Saussure saw the sign!

Saussure offered a 'dyadic' or two-part model of the sign. He defined a sign as being composed of:
• a 'signifier' (signifiant) - the form which the sign takes; and
• the 'signified' (signifié) - the concept it represents.

Virginia Woolf...

would not have been a fan of Twilight. Based on my research of her, I'm pretty confident in my assumption that she would be ashamed that teenage girls think this series of "books" is acceptable literature. I follow a pretty hilarious Tumblr account called WoolfWriter and my favorite entry is this one.

I'll add more to this, I'm just super tired and honestly, who wants to read incoherent babbling?

The Familiarity of the Unfamiliar

NPR posted an article about music, specifically Adele, and how we as listeners crave a perfect mixture unfamiliarity and familiarity. The perfect mix is called the Goldilocks zone. While reading the article, I couldn't help but be reminded of Freud's argument about the uncanny. Freud hypothesized that people were searching for new and original ideas in every aspect of life, but also craving the comfort of familiar and known ideas.

I've provided the link below if you'd like to read the article. Also read the comments, which are almost as interesting as the original article!

Adele & the Goldilocks zone

Hurston & DuBois

In our readings for today, DuBois urged African Americans to act respectfully when they finally gained equality like their white counterparts. I couldn't help but think of other leaders of similar movements would be happy with the way the latest generations act in today's society. For example, would Susan B. Anthony be okay with the fact that women can now vote, our gender is the least likely to utilize that right? Or would Virginia Woolf be happy that now women writers have the opportunity to be educated and listened/published, women of today admire Stephanie Meyer of Twilight fame? I think not.

I'm not just talking about women. I think everyone should think about our predecessors and how they would feel about the way we're either abusing or our apathy about the rights they worked so hard to achieve...

Curiosity of Matthew Arnold

After doing some research about Arnold, I came across a blog that explains Arnold's reasoning in a more clear and concise way than I could ever attempt to try.

Curiosity vs. Culture

Enjoy!

Are you a Dandy or Flaneur?

"Keep cool, my babies."

"The most interesting man in the world..."

http://tinyurl.com/FlaneurPhotography

 

You may be asking yourself, "Why is Ellen posting so many pictures of Robert Redford and random Youtube/Vimeo videos?" The reason, my babies, is to help you understand Baudelaire's meaning in using the terms "dandy" and "Flaneur" in his works. The Dandy was someone who was wealthy and offered nothing economically to society. The Flaneur, on the other hand, was someone who stayed in the shadows and watched life pass him or her by.  The Flaneur movement in photography is really interesting to me but I can't help but wonder, why is a Flaneur more respected than a Dandy? They both clearly have time on their hands, whether they spend said time being social or photographing others living their lives. I encourage you to read more of Baudelaire's work and decide for yourself if you're a Dandy or a Flaneur! 

Samuel Johnson The Rambler & Preface to Shakespeare

Samuel Johnson defines the novel in very modern terms; ordinary events happening to people like me and you. Johnson felt the goal of the novel is to produce an interesting reality without wild impossible plot points and characterizations. He also stated that many works of fiction were comfortable because they are formulaic and predictable. Johnson illustrates a complex relationship between the characters' experience. He also surmises that readers compare the events of a novel based on personal experience and then measure their personal experience based on the novel's events. 

Johnson also feels that the younger generation can become deceived by novels if authors write wild and dangerous behaviors with little or no consequence. Johnson reminds us that romances were not realistic, therefore making them not dangerous because they could not be imitated. 

I enjoyed reading Johnson's theories and personal thoughts. I respected him before but now that respect has definitely grown. I appreciated that he did not discount any future works but gently put forth guidelines for future writers to be true to themselves and to look to the past, not their contemporaries, for inspiration. Below I will provide a link to an interesting article about Johnson's "The Rambler"...

Click here for Enlightenment!

Does Samuel Johnson not look like Richard Lewis?!

"It matters not how a man dies, but how he lives. The act of dying is not of importance, it lasts so short a time."