Check It Out: Fall 2009 Student Web Projects

From ENGL 208/AMST 210: American Popular and Mass Cultures

Disney vs. Grimm
Panic at the Cinema
Video Games and Film
Viral Media Check

And don't miss Steve Bosco's post on his decision to re-score the "star gate" sequence in Stanley Kubrick's 2001.

From ENGL 427: Major Writers

Gary Aloisio on myth and Tolkien, Donaldson, and Pullman
Max Soule-Oneto on Pullman's His Dark Materials

Pullman vs. Tolkien Post

In my comparison/contrast I decided to discuss my two favorite authors of this semester Philip Pullman and J.R.R. Tolkien.
In comparison these two authors are amazing writers who put painstakingly long hours into their works and included so much detail and description, although Tolkien definitely holds the record for including the most. Both authors have the wonderful style of writing that draws the reader into the world (s) that they have created and allows the reader to become a part of the story imagining every detail that is described almost perfectly. And at any point in time when the reader is not being actively pulled into the story, the characters and story are being described in such a way that they almost become alive in the reader's world. While these authors come from two very different backgrounds, they have two very similar writing styles in that aspect.
The contrast occurs like I said in the fact that these two men come from two very different backgrounds which greatly influenced what their series were about. Tolkien came from a Christian background and those Christian beliefs can be seen through various allegories in his series such as the theme of good vs. evil, the battle between those forces, the temptations that Frodo faces, etc. Meanwhile, while Pullman's Christian influence when he was a child turned him against Christianity and led him to a strong Atheistic view as an adult. However his views that are conveyed in his series rely more on the fact that he believed that no religious or non-religious being or agency should hold a significant amount of power or dominance over other people. He had been forced as a child to attend church and follow those beliefs, thus the themes of free will and a dominant church come into his series as the main topics.
Both these authors used their backgrounds and styles of writing to develop wonderful works of literature and even though Pullman's still causes controversy today, they both can be held in high esteem in the relms of fantasy.

Pullman Post

I have to say despite all the so-called religious controversy that Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials brings about, I love the series and his writing style.
Philip Pullman has an amazing way of writing for any age range and drawing that reader into the series so that they pick a favorite character and relate to that character throughout the entire story while still maintaining favor of many of the other characters. Yes, maybe he could have paced the second and third books in the series a little bit better but I found all of the series to be an enjoyable reading experience and it's even better to listen to on audio CD. His writing style not only draws you into the story but also makes the story and characters come alive.
The series itself has wonderful aspects. I find the controversy of religion to be one of the best things about the series. Not only was I able to write my final project off of that controversy, but I also greatly enjoyed debating with the class and myself over what the real meaning of Pullman's work is. Another aspect of the series that I loved was how the main character was a girl, most often the hero is a boy and this made the story a little bit more relateable, although I still like Urek and Lee Scoresby the best. Lastly, I found the plot and journey that takes place in the story so intriguing that it became more of a choice reading than an assigned reading because I found myself getting more and more drawn into the world Pullman had created.
Once again, this series was much better than the movie because of the amount of detail and description that was included.
Pullman's series was probably my most favorite series out of the entire semester.

Donaldson Post

Well, what can I say, much like almost everyone else in the class I was not a huge fan of Steven Donaldson's series. I tried my best to keep a positive outlook on the series as we read and discussed it, because I thought maybe this was the style of the author...to make a character so despicable and unlikeable that no one wants to continue reading but at the same time you keep reading because you hope he will change.
But that idea went out the window about halfway through the second book and I became more interested in what happened to the other characters and the land in the story than the main character.
Donaldson's style of writing just really annoyed me with the way he kept repeating phrases and cussing in places that weren't necessary. The fact that he started the series off with the main character raping one of the other main characters doesn't leave a great impression on the reader either. But I also hated how he kept killing off the best characters in the book.
On a more positive note, I thought it was super funny how in class we were discussing in our groups that it had to be all a dream state and that Covenant was going to wake up at the end and how much everyone hated those kinds of series. Well, what did Donaldson do, he wrote not one dream ending, but three dream endings in which Donaldson woke up from the dream and left the world or entered the world through a dream state. It was rather comical to watch the class get so heated over his writings.
Perhaps, even though he claims to be such a great writer and claims to take his writings from others, he really just enjoys writing works that make controversy and initiate a discussion among readers?
I don't know Donaldson's real purpose for writing the way he did in his series, but I definitely did not enjoy it and will not be keeping it.

Tolkien Post

When I began the semester in English 427, I had never really read any fantasy before and never read any of the works of these authors that we studied. I had attempted to read The Lord of the Rings Trilogy back in high school but didn't get past chapter 4 in the first book. Sure I had seen the movies and even seen Golden Compass, but I didn't really have any idea of what I was getting myself into.
As we began reading J.R.R. Tolkien's series and discussing it in class, I really began to realize what fantasy was all about and how much detail goes into these works. Tolkien put such painstaking effort into his writings that they often didn't get published for many years at a time. Although his writing style could be very overwhelming at times because of all the details he put in and how long it took to get through the books, I really did enjoy reading his series and found the books much better than the movies in many ways.
While the action in the movies is highly intense and visual is sometimes better than what your imagination can give, the books have much more detail and description to offer along with the many more characters that are included. The movies tend to leave out certain details and aspects that play key roles to the plot of the story. For instance that whole section about the ents and the entwives is basically left out of the movie. The ents are included but they barely touch on the history of what occurred and what happens. Another example is when Frodo is running to get to Rivendale before the Dark Kings catch him, he is saved by a guy elf (I can't remember his name right now) who is completely left out of the movie.
Tolkien did a fantastic job of writing with such detail and description that he draws the reader in and allows the reader to use their imagination to picture almost every detail as if he were right there with his favorite character. He also presents the battle of good vs. evil and many other challenging conflicts that humans must face in life. While he doesn't necessarily give the answers to these conflicts, he does give interesting ideas as to how to solve them or find ways to deal with them. His series definitely was a great selection to start out the semester since I wasn't a fan of fantasy and he made me at least a little bit more interested in fantasy and a lot more knowledgeable about how much better the books are from the movies.

Major Authors vs Major Texts

For my final project I focused on the religious controversies surrounding Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy and the way in which those issues may fit into a long standing dialogue between radical fundamentalist Christian readers and the genre of fantasy fiction. I drew a lot from Roland Barthes' essay "The Death of the Author" to pose the argument that most of the controversies are the result of the projection of a real or perceived authorial identity, agenda or intent onto the text. The ultimate effect is the disenfranchisement of the reader and the reduction of a complex text to a singular meaning. I mostly focused on Pullman in my paper but I also brought in Tolkien briefly so I think that for a comparison of the authors in this course I can extend some of the concepts of my argument to each.

As far as Tolkien is concerned I focused primarily on how his identity as a Catholic author could cause readers to focus only on themes in the text that are consistent with Catholic ideology. To do so would be to ignore the ways that those issues are dealt with in a subtle and complex way and also to ignore the various other different kinds of ideology that may appear in the text inadvertently. One simple example is the destruction of the ring. While one interpretation could be that Frodo gives into temptation in the end because everyone is flawed and no one person could accomplish the task alone (which may be consistant with Christian or Catholic ideas). However, it is Gollum who ultimately destroys the ring, which could be read as the only way to finally defeat evil is to give into it fully and completely. I also think that Tolkien's elevation to the status of a major author or at least one of the most influential fantasy authors of all time colors the reader's perception of the text. As a reader you go into the text with the notion that it will be just about the greatest thing you've ever read because Tolkien has received so much praise and credit for his work, which may cause you to elevate the positive aspects of the text while ignoring its weaknesses.

For Pullman I obviously discussed the religious controversies surrounding the series and the projection of the atheist author identity on the text. In my research I found that a great number of conservative Christian readers centered their arguments about a supposed "atheist agenda" that Pullman had with the series. This criticism extended to and seemed in many cases to be inspired by the production of the film adaptation of the Golden Compass. I felt that the projection of this agenda essentially reduced the series to propaganda and ignored its positive elements as well as its complexities. In order to prove this I provided examples of liberal Christian reading which found evidence in the text that supports their worldview to some extent. I also provided my own interpretation of the text in which the death of the Authority is a parallel to the death of the Author and the result was the empowering of individuals in the text which represent the readers themselves. In this way I used Pullman's texts to show that there is a complex system of ideologies in every text and though Pullman may have indeed intended to subvert religion with the series, as a reader you could potentially use the text to subvert Pullman (as an author) himself.

Ok....Donaldson. I did not include a discussion of Donaldson in my paper and I can only hope that this is the last time that I have to think or talk about him. After this post I can just try to forget that my experience with his work ever happened. That being said I think that my argument does extend to his work to some degree, at least in the context of how our class read the texts. This is a major authors course so there was already a notion that the texts we read were the works of significant and competent author figures. More importantly though this is a major authors course that focuses on fantasy fiction. We read Tolkien first and used his work to develop a kind of idea of the things that major fantasy authors are supposed to do in their texts. Tolkien set the bar high and as a major fantasy author we expected a lot from Donaldson. As we all know, he didn't deliver. I think that it is also interesting to note that as the Donaldson unit went on we sort of developed our own authorial identity for Donaldson and may have projected that onto our readings of the texts. This is the identity of the incompetent author or the hack. Since it was generally established early on that Donaldson sucked, we may have read the text looking for the more negative aspects and ignoring anything that the text may or may not have been doing that was interesting or valuable.

I didn't really realize the irony of my project until writing this post. For a final paper in a major authors course I wrote about the death of the author and the ways in which the construction of the author concept is harmful. Perhaps it is a mistake to teach a major authors course as it inevitably restricts the abilities of the reader and colors interpretations of the texts. What makes an author a major author? Perhaps its irrelevant. Maybe instead we could require English majors to take a major texts class in which we all strive to become major readers.

Tolkien

As we finish up the last book in the course I’ve been looking back at the other trilogies we’ve read, and after reading Donaldson and Pullman, I feel like a little light has been shed on J.R.R. Tolkien. I first read the Lord of the Rings trilogy when I was around 12 or 13, and I have to say I was somewhat underwhelmed with the story. I remember having a problem with the pacing of the books and how long it took to get through certain passages. It just seemed that the style that Tolkien was writing in was too droll and boring. Of course this was back when I was a kid, and my views on Tolkien have changed drastically since then.

When reading the trilogy the second time around, I started to appreciate not only the story more, but the way that it’s written. This time around I started to pay more attention to the lush details that Tolkien fills the pages with, which at times was almost intoxicating. He has such a command over his style that he can seemingly pull these incredible descriptions out of nowhere. The world that he creates is so massive yet so complete in its history and evolution, with each race and civilization having their own language and culture, as if they had been around this whole time. This goes with the idea that Tolkien wanted to create a mythical representation for Britain. Creatures seem familiar yet strange and new at the same time.

One of the things that I noticed after reading the other two trilogies was how Tolkien handles his characters differently than Donaldson and Pullman. Since the world he created is so large, it almost feels like his characters feel much smaller and insignificant compared to the scale of Middle Earth. This sort of lessens the impact of the story, which in itself is amazingly written. There seems to be a greater distance between the narrator and the characters, as if the narrator cares more about details and descriptions than getting inside the character’s head. That’s not to say there isn’t any emotional connection or character development, the many different personalities are rewarding on their own, but it’s more that there is a greater focus on the big picture. It operates on such a large scale that naturally some characters are going to get sacrificed for additional descriptions and details about the bigger story, which revolves around Sauron and his dark power.

These are just a few things that I noticed after finishing all of the trilogies for the class. The Lord of the Rings is still a fantastic series which I can appreciate more after reading it a second time as well as comparing it to other works of fantasy. Tolkien himself is a master at what he does and should no doubt be considered a major author, seeing as how this series influenced so many other books that came after.

Sam's Role

Recently polled classmates of mine, when asked if Frodo or Aragorn was the bigger hero of the LOTR triliogy, ,many responded very vehemently that I was leaving out the contributions of Samwise Gamgee. I was interested that so many felt he was because I personally feel that while Sam had some hero-like tendencies, he really does not do anything of importance, in my opinion. I admit that he does take the ring from Frodo at the end of the Towers with the intention of taking it himself to the mountain when his master fails. Yet he chickens out and says he cannot be the ring-bearer; that Elrond and the rest will have to understand even if it means that Sauron will get the ring. He acts only because of his devotion to Frodo, not because he wants to save Middle Earth. Could this be interpreted as being a hero, I’m not convinved.

So it brings to mind the question: Is Samwise Gamgee really a hero or does he merely have moments of bravery? I personally think it is the latter. I think that Sam is essential for the morale of Frodo to keep pushing him along and ensuring that he does what he is supposed to do. He takes the role of the conscience to Frodo, a bit like Jiminy Cricket for Pinocchio. Just like the cricket in Pinocchio, Sam fails in his attempt to steer Frodo towards the “right choice” when he decides that the ring is his and he will not do that which he had come to do. One thing I thought was interesting was when Sam is admonished by Frodo for trying to take the ring, almost as if to say the he was acting about his station. This is a sentiment that Sam recognizes as well. Sam is one of the two bearers of the One Ring who gives up the Ring voluntarily (the other being Bilbo); Sam concludes that he doesn't really have the wherewithal to wield the Ring, as he is a lowly and none-too-bright gardener and all. That is, it's almost as though Sam's class status helps him resist the Ring's power, even though he is in Mordor when he puts it on. SO is Sam a hero? Again I’m not convinced but I give him credit for trying.

The Child, Morality, and HDM

Morality and the justification for character's actions is something that most creative writing students learn within the first week of the introduction class. Every action the character has must be believable in the grand scheme of things. Whether the story is fantasy, science fiction, realism, magical realism, whatever the genre, the decisions the character makes must be justifiable in order for the piece to be believable. This is where the author really shines. He/she can write the story in such a way that those actions are not only justified but are within the character's characteristics.

With children as main characters, the problem becomes complicated. Most of the time children haven't reached the point where they are able to see even the most basic consequences behind their actions, let alone those that are polysemous in nature. This applies not just to the main characters but to the readers who are most likely children readers, drawn to characters most like them. So a decision to steal food, for example, is seen as wrong but justified as being necessary for the survival of the character. Both the reader, who is of the same developmental mindset as the main character, and the child character are subject to the authors views on morality, which even in the most lay adults are much more highly developed than an adolescents'. Thus when the character and the adolescent reader encounters the consequences of the characters mistakes they learn his/her lesson and gain a sense of right and wrong.

Yet what happens when those consequences are not fully present? What happens if the consequences never catch up to the character? A sense of morality is never established in the character and a wrong sense of morality is instilled in the reader, believing that these actions have no consequences. Thus we arrive at Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. As much ridicule this series has been subject to, very rarely do we see any directed toward morality. Many believe that Lyra learns from her moral misgivings, and yes we see Lyra encounter the consequences of her lies toward the middle of The Amber Spyglass, a full 600 pages after her first lie.

For all of The Golden Compass and The Subtle Knife the reader watches Lyra weasel her way out of consequences and walk away none the wiser. She learns how to nurture through Will's missing fingers, how to be a "proper lady" through Coulter, and is told the direction to fulfill her quest through the Golden Compass. She literally grows up in front of our eyes throughout the series without even knowing that her lying, stealing, and hiding are not the right things to do. Yes she has moments of clarity, and boy do they last a long time (about 100 pages through Subtle Knife she is a submissive, comment-less blob with a compass), and yes she does hold the ultimate "truth teller" in her hands that gives her a sense of right and wrong. But these moments are rather lame and few. For all the fantastic writing of Pullman, I believe he guides and establishes reader's, especially those of adolescent mindset, into morally grey if not black territory.

While I could carry on with this post for another three or four days, here is where I will stop and submit to you to email me if you want to see my finished thought…

The Grandfather and the Antireligionist

All this semester we have been reading fantasy series that have created characters that we wish we knew in reality; and of the three trilogies, two have done it so fantastically, so flawlessly that it leaves the readers wishing it was possible to know them. I’m speaking, of course, of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and Pullman Dark Materials series. (Donaldson can keep his Unbeliever).

Tolkien’s characters are in and of themselves fantastic creations worthy of the histories created for them. He goes into intense detail regarding his characters and each has a deep, rich ancestry. He writes of strong emotional conflict and the difficult decisions each much make in the battle. His most poignant and my personal favorite character, is Aragorn. The descendent of Isildur, Aragorn is the heir to the throne of Gondor, but at the beginning of the trilogy, he hides this identity and pretends to be a ranger named Strider. That Aragorn does not claim his throne because he is not yet ready. As much as the trilogy tells of Frodo’s inner steadfastness before constant temptation, it also tells of Aragorn’s transformation from ranger to king. He must grow into the king, and his own journey proves vital not only for his rightful coronation but for the very survival and growth of the kingdoms of man. He gains confidence and self-awareness through his courageous support of Frodo and the rest of the fellowship, as well as from his love of Arwen. Each character in the trilogy is a success, and I can find little to bash about them. This is as they say the benchmark for all fantasy

Pullman also does a lot of character development and writes strong emotions and difficult decisions without letting the characters wallow or ruin the pace of the story. Pullman attempts something else in characterization that's rare and rather more difficult: this book has very few true villains. Nearly all of the characters with narrative introductions that lead you to expect them to stay in the villain role end up having other redeeming or at least understandable qualities, and frequently Pullman left me rooting in surprise for what I thought was the "wrong" side. With this, he's not always successful; Mrs. Coulter, for instance, felt like she got a personality transplant between books, and if the changes in her motivations were signalled in the previous books, I certainly missed the signs. Still, I'll forgive the occasional problems when the overall effect is so unusual and intriguing. I like reading a story that starts as traditional fantasy and then makes it clear that the sides aren't anywhere near as well-defined as they first appeared.

Bring Fantasy Back to the Classroom

Many English teachers face the widespread misconception that if a work of fiction is enjoyable, it cannot be good, or, conversely, if it is good, it cannot be enjoyable. Critics of fantasy, for example, would likely argue that better reading materials are available for students to read. The inclusion of materials other than the “classics” into the curriculum, however, should not depend only on “literary worth” but also on what benefits the adolescent reader gets from the reading experience.

Typically when teachers consider using fantasy novels in the classroom, they do not envision it being used at the secondary level as it is typically dismissed as “childish” and unworthy of serious literary criticism; in fact it is questioned how a novel about dragons and magic can convey any of the same themes and ideas as Shakespeare or Dickens. Fantasy tends to be ignored by teachers, parents, and administrators who feel that certain classics from the typical literary canon should be read. When students are prepared for the Eleventh Grade NYS Regents ELA, the canon of works that will help them in the critical lens portion of the exam range from Arthur Miller’s The Crucible to John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men and from Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter to Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. Of course we are not forgetting any of the great Shakespearean works such as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, or Julius Caesar. Each of these works is indeed a masterpiece about tragedy, triumph, and the inner conflict of humanity. However, the genre of fantasy can address these deep human issues as well as many others such as the impossibility of certainty, the complexity of action, and the coexistence of good and evil.

It is helpful to come to a definitive definition of fantasy as a genre of literature in order to understand why it is so beneficial. This is no easy feat in and of itself. Many authors and critics have developed various definitions of the term but a common thread in them all is that fantasy must include an element that is removed from reality. Fantasy is often characterized by a departure from the accepted rules by which individuals perceive the world around them; it represents that which is impossible (unexplained) and outside the parameters of our known reality. For the sake of argument we will be looking at the most comprehensive and inclusive definition. It comes from the classic reference text in order to best provide the broadest sense of this misunderstood genre. From the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, by editors John Clute and John Grant, sets the definition for fantasy as we know it. “A self coherent narrative that when set in this world tells a story that is impossible in the world as we perceive it; when set in an otherworld, while it is impossible in itself, stories set there may be possible in its terms”. Clute and Grant go on to further define subgenres and types of fantasy showing that the genre is more complex than misconceptions allow. In a nutshell, fantasy is any departure from reality and within can contain many elements ranging from other worlds to supernatural powers to fantastic creatures.

It is important to note that characteristics of fantasy fiction and its many overlapping sub-genres are the subjects of debate among some critics and writers. Although all fantasy stories are unique, there are some characteristics that are typically common of the genre. Fantasy brings many elements to the table that will help students prepare for the Regents ELA exam. In general, the conflict in fantasy novels is of good vs. evil. Usually, the protagonist and supporting characters set out to conquer this evil, although this is often played out through a series of books, rather than just one. Most fantasy fiction also features great details, with settings, creatures, words and names that are often created by the author. Fantasy novels require their audiences to read carefully, for their settings and characters are not familiar in everyday life. In recent times, the term 'fantasy', when regarded as part of an individual genre, generally brings to mind tales of dragons and castles and knights in shining armor - but in truth, the genre as a whole encompasses so much more. Some examples of sub-genres are: romance, fairy tales, alternative history, dark fantasy, epic fantasy, and high fantasy to name a few.

Fantasy literature allows the reader to consider and speculate about central and sometimes painfully realistic themes, in a way that is more palatable than in realistic fiction. One thing is certain: there is something timeless about stories that pit motivating heroes who face long odds against dynamic villains. The fantastic nature of the characters and the setting provides readers with emotional distance that gives them room to consider sensitive and important ideas more objectively than any other genre. An irony about fantasy is that despite the fanciful characters, strange imaginary worlds, and bizarre situations encountered, it has the power to help us better understand reality. Who wouldn't want something so powerful to be included in curriculums?