Ah, Google. Master of our hearts. Like Wikipedia, Google is becoming (or has become) our go-to for any sort of fact-finding mission. Unfortunately I think that Google has started to take advantage of the fact that their company name has become a common verb. "You can Ask Jeeves it" simply doesn't have the same ring to it. I like the autoGoogle feature, wherein the search guy living in the computer tries to guess what you're going to say. However, I like it more for the entertainment value than for the saving of my poor, overworked fingers. Although, in the age of smartphones, the autocomplete is useful. Google uses its position as the goto search engine to its own advantage. Because of the personalized advertising feature, Google can make a living off of selling our search histories. It can also promote companies that support it, rather than simply allowing the search results to show what is most relevant. Monopolies are always dangerous, even when ere only talking about search engines. Who is going to regulate Google's practices if there is no other search engine to turn to that can produce the same type of efficiency?

The article on the creation and the creator of Wikipedia was fairly enlightening. I have long considered Wikipedia's information sources to be of the bored teenager variety, and therefore give little credence to the information I find there. I do admit using Wales' "Google Test". What's scary is how much faith that users put in the information found on Wikipedia. Even though there is some sort of policing of information going on, I don't think its enough to consider Wikipedia a credible source. The admins seem to be there mostly to remove profanity and nonsense, not to edit for factual information. I think its Stephen Colbert who actually encourages his fans to make up ridiculous information about him and post it on his Wikipedia page. Also, its concerning that when you review a page or article, you are asked to assess your own level of expertise. I just think there's way too much leeway when it comes to facts and Wikipedia.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Pygmalion, but there is something that has been bothering me throughout the play. Neither Higgins nor Pickering, though Higgins more obviously, view Eliza as a person. Higgins constantly refers to her as random inanimate objects. Both have conversations about her while she is next to them while making no effort acknowledge, let alone include her. Pickering sees slightly beyond her role as a student, as he calls her "Miss Doolittle" and notices that her gifts of mimicry extend beyond dialect to the piano. Higgins, however, sees her only in relation to what she can prove about his linguistic prowess, and what she can offer him (his slippers, remembering his appointments).

That's why I love it when Eliza finally has enough, and asserts herself, even if it is in a fit of fury. Sometimes, though, nothing can say "I'm not gonna take it anymore" like a slipper to the face. The conflict further shows Higgins' utter obliviousness to Eliza's existence as an actual person. He has no clue what she's upset about, and doesn't even seem to track that she was right beside him and Pickering when they were discussing "their" victory. Eliza has spent months allowing herself to be shaped, and it's only when she breaks out of the mold that Higgins has created that he shows an actual interest in her as a person.

As I start writing this response to Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," I find that I am more hesitant than usual. I feel like I'm in danger of doing the kind of writing he blames for the "general collapse" of the English language. Worse, you'll all now be aware of the fact that my writing is bad.

Ah, well. The part of Orwell's argument that I found most interesting was the idea that meaning should choose words, rather than words dictating meaning. It's true that we often get so concerned with sounding intelligent that we forget to make our actual point. Using too many words is just as dangerous as using the wrong ones, since our meaning can get lost or even changed in the midst of all the letters. I also often fall victim (case in point) (again) to cliched metaphors and phrases. It's easy to rely on these words to try to describe something, even if they don't actually describe what we think they do.

Especially in political writing and speaking, where meaning is essential, I think Orwell is right that we need to concentrate on being more succinct and exact. However, given the nature of politics, this is very difficult. "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." Politicians use metaphors, and especially euphemisms to make their points more palatable to the public. Very few would vote for a politicians who advocated the total destructionof a village and its people, and so politicians frame such ideas under the guise of "spreading democracy" or "achieving liberation for an oppressed people." Not only is this type of language bad, its also dangerous.

Lyn Pykett's feminist critique of Wuthering Heights reiterated the importance of literacy in the actions and identities of the two Catherines. She describes the first Catherine's diary as being indicative of her rebellious, dissatisfied nature. The fact that Catherine wrote about the things in her life that she did, as well as the ones that caused her frustration, shows that she was determined to exist outside of society's expectations for girls. Growing up, she is wild and unrestrained. It is only after going to Thrushcross Grange that she begins to conform. In this conformity, she loses part of herself. It might be the most vital part, since her transformation into a proper lady eventually leads to her demise, though it may be in a roundabout way. I think this is a common theme in feminist literature; a woman gives up her own desires and personality in order to be what society wants her to be, and so causes her destruction.

Cathy uses books in order to hang onto her identity. She refuses to allow her will to succumb to the imprisonment at Wuthering Heights, though she cannot do anything about the physical entrapment. Books eventually allow her to choose Hareton, which will make her happy. Cathy is able to fulfill her desires, because she holds onto the power of literacy. Catherine stops holding reading and writing in any sort of real esteem, and so stops fighting for her identity.

In the essay on the Marxist critique of Wuthering Heights, it was really interesting to me how Eagleton uses the laws of inheritance of the time (I.e. Hindley's being in line to inherit everything, and Catherine's expected inheritance of nothing) to show why Catherine and Heathcliff formed such a strong bond in the beginning. He, as an uneducated foreigner and she, as the younger sister of the heir, were both outsiders to the Heights. As a small child, Catherine had no concern as to how she would be provided for in the future, and so formed the attachment that she wanted to form, not one that would benefit her in the long run. It was interesting to me, because we've talked about how Catherine's need for financial security dictated her decision making later in life, but this fact shows that the same lack of future financial security leads to there even being a choice. Had Catherine never formed the close emotional relationship to Heathcliff, then she would have no hesitancy in choosing Linton.

The essay on cultural criticism was a little more confusing. Armstrong seems to suggest, in several places, that Charlotte Bronte attempted to make Wuthering Heights more socially accepted by attempting to prove that her sister was unaffected by the surrounding culture when she wrote it. Emily had "'a secret power and fire' ... that came strictly from within" (430). Describing her sister this way allows for the novel to be read in a sort of cultural vacuum, since there's very little possibility that someone who rarely ventured into the world could make the cultural connections. I think that Armstrong is implying that Charlotte made these claims about Emily in an effort to shield her novel from critics, and that the claims are not actually true.

The inclusion of the first two letters following the novel give a little more insight as to why Catherine Earnshaw chose to marry Edgar Linton instead of Heathcliff, aside from her simply being a semi-miserable human being. Because men held so much power over women, and essentially were in charge of their finances and standing in society, Edgar was the better choice for marriage. Catherine tells Nelly that one of the main reasons she loves Linton and wants to marry him is because he loves her. His love for her gives her some reassurance that she will be treated well. She believes that he will not leave her for another, or mistreat her, and will provide for her and their offspring. Judging from the fact tthat his rewinds to her giant temper tantrum is to propose, we can assume that there isn't much he won't put up with from her.

Heathcliff, on the other hand, is an unknown entity. His temper is so volatile, that Catherine cannot be assured of his continued affection for and patience with her. He also at the beginning of the story, has nothing to offer her but his possibly fading love. Since Hinley is the heir to their father's estate, Catherine has no real assurance of continued fortune. Edgar offers her stability and security, both in love and money. Later, we do see that his love for Catherine has not faded, so she may have misjudged him on that. However, given how the unrequited nature of his love has twisted it and him into an ugly, vengeful thing, we also believe that she made the right decision on spouses.

Because women had so little power, Catherine asserts hers in the only way she can: she chooses the husband who will guarantee her a secure future. Edgar is capable of the kind of unselfish love that was rare, and for which Heathcliff does not have the capacity. This love of Edgar's gives Catherine the peace of Mind that she will be taken care of no matter what, as will her offspring.

Wuthering Heights is already a very intriguing story for me. I think part of that stems from the fact that so many people have presented it to me as this romantic story, set against the background of the moors, which only add to the romance. Thus far, I'm just not seeing it. Neither of the main characters have me wanting them to end up together. Catherine is ridiculous and selfish, prone to dramatics and unaware of her own faults. After the blow up between Edgar and Heathcliff, she even goes so far as to say to Ellen "I thought, though everybody hated and despised each other, they could not avoid loving me" (119). She refuses to acknowledge that she has any part in the conflict, or that she has mistreated Heathcliff at all. It is interesting, though, that Bronte managed to create a "heroine" that is so far outside the expectations and ideals of a woman in that time period. Catherine speaks her mind and makes no apologies. The one thing she really manages to do that falls in line with expectations is marrying Linton, mostly for his social status. She chooses to ignore her love for Heathcliff, to whom a marriage would degrade her.

Not surprisingly, given my affinity for fictional "bad boys" as well as my interesting psychology and sociology, I find myself much more on Heathcliff's side. I think, based on his early affection for Catherine, that he had the potential to be, maybe not a good man, but certainly better than he turns out. His unknown early childhood certainly started the points stacked against him, and Hindley's open disregard exacerbates it. I think, though, had Catherine not slowly chosen Linton over him, and badge not overheard her seemingly low opinion of him, his main goal in life would not have become revenge. You can almost see him plotting when Catherine reveals Isabella's crushing him. I find myself looking forward to and dreading how far he's going to go to right the perceived wrongs against him.

As seems to be the case, the chapter that struck me the most in this section of reading was the one that dealt with gendered books. It's interesting to see what genres and subjects about which women were allowed to write. They could write romances and about things that dealt with the household, but adventure and even poetry were considered more for men, depending on the time period. Even though this discrimination and limitations are decreased today, there is still a certain stigma attached to "women's literature". "chick lit" is expected to be about friendships or love or finding fulfillment in marriage and children. Male authors are still the go tos when it comes to political commentary through literature or dark themes. This definitely shouldn't be the case, but I believe there is still a social limitation placed on where female authors are allowed and encouraged to tread.

Again, Manguel starts his argument with a mention of the physicality of books. Boy books were green, female books pink, and neutral books were bound in yellow. As someone who tends to shop new books by cover, this was something I could relate to. Similarly, I could relate to the feeling of shame when stepping outside of what is expected of you. A couple of years ago, I bought Twilight, just to see what the fuss was about. When the cashier asked me if I liked it, I immediately made up a fictional little sister whose birthday gift I was purchasing. I guess I felt that a 23 year old shouldn't be reading what was meant for teens and tweens, never mind the fact that the cashier was herself an elderly WalMart employee who probably had no idea of the intended audience. I don't buy the "fluff" books I read in paperback; instead I use my Kindle so that I can read without fear of silent judgement and scorn. I guess I should feel comfortable reading these female-centered books, but I think the label of "English Major" creates a certain expectation of acceptable material. And, of course, the people in the waiting room of my doctor's office in Rome can just look at me and tell that I am an intelligent English major, and would therefore be immediately embarrassed for me should I be caught reading Sarah Dessen in public.

A History of Reading

Reading is so ingrained in us, and has become such a part of the landscape of our lives, that we often don't realize that reading has developed and evolved over time. We look at our own history of reading, and it seems to follow the same basic steps as our peers. As young children, someone shows us books, and reads to us, and we slowly begin to recognize letters and words on our own. It's hard to conceive of a time when the written word didn't exist, or when it wasn't readily accessible to all. I think Manguel does an excellent job, at least so far, of showing how reading has evolved, and how different things in different eras were important. Reading aloud, like in Augustine's time is now limited mostly to the young. Augustine and his contemporaries viewed reading silently as the anomaly. Memorization of texts also played an important role at one time, either in an effort to learn or in an attempt not to have the text taken from you. In my own life, I find that memorization actually impedes my reading process, as I concentrate on the actual words rather than what the words say.

I think my favorite part of the text is actually the quote by Kafka. "I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. ... A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us.". Kafka seems to have focused on the idea that reading should connect to the reader. He left works unfinished ("The Castle") so that the reader will never stop the story. This is a perfect way to illustrate the idea that books are... alive, for lack of a better description. When reading, I so often insert my own ideas and experiences, and connect with characters with whom I would never think I had anything in common. I remember books not so much for the literal words of the text, but for the feelings they invoked in me.

Introductory Post

My name is Laura Farmer (well, Peterson really, but for the sake of not confusing the grading system, we'll pretend like KSU didn't enroll me under my maiden name). I started off as an English major when I started at Berry College in 2003. Throughout the years, I have switched majors several times, managing somehow to earn an Associate's degree in Sociology. However, I have once again decided on English. I suppose that's just proof that sometimes you need to go with your gut.

I have been married for three and a half years. I took spring semester off of school to have my daughter, Eliza, who is now five and a half months old. My husband and I live in Rome, and so I somehow managed to arrange it to where I only have to come to campus two days a week. We have two cats, Gus and Little Cat (our imaginations know no bounds), and two dogs, Abbey and Eleanor. Clearly, my house is destined to resemble the main tent of a three ring circus. It's pretty awesome, most days. I tend to communicate in non-academic settings with a lot of sarcasm, so if you ever think I'm being mean, don't take me seriously. I'm really shy, and the attempt at humor helps me feel a little bit more comfortable with myself.