Of crushes and clubs

First off...I'm really sick of Alexisde Tocqueville's crush on the U.S.  Please...just stop, it's too much.  This goes beyond the simple idea of admiration and explanation of that admiration. It's like the awkward kid in high school, or better yet, that kid in a club with you.  He really wasn't that bad of guy, but then you realize that he knows a lot more about you than you've told him/said on facebook.  He could be a really great guy, but...do you want to take that chance?  You could have a great friend...or you could have a clingy creep.  I'm just saying, Alex needs cool down a bit.
Speaking of clubs or "voluntary associations" I was fascinated by Alex's idea of the European clubs really being about being in an organization and reaching certain goals whereas in the US, "the independence of each individual is formally recognized..." This was intriguing because I never thought of the clubs that I joined as being somewhere where my individual contributions were recognized.  We had a goal in mind, and we were going to reach it, whether it was putting on a play, or volunteering somewhere, or winning in quiz bowl...there was no environment to express oneself in the sense that he describes.
I must say, I disagree with his assessment on this count.  I haven't joined in clubs in Europe (surprised?) but I really felt as though his European model was closer to my actual experience as someone in the US.

I. Dare. You. (Also, I promise to be less booky later!)

My literary friends,

Have you read more than 6 of these books? The BBC believes most people will have read only 6 of the 100 books listed here.

Instructions: Copy this into your NOTES. Bold those books you've read in their entirety, italicize the ones you started but didn't finish or read an excerpt. Underline if you've seen the movie or play. Tag other book nerds. Tag me as well so I can see your responses!




1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen

2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien

3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte

4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling

5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

6 The Bible

7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte

8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell

9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens

11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott

12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy

13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller

14 Complete Works of Shakespeare

15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier

16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien

17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk

18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger

19 The Time Traveler’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger

20 Middlemarch - George Eliot

21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell

22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald

24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy

25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams

27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll

30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame

31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy

32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens

33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis

34 Emma -Jane Austen

35 Persuasion - Jane Austen

36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis

37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini

38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres

39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden

40 Winnie the Pooh - A.A. Milne

41 Animal Farm - George Orwell

42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving

45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins

46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery

47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy

48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood

49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding 

50 Atonement - Ian McEwan

51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel

52 Dune - Frank Herbert

53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons

54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen

55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth

56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon 

60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck

62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov

63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt

64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold

65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas

66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac

67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy

68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding

69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie

70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville

71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens

72 Dracula - Bram Stoker

73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett

74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson

75 Ulysses - James Joyce

76 The Inferno - Dante

77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome

78 Germinal - Emile Zola

79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray

80 Possession - AS Byatt

81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens

82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell

83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker

84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro

85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert

86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry

87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White

88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom

89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton

91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad

92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks

94 Watership Down - Richard Adams

95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute

 97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas

98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare

99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl

100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

"And like other American Dreams, the power of this one lay in a sense of collective ownership: anyone can get ahead."-Cullen

This post gave me trouble.  I was going to write it, I was going to write it, I was going to write it, and clearly, I very nearly didn't.  The Cullen chapter, whilst I kind of despise the man (mayhaps he's too close to a certain "vampire")? was intriguing in the idea of the American Dream being accessible to every person, almost as a mythos or dogma.  Going through the public school system, we learned that education was the key to getting ahead, self made and self educated people...the whole nine yards.
But here's the thing.  I can't completely say that I believe that anymore.  The beautiful gorgeous optimistic idealistic charming...(read: mildly irritating) side of me wants to believe that anyone, with diligence can pull ahead.
The horrid realist cynic (read: really not that bad...) side of me really can't acknowledge that simply by working hard, everyone pulls ahead.  That's why I disagree with the idea of collective ownership.  Sure, it's practically been indoctrinated into us since the cradle but I see so many cases where people just don't seek out what's good for them.  At my high school, there were about 25% of people who wanted to work hard, the other 75% either coasted or blatantly didn't care.  And even that other 25%, there were maybe a fourth of them (so...6.25%, and I'm being generous) that actually wanted to learn, that actually had passion for their education. And if we take those 25% as being more likely to be successful, we're in trouble.
Call me cliche, but I love to learn, I really do!  I like reading, I like other perspectives, I like knowing things that I didn't know before simply for the sake of knowledge! And that's where I think that Cullen's interpretation falls flat.  You need to educate yourself to get ahead (80% of the time) but 100% of the time you need diligence and passion.  You can go through the  motions and maybe succeed, but you're not living the American dream until you have passion for what you're doing.  The American Dream to me, the idea of upward mobility, is accessible, but without love for what you're doing, or some sort of goals that you want to attain, a purpose, it's completely useless.  There may be some people who are ahead, and "living the dream" but without the passion for something behind it...everything just feels flat.

Equality, Education, Elitists

Whilst reading de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, I was struck by how it was a political tome, but also a deeply philosophical one.  It fascinated me with the ideas of our perceptions of the lower class and aristocracy was really misguided, and the idea of the civilized society being unequal whilst the "savage life" (I love the casual political incorrectness...not that it would be termed as such in that time period...I'm just getting my snark quota in for the week) was "uncivilized" but "equal and free." 

"If, in polished countries, the lowest of the people are rude and uncivil, it is not merely because they are poor and ignorant, but that, being so, they are in daily contact with rich and enlightened men."

This quote,  really demonstrates humankind striving to better itself, but in a more specific sense it also discusses the idea of a precursor of the American Dream. The reason that Europeans left for America was in order to better themselves, to stop being the lower of the people and to move forward.  Without upward mobility, there's really no chance to do anything, in the broadest sense, but also a lack of upward mobility really contributes to a resentment of authority/the elite.  So, I see de Tocqueville as demonstrating the idea of a need for upward mobility to keep a society from going mad.  However, and this is the kicker, he also acknowledges the idea that  maybe the United States functions because its filled with the more intelligent people."These men posessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of its own time."
It's a double edged sword.  On the one hand, I am all for the common man pulling ahead of his oppressors...but perhaps de Tocqueville isn't without reason (heh) in thinking that the more elite, the more educated are the ones to do it.

Books Again...

In his article "Pietism  and the American Character" William G. McLoughlin almost did a through job convincing me about the idea of American culture being founded and shaped by religious ideals.  I liked his examples about how there were protests that united people across denominations and religions.  I liked the idea of even our material culture being shaped by religious piety.
Then he started talking about books and poetry.  Fine.  I respect that.  But when you admit that you are an amateur when it comes to interpreting American Literature, why would you take such a huge tangent to discuss it as a major example of your argument?  I found it to totally detract from his other points...when you start talking about how everything in American literature is inherently religious...to be honest, I feel as though he confused religion with spirituality.  They're not the same thing.  This flaw, his one minded focus upon religion forming everything in literature, to the point that it's the only way to understand it, really revealed his amateur status.  I felt like he ignored alternate causes, just to make his point, and it ultimately made it fall apart.

Annie, Dear Annie

 Dear Anne Hutchinson,
I loved this idea of "The Second Great Awakening" being novel because it encouraged a search for an individual god, an individual outlook on religion and spirituality.  All I can think of is you dear... Is it not a bit weird that looking at the Puritans, in their "individualistic" outlook, you were exiled and scorned until your own gender is taken from you, and you're seen as unwomanly?
Now fast forward to the 1780-1830s or so, and you get this idea of individualistic impulses being good for a development of a religious culture.  I'm so sorry Anne, that it took you so long to be validated despite the fact that these ideas of challenging the government weren't exactly new in your time either.  I'm sorry that this revolution was kinda forwarding your same ideas.  I'm sorry that ideas and ideals take such a long time to change.  I guess there's nothing much to say, other than self reliance is very important and I'm glad that you were able to see that. 
On a side note, I loved the idea of self reliance gaining a godly fervor.  Perfection.  Identities were so definitely being formed here.  You really did help to lead the way, methinks.
Anyway, hope you're doing well.  The weather has been nice.  The harvest looks good for this year.
XXOO,
Beth

Books, Books, Books, I love Books. (Also, backstory to my life!)

"Met with the richness that was the readers' lives, I was repelled by what I saw as the shallowness of the book's characters."

This is another quote from Amy's article, and I found it to be utterly brilliant.  I read the Left Behind Series when I was in eighth grade, and I could never quite articulate why I disliked it.  To be fair, I mostly read it to challenge my brother, a year older, into proving that I could read those monstrous looking books.  Now, being someone whose favorite book series has books that are over 1000 pages, I  no longer look on length with trepidation, but sometimes with disquietude. (Perhaps this is why I'm prone to sesquipedalianism?)
Even as a fourteen year old, in my full fledged stages of what I like to call "OHMYGODILOVEDRAGONSANDUNICORNSANDMAGIC"  phase of reading (it was a dark time) I think that I understood character development and what the difference between a flat character and a brilliant, vibrant character is.  Sometimes, you can ignore that for the sake of story, hardly anyone would call Harry Potter the most developed character ever (Did I mention I'm still fully in my Harry Potter phase, and content in wallowing in it until I die?) Anyway, with the Left Behind series, I really didn't get a sense of either.  But, as a fourteen year old growing up in a family of  child psychology and religious theology majors (my mother and my  brother respectively) you can't go "I felt as though the characters lacked depth.  I just didn't like them. And the story was lame."  When Amy said that they didn't match the richness of my life (narcissistic much?), I kind of understood.  Books like these, the reasons that they fall flat for me, time and time again,  is that those characters become concepts and not characters. 
As for the story, read any fantasy novel that's over three hundred or so pages (I did have friends, I promise!)  There will a prophecy and suffering and trickery and rebellion.  That's the way these things work.
Ultimately, to go beyond any archetype, you have to tell it in a interesting way. This is why Harry Potter sells well; it's interesting, it's the same story in a different light, with characters that are believable.  Left Behind failed for me because it was the same story, same characters, and it didn't match up with the emotional spectrum of anyone's life.

Left Behind

I was fascinated by the part in Amy's article about how Apocalypticism in the USA grows from the outsider areas, the agrarian areas.  This is intriguing to me because it seems to echo the American idea of frontierism, of forming your own separate identity and making beliefs based off your ability to live freely.
What's really cool though is how she later discusses how these beliefs in Apocalypticism, especially in the idea of the second rapture and the years of Tribulation (I had no idea that those were kind of uniquely American) later led to backlash against the movement for becoming too separatist and too opposed to being modern.  Usually, we see the US as being incredibly innovative and up to date.  To see this movement gaining so much power and influence in the sphere of people's lives, I find it odd.  There is a lot of contradiction to my idea of the "national identity" and what it means to be an American person.  I suppose that the idea of American Evangelicalism changes over time, but I find its roots to be strange in that they emerge from such extremist ideals.  Ultimately though, I guess that's what is an American idea.  Outsider movements growing to extreme modes, and changing identities, changing ideas.

Bold. Female. Piety.

"These examples of bold female piety were concentrated in rural areas during the first decade of the nineteenth century and were typical of the relatively youthful Baptist and Methodist sects. As such they may be more a symptom of frontier leniency than an example of beneficent evangelical policy toward women."

This quote interested me quite a lot because it made me think about America's History of frontierism and pioneering new ideas.   I had never considered the second great awakening to be seen as a sort of quaint little movement; that women weren't seen as subversive, but rather, quirky.  It is odd to think of this as a sort of movement that grew out of the backwaters of society, from the less educated parts of the U.S.  I had always thought revolutions started from the idea of the intellectuals, those on the fringe, but those on the fringe from being educated.  I thought that they gained the masses' support at a later time...Either way, I enjoyed thinking about the role of gender in this article, and the role of gender within religiosity.

Democracy, Math books, and Walt Whitman

Ah, common place blog.  It feels good to be back.  :)

 Democracy

 Walt Whitman spends a lot of time extolling the virtues of a democracy, of freedom of expression, in his essay “Democratic Vistas” but he is also quick to say that “I will not gloss over the appalling dangers of universal suffrage in the United States.”  Coming from the perspective of the nineteen year old, native Minnesotan, it was difficult to fathom the idea of not having universal suffrage.  This could be due to some slight bleeding heart tendencies, but as far back as I can remember in my public school career we learned that everyone had equal opportunities for success and freedom.  Naïve as it sounds, this belief has resonance, and it’s not completely false; it is really more of a core “American” value than one would believe.

  If you were to ask me how democracy works, I admit that I’d be confounded by the question.  This was not always the case.  If you were to ask me when I was younger, the answer would be a resounding “Democracy is for the people to all get a say and equal chances.” That was how it worked; if you tried your best, you’d eventually be rewarded.  Someone would be looking out for you.  Sadly, with my newfound cynicism, this is not the case.  There is no grand unifying explanation for how democracy works. There’s the basic, people vote, but a single vote really doesn’t have the much impact, to be perfectly frank. People get to be heard, fair enough, but the best answer I can give you, without feeling like a complete phony, is that “Democracy is not a mindset where the individual succeeds.  It’s a mindset where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” This is far too simplistic, and of course, there will be the extremely valid argument that the elite are running the system, but on the wings of a broad and idealistic generalization, this explanation is what springs to mind.

Democracy makes the people feel like they’re being listened to; after all, it’s “demo” Latin for “people”, and “kratia” meaning “power.” So, power of the people.  It gives people a feeling of being heard, making us feel like our contributions are valued.  This could be a stretch, but I’d almost say that having a democracy contributes to freedom of speech.  People feel as though they can speak, they are given a voice, thus they choose to speak more.  However, this may be a confusion of freedom of speech with the desire to speak, rather than the ready availability of those speeches.

At its best, a democracy enhances the people’s sense of worth.  It inspires us to aspire to greater, almost dizzying heights.  As previously stated, it encourages people to express themselves and work towards exhibiting their new ideas.  We feel as though we are making a difference, that our thoughts count. This is at its best.  At its worst, democracy is run by the elite, those who possess power.  It becomes stagnant and does not work towards the “greater good” but the whims of the few.  There is no real original expression, and there is no betterment of man.  Rather, there is a disparity between the majority and the minority and no real hope of reconciliation.  It is a sort of tyranny, where there can be a slight majority which dominates a large minority.

Democracy shapes our lives and gives us (by us, I mean the American public) an identity.  The average American is able to say that democracy is something that they believe in, along with the leaders that they voted for (or against).  It gives a bold idea to center a national feeling around, a sense of who we are and where we’re going.  There is a sense of real power and belief behind the simple idea of a democracy.  We often speak of bringing democracy to people, and this idea is frequently seen in a positive light.  By being a democratic society, we feel an obligation to enable other nations to do the same.  Clearly, we hold some value to this idea, and we’ve formed ourselves around it.

While reading my math book today, I came across a quote by Tom Stoppard that said “It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting.” That’s really what it comes down to when it comes to democracy.  We “do” democracy by helping others to be counted, making every sure every voice has a say.  Is it a perfect system? No, (my math book later went to say that no democratic election is ever completely fair) but no system is ever perfect.  However, this system contributes to a mindset that bolsters belief, and that makes it work.