob's storytelling. His humor is often the product of his informal self-disparaging ridicule; for example, his informal word-choice and humor are evidenced by Rob's reaction to a phone call from his ex-girlfriend's current boyfriend. After the boyfriend asks about the relationship he and Rob should have, Rob replies with the sly rejoinder of “'dunno'” and sarcastically recounts that “... [he] then I put the phone down—not on a smart, crushing one-liner, or after a raging torrent of abuse, but on a 'dunno.' That's taught him a lesson he won't forget.” However, it is not solely his stellar word choice and hilarious remarks that earn him appraisal, but the well-crafted story line solidifies his proficiency as a storyteller. 

            The structure and development of the plot both unveil Rob's expertise as a narrator. He has fashioned the plot so that the audience is given a holistic history of Rob and his previous, fruitless relationships before diving into his current love situation. This rather depressing background information is vital because the audience sympathizes and roots for him from the beginning. This personal investment from the audience automatically makes the story more of an emotional experience, which is a key component of excellent storytelling. As the story evolves, it becomes obvious that Rob's story has taken a banal topic such as romance and has added an original and spunky twist. He does not romanticize love in any way, but rather, shows it as a direct result of societal expectations and exhaustion of being lonely. For example, Laura, his ex-girlfriend, after deciding to rekindle their relationship, says the following: “' I am too tired not to go out with you […] Everything's too hard. Maybe another time I would have had the guts to be on my own, but not now I haven't.'” Her explantation for wanting to reunite is the least romantic reasoning, and yet, Rob seems to accept her decision. Rob's admission to Laura's indirectly insulting remark clearly exposes a key nuance that only really High Fidelityhas successfully honed in on: the inexplicable emotions and actions pertaining to love that humans feel and commit. Throughout the book, Rob admits that he does not necessarily know why he acts so irrationally in regards to his love affairs, and this aspect of the story really hits home with the audience and heightens its relevance. In addition, while the notion of love serves as his main subject, he adds to the complexity of the story by encompassing a wide gamut of sub-plots pertaining to mid-life crises, failing businesses, and friendships. The variety of topics leaves no room for the story to be slow nor boring.

           Although it is easy to discredit the story as a serious literary work due to its casual language, the underlying ideas are thought-provoking and serious; this novel ultimately becomes more dynamic and impressive with the amalgam of casual prose and thoughtful meanings. Rob often intertwines passages that say a lot about humanity as a whole with his playful jargon. For example, Rob explores the relationship between the two men who work for him, Barry and Dick, after Dick finally has a date. Rob thinks, "and why does it bother Barry so much that Dick is seeing someone? Because he doesn't want a smile from a man with buckteeth and an anorak in the cinema queue, that's why; he's worried about how his life is turning out, and he's lonely, and lonely people are the bitterest of them all." This passage evokes emotion among the audience as Rob is actually honing in on key topics about society: insecurity and loneliness. However, Rob's themes are not necessarily explicitly expounded in passages such as the previous one, but are often implied products of his actions, For example, Rob often draws upon his previous relationships and his past-life and connects them to his current life, and he prescribes his current behaviors as the consequences of the previous events in his life. Rob is directly demonstrating that the essence of who humans are is simply the gathering of past experiences. Scenarios such as this one clearly leaves the audience thinking deeper about humanity, a sign that this book does, in fact, have depth and is though-provoking. 

             And so, after reading this novel, I realized exactly why it was on my AP reading list. That New Yorker review on the front cover was right; the book masters the impossible as it effortlessly combines humorous and intellectual elements into the enticing plot. 

High Fidelity and Its Excellent Storytelling

        It is rather uncommon that a book on a school summer- reading list has a review from The New Yorker on the front cover that says,"'[i]t is rare that a book so hilarious is also so sharp about sex and manliness, memory and music.'" How can a book that deals with such promiscuous topics make its way onto my A.P. English list? There must be some level of sophistication, I thought. But how can an author construct a serious novel with such   licentious fundamentals? And so, my curiosity got the best of me, and I found myself making my way to the register with this anomalous book in hand.   
        Notwithstanding my being on the idyllic beaches of Spain with countless opportunities and my new-found foreign friends, I was irrationally engaged in completing Nick Hornby's High Fidelity. The novel delves into the plethora of romantic situations, heartbreaks and disappointments, and other important facets of our daily lives that are so intoxicating as to transport me from Cádiz, Spain to the streets of London, the setting of the novel. Hornby, with his stylistic nuances, successfully employs the literary mechanisms that are essential to great storytelling. Rob, the novel's narrator, uses impeccable word choice with his informal witticisms and satirical remarks, constructs a captivating and complex plot with appropriate character development, and investigates the intricacies of human nature that are stimulating and intriguing. The confluence of these literary devices ultimately constitutes a modern literary masterpiece that embodies the essence of excellent storytelling. 

         Throughout the novel, Rob does not season his story with intricate sentences and words, but his language is consistently informal and clear. He cleverly weaves f-bombs and wisecracks into the fabric of his story. This contemporary flair adds to the novel by creating an element of stream of consciousness; rather than meticulously fabricating a sentence based on the perfect word choice and remaining politically correct, Rob focuses more on what he has to say, rather than how he says it. His lack of care in word selection is not a sign of a dilettante storyteller, but it is inherently valuable because his informal approach adds a layer of authenticity. His word choice allows the audience to feel as though there is no facade they need to break down, but rather his words and story are directly representative of his thoughts. This connection between the teller and the audience is fundamentally imperative in the development of a story because it creates a sense of unity between the two. As an example of his word choice, Rob recounts the following on his lonely birthday that is spent watching movies and eating kettle chips: "Sounds like the sort of birthday a brand-new thirty-six-year-old should have. (Actually, it is the only sort of birthday a brand-new thirty-six-year old could have--the sort of thirty-six year-old-with no wife, family, girlfriend, or money, anyway. Kettle Chips! F-off!" Further, on a more basic level, his informal language and perpetual swearing heightens the humor in the story, once again enhancing Rob's storytelling.  

            Additionally, the structure and development of the plot unveil Rob's expertise as a narrator. Rob's story has taken a banal topic such as romance and has added an original and spunky twist. One of the key subtleties between High Fidelity and other stories regarding romance is that Rob's plot fully encompasses the whole picture, both the good and the ugly. The mere fact that he expertly includes the inexplicable nuances in emotions and actions that the characters feel and commit clearly exposes Rob's mastery of the art of storytelling. For example,  NOT FINISHED WITH THIS PARAGRAPH. Further, because the audience gets a holistic history of Rob and his previous, fruitless relationships and is the listeners to his self-deprecating remarks, the audience automatically sympathizes for Rob and roots for him from the beginning. This investment from the audience is a sign of great storytelling.

           Although it is easy to discredit the story as a serious literary work due to its casual language, the underlying ideas and plot are thought-provoking and serious; this novel ultimately becomes more dynamic and impressive with the amalgam of casual prose and thoughtful meanings. Rob often intertwines passages that say a lot about humanity as a whole with his playful jargon. For example, Rob explores the relationship between the two men who work for him, Barry and Dick, after Dick finally has a date. Rob thinks, "and why does it bother Barry so much that Dick is seeing someone? Because he doesn't want a smile from a man with buckteeth and an anorak in the cinema queue, that's why; he's worried about how his life is turning out, and he's lonely, and lonely people are the bitterest of them all." This passage evokes emotion among the audience as Rob is actually honing in on key topics about society: insecurity and loneliness. However, Rob's themes are not necessarily explicitly expounded in passages such as the previous one, but are often products of his actions. For example, Rob often draws upon his previous relationships and his past-life and connects them to his current life. He often prescribes his current behaviors as the consequences of the previous events in his life. Rob is directly demonstrating that the essence of who humans are is simply the gathering of past experiences. Scenarios such as this one clearly leaves the audience thinking deeper about humanity, a sign that this book does, in fact, have depth and is thought-provoking. 
     And so, after reading this novel, I realized exactly why it was on my AP reading list. That New Yorker review on the front cover was right; the book masters the impossible as it effortlessly combines humorous and intellectual elements into the enticing plot. 


word count: 952