Heart of Darkness

One of the many interesting topics in Hear of Darkness is the chauvinistic attitude portrayed towards European women. Conrad sets the scene on a boat, which is sailing down Thames River, where he creates a central narrator, Marlow, who recounts his experience in Africa to a group of four men. This choice of a setting where women would not be present at the time creates an atmosphere for Marlow to recount his journey with no input from a female perspective. He only introduces three relatively minor female characters. I think, Conrad’s choices which are only concerned with the male experiences, illustrate a typical product of a patriarchic society. After the first female encounter (with Marlow’s aunt), he expresses his opinion to his audience on the boat. “It’s queer how out of touch with truth women are! They live in a world of their own and there had never been anything like it and never can be. It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset. Some confounded fact we men have been living contentedly with ever since the day of creation would start up and knock the whole thing over”. Its amazing how there is no objection to this statement, all four men seem to agree that women are completely ‘out of touch with truth’ and they are incapable of handling the reality. It is clear that such a mentality was accepted by the European society, otherwise why would they all agree to such a degrading statement. He excludes women from the real world by idealizing their existence and through this created idealism Conrad shows that women can not exist and function in the real world.

The Deer Hunter

The Deer Hunter seems illustrate the homoerotic relationships that Fiedler mentions. Particularly, when the men escape into the wild for a hunting trip. Perhaps because the character are heading to Vietnam, they feel the need to escape together, understanding each other's experience. Regardless of the reasoning, several tender scenes point to the homoerotic relationships between the men.

What a sad movie...
It is a good illustration of Fiedler's hypothersis, the male patagonist of American fiction is always on the run into nature to escape his responsibilities. What's interesting is that his movie was inspired by a book Three Comrades, which was written by a German author. It would be very interesting to compare the male relationships in the book to the movie. Is the male patagonist on a run of American fiction as Fiedler claims a genre of American literature or was this portrayed in the Three Comrades as well by a European author.

The Deer Hunter

This movie is an overall touching movie. When it comes to war movies I really get emotionally involved. Overall if you relate this movie to Fielder's theory, yes we say a three men whom escape into nature and hunt together. Through their bondage I do not sense any homosexual engagements. Like Aaron said on Monday, why does a strong male bondage mean that there can possibly be some homosexual questioning in the air? They are just really close friends. If you try to use for example; the friends dancing together, this doesn't mean they are gay. Sometimes men just play like that. I remember in junior high school, it was a phase of play where the boys would joke around and make homosexual advances towards each other. It was all fun and games. The boys would be actually making fun of the homo tendencies. I only wondered if some of the boys weren't playing at times though. I guess you can relate that to Sedgewicks theory ont the Epistemology of the closet.

Deer Hunter

Although I do agree with Aaron and others that not all same gender relationships may have homoerotic feelings and tensions built up, neverthless this movie did display some of the evidence that Fiedler presented that would fit the bill of the typical American novel. The main characters in the movie all appeared to distance themselves from the domesticated society and their nagging mothers and women neighbors upon their return from the hunting trip. A few homosexual innuendos also appeared throughout the movie, including the scene where the two men are dancing together and the two women dancing together.

The Deer Hunter

This movie was sad and touching. In the beginning of the movie the friends are singing and playing pool together, they all seem to be having an innocent time. Steven the guy who is getting married, he wants leave home to get away from his nagging mother, this ties into our discussion about Feedler and how domesticity is not bliss but dullness. Michael tells Nick at the beginnig of the movie that he is the only one of the men that he trusts going hunting with. He is the only on he trusts being alone in the woods with. When they got to war they have a lot of sequences with water. After the war you can tell that they have all changed, like they were all reborn. The water is a symbol of rebirth and what they went through in that water would change anyone.

The Deer Hunter

The Deer Hunter is a very sad war movie. The three guys Michael, Nick, and Steven are very innocent before they went to the Vietnam War. They were happy together doing everything they wanted to do. They never thought about the war would changed their indulgent life. However, after they have experienced death and live moment during the war, Michael felt more melancholy than before; Steven only could stay at home and doing nothing; Nick addicted in drug and couldn't come back home. I don’t think this movie has anything related to men’s escaping from responsibility or to nature or homosexuality. I felt a strong friendship within them. They have no choice to go to the war.

the deer hunter

I thought the movie was very interesting, but so depressing. I was very suprised by everything that happen to the three friends who went off to war. There were many homoerotic instances, like the singing together and touching, but in a joking way. I do believe that sexual tension does exist in close relationships, but i did not get that feeling throughout this movie. I felt that because of the situation and that they were such close friends that they acted perfectly understandable. I think they were all expecting one thing out of life and war changed all that. Michael was the most sensitive of all and I felt he had compassion for his friends and was a good man. By the end I knew that the close friendship was all that was there.

The Deer Hunter

This movie was very appealing to watching and very entertaining. I agree with Michelle when she said that men can have just an "innocent" relationship with each other. Many people in society do joke about two close guy friends but in some way them joking makes them seem envious because they might want a relationship with a person like that. When Michael and Nick went off into their own adventures i saw nothing wrong with them saying i love you to each other and telling each other not to leave them. i think they got used to having the comfort of having each others company.
The most interesting parts were when they all had to play the gun "game". The parts that had this in it reminded me of Battle Royale where they were the entertainment giving all these older men something to watch and bet on. In the background you can see ppl passing money around. It was sick to see that but at the same time when you think about it you realize this was actually happening in the world and WORSE. The scene on the little tree house was much more intense scene than when Nick was shot in the head. The game was more intense because these men were slapping them to the point where they were getting marks on their face.
I felt bad for Michaels wife/girlfriend. i would feel helpless if i was her and would think something was wrong with me if my other half just upt and left one day

"the Deer Hunter"

I was completely surprised at this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but at the same time i found it very touching. I agree with Aaron when he speaks of relationships always being viewed as sexual and never just as a friendship. In this movie, i didnt get the idea or the view of any of these men being gay, even though stan says that about steven. I feel that these men have a very strong bond and part of that bond comes from spending time together. I think taht there is an innocent love for one another, but not a "homosexual" love for eachother. men can have this type of love for eachother, with no underlying desire to sleep with eachother or have feelings for eachother. i see nothing wrong with being close to firends like these men are. These men seem to have a geniune love for eachother that is innocent. I feel that alot of these judgements also have to do with ones nationality and culture. In some families, like italians, it is completely acceptable for men to kiss one another on the cheek and hug eachother in public. in other societies, it is highly frowned upon. I think taht Fiedler would have a field day watching this movie and analyzing it, especailly with all of the nature imagery. the men are constantly in the water, the mountains, nature etc. it seems like this movie was made while someone was reading Fiedlers book out loud.

Leslie Fiedler would have a field day here, especially in the earlier scenes in the bar (when they are playing that love song, right before Steve's mother drags him out). But again, I do not think that there is any homoerotic, homosexual, whatever, tension going on, or at least there does not have to be. If one wanted to watch the movie with these things in mind, it would be feasible, but it is not a definite conclusion that must be drawn from these men's interactions. They can just be very good buddies.
In fact, it seems that all friendships are actually, deep down, they are sexual relationships. A "true" friendship seems not to be able to exist within these theories. People cannot, or do not, ever, (which is very general), look at each other as "regular" people without any sexual tension between them, be they two people of the same gender or of the opposite gender. In a case to case basis, when analyzing literature or real life, it may prove true that some friendships or "relationships" are sexual, but sometimes the sexual tension that is read into a relationship, especially when it is done so generally, that it is too deep down to really exist in any way that makes a difference.
I know that was a little off topic of the movie, I just kind of got a little side-tracked. The movie was very well done, and was able to elicit some really visceral emotions. The russian roulette scene (ironic, these guys are of russian extraction) was especially disturbing.

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

In Adrienne Rich's article on heterosexuality and lesbian existence she addresses many topics that gets the reader thinking. In her article she discusses the different sexual likes of women and how different authors perceive this topic. She feels that society is to wrapped up in heterosexual relationships that women are taught that the only right thing to do is have a male to female relationship. She addresses in her article that there is alot more to woman being with other women than sexual reasons. I am not saying I one hundred percent agree with Rich, but she does make a clear argument, which she backs up with evidence. I found her argument to be interesting and effective.

Eve Sedgwick & Epistomology

I was having Trouble with publishing my post. At home Ethernet problems. Please excuse me for my tardiness.

Epistemology can be defined as the study of theories of knowledge or ways of knowing, particularly in the context of the limits or validity of the various ways of knowing. Eve Sedgwick speaks on the oppression of homosexuals. She discusses why homosexuals are afraid of stepping out of the closet. The main reason of why homosexuals are afraid of stepping out of the closet is because they fear the responses that they will receive from heterosexual social groups of the world. To be more elaborate, homxosexuals tend to fear the disapproval from religious sects, co-workers, friends, family members etc. Homosexuals would like to be truthful, but are aware of the consequences of their acquisitions.

In the readings for this week there was quite some confusion within all of the texts.
It wasnt as straight forward as past readings have been.
During the reading of Fiedler i wanted some background information as to why he picked the vocabulary for this piece of writing. I couldnt find any information as to where he got the influence from but it did say that he was interested in mythology and for writing genre fiction novels.
I never realized how many writers analyzed the homosexual world. I never knew that there were writers who focused on how people became homosexual or rather born with it.
I think it is a good way to get out to the people and make people understand certain concepts. Although concepts such as the "closet" may cause controvesy within a group of people there is also a unity that brings them together for the concept to be discussed. Should the closet be a symbol of let out in the world and freedom or does it have to be a barrier?

Fiedler

....

Fiedler

In reading Fiedlers novel, i was very confused at many parts of the book, partially because i never read any of the stories that she mentions. In the preface, i love the fact that she tells the reader that everything she is saying is how she views things, and that she is not going to cite lines from books or other critics. her comparision of European literature to American literature i felt was also interesting. I really liked how she made the connection between the new sciences emerging all out once on page 32..."the series of events which includes the American and the French Revolutions, the invention of the novel, the rise of moden psychology and the triumph of the lyric in poery andds up to a psychic revolution as well as a social one". This was a key point that stuck out in my mind, that i had never known before becuase history was never of interest to me. her discussion in chapter 11 about the "innocnce via the ocular initian is bafflement and nausea" (345) was another subject taht caught my attention. in this paragraph she further discusses how children are often forced into adult hood by the things in life taht they witness.

Eva Sedgwick tries to portray essential ideas behind homosexuality in man and in woman taking different approaches, the used of the Jewish cultural system and the comparisons to a deviant and mocked scheme toward homosexuality, could be awfully confusing and hard to convey her assumptions. She starts by completely detailing all aspects that come to play through out Esther progressive move to explore herself as a Jewish woman. She uses two different texts Between Man and Epistemology of the Closet to convey and sort of contrast their ideas. She focuses in many key points citing important aspects; such as family and various socio-cultural facets. Perhaps the most shocking idea could be the consequences behind revealing a homosexual identity, on an already conformed marriage. More importantly taking family a s a factor that goes beyond man and woman, but involves a new generation which will be built upon the previous.

I agree with Aaron's contempt for Sedgwick's comparison of the gay community coming out of their closet to Eshter's revelation to Ahaseurus that she was Jewish. Revealing to one's spouse that you are gay is an inherent contradiction to the unity of that relationship. Although you might still be good friends, things are just not going to work out. Revealing oneself to their spouse that they are Jewish might be discomforting to some, but it may not throw the entire marriage into mayhem. The marriage can still exist and continue to function, the kids might get confused about what religion (if any) they are supposed to follow, but nevertheless the relationship can remain healthy. Also, if Jew's want to raise their "little girls" in predefined gender roles, that is something that they have a right to and should not be mocked. If she had a problem with that (which she apparently did with the Queens Esther costume on Purim) she should leave it to herself.

The fact that Leslie Fiedler chose to express his essay with very controversial vocabulary was very clever. His “Come Back to the Raft Ag’in, Huck Honey!” in Partisan Review captured immediate attention. The choice of such vocabulary as “queer as three dollar bills” (referring to Huck and Jim) for a controversial thesis in itself must have caused a tremendous impact in1948. I am sure if Fiedler chose to write his essay using less controversial terms as he later did in 1982 or as in Love and Death it still would have evoked an outrage, but I am sure it wouldn’t have captured as wide of an audience as it did in 1948.
I have not read as much American literature as Fiedler has, so it is hard to fairly evaluate Love and Death in the American Novel. However, I would have to agree with such statements as “Where is our Madame Bovary, our Anna Karenina, our Pride and Prejudice or Vanity Fair?” Nothing so far in American literature had captured me as Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina or War and Peace for example. His characters and their passionate love affairs are truly unforgettable.

I did not quite get what Eve Sedgwick was trying to do by comparing (or rather contrasting) the events of Biblical Esther with the “closet” of homosexuality. It seemed that her main argument was to criticize the closet as something that essentially keeps gay people separate and segregated from the rest of society, it is something that acts as a barrier between that gay community and the straight community. The very fact that there is a closet to come out of, for Sedgwick, spells certain separation of the gay community. So when she devoted a few pages to the story of Esther and how Esther, sort of, came out of the closet with her Judaism to Ahaseurus, I really saw no connection. First off, Judaism and Jewish identity is a completely different dynamic from a person’s sexual orientation. Secondly, Esther was “out of the closet” to everyone besides the royalty in the palace, her entire community knew her Jewish identity (an issue that Sedgwick addresses which seems to detach this story from her argument even more). I did not see how the story of Esther, even though there is an element of revealing the hidden (Esther, in Hebrew, means hidden), added to or supported her argument.

And as for Fiedler’s argument, it certainly makes sense, but what about Charles Brockden Brown’s “Wieland” or Hannah Foster’s “The Coquette,” both Americna novles with just as much sexual tension and romance as, say, “Wuthering Heights?”

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

Many of Adrienne Rich's observations are quite astute, particularly, her notions regarding female sexuality socialized as a man's possession. This is certainly seen in the way society perceives chastity as something to be saved for one's husband or a specific man, but never for one's self. Additionally, Rich forces reader to confront whether men are naturally more sexual than women and, if so, to question the extent that men can control this powerful sex drive. Rich points to various social institutions that seem to convince people that female sexuality is a mere illusion, yet another aspect woman that only exists for the sake of man. However, while socialization and perhaps social control often seem to dominate its victims, it seems inappropriate to equate these social norms with acts of sexual violence. Likewise, it seems to belittle sexual crimes like rape, molestation and harassment, when one connects these atrocities to gender socialization. While socialization is, by definition normal social practice, sexual violence is a crime and is not considered acceptable. Therefore, it would difficult to attribute sexual violence to normal gender socialization because majority of the society does not engage in this type of deviance. Moreover, to relate socialization and sex crimes would seem to belittle the severity of these crimes.