Penis and the Pen

I know from my studies that there are feminist discourses that believe language is gendered male. I also know that there were writers, such as Mary Ann Evens a.k.a. George Eliot, that wrote under male names in order to get published. It makes perfect sense that in a world where men have decided just about everything, that language and authorship would be male as well.

The term “painful obstacle” seems to be harsh when used in the same sentence as gender. I agree that women writers have little to model their work. I also agree that it has been difficult for women to create a genre of their own in the hierarchy of patriarchal views of authorship, but every domain has been difficult for women. Rather than trying to break free of the male gendered language, it should be used to create an understanding that the male way is not the only way. After all, it would be said in a language they understand.

Full Circle

I have to say, I always believed the author was part of the work. Like Mark Twain, I think everything comes from something. Authors of each period in time write about what is happening around them. Beowulf (circa 1010) is a historic epic of a medieval hero. Marlow (1564-1593) wrote about the struggles of knowledge. Austen (1775-1817) wrote about class differences. Twain (1835-1910) wrote about racism. Ayn Rand (1905-1982) wrote about self-interest laissez-faire capitalism. Essentially, what they wrote about is what they lived. Part of what I believe to be the “author function” is sharing the vision the author has. Why else would the author publish the work? Surely not just for the money.

2 Minutes of "There is No News"

For the past couple of weeks we have talked about authorship when studying fan fiction and slash fiction. We are getting into a discourse community that has a set of guidelines within the genre and also a method of editing and determining the levels of superiority in the writing. I think from the last class discussion, we determined that there is possibly a level of quality in the actual text, but tossed around questions of credibility in the genre and the value of authorship.

Now, I know this class is sick of hearing how there is no difference between the authorship of Shakespeare (and his contemporaries) and the authorship of texts in the media we are currently studying. To be honest, I have no great love for Shakespeare. What I do find fascinating is that his work is so highly regarded in academic studies, but was nothing more than Pop-Culture of its time. I will not get into my usual mantra about how Shakespeare’s authorship was just a job. What I will point out are the differences between the people writing on fan or slash fiction sites and the people writing on Shakespearean sites.

Last week we were asked to write slash fiction. This is one of the sites I used:
http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/
It was well organized and basically told you anything a person needed to know about Futurama. It even included some not-so-needed-to-know tidbits of information. Some of the writing is creative and clever and some of it makes no sense at all except maybe to the author. The site includes fan-photos and drawings as well. Comments can be posted for both the text and visuals. Although the writers of fan fiction are using what was originally created by someone else, readers can tell these writers have invested a lot of time putting their own spin on what they have become very knowledgeable on.

Now I would like you to take a look at this site dedicated to Shakespeare:
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/news.html
Scroll to the 4/13/08 entry “Is Shakespeare Dead?” and click on the new video link. Now check out all the additional videos on the right-hand side. This site is organized and even informative. You can find Shakespeare Festivals all over North America. There are essay contests to enter and even materials that can be used in the classroom, but please tell me what “nose hairs” have to do with Shakespeare (except that maybe he had them). By the way, that guy has his Ph. D.

My point is that most readers, regardless of their education, have an expectation of certain genres. Being truthful to ourselves, we can admit that we expect something a bit more scholarly from the Shakespeare site. When looking deeper into the Futurama site, the work is categorized as “Fan Art” or “Crap Art.” Even if the genre may not be credible for some, the discourse community has a sense of pride when it comes to their work.

Futurama Slash

As they fought the robots Mom deprogrammed, Amy looks over at her companion in combat. Ponytail whipping in the wind, the high combat boots, and skin tight wife-beater; who wouldn’t go crazy over that? Amy’s thoughts drift to the men in there lives and reconsiders; what men?! They have all run away to leave the fighting to the girls. She looks again at the strength she battles along side of. The broad chest, muscular legs,

Leela: “Amy, look out!” (She drop-kicks the rogue blender about to dice Amy’s hand off)

Amy: “Thanks.”

Leela: “Thank me later. We have to get the remote away from Mom. That’s how she’s controlling the robots.” (She dodges more blows)

Amy: “I’ll distract the robots so you can get to her.”

Leela: “Good idea. You were always the brains of the operation.”

Amy began to wave her arms and pretend she was injured. The robots focused their attention on the damsel in distress. There was no Prince Charming to save her; just Leela. Again, Amy’s mind wandered to her unsung hero. ‘The brains of the operation,’ Amy reflected. That meant Leela was the brawn! They did make an awesome pair. What more could two girls need? Just then, the robots stopped dead in their tracks. Leela must have done it!

Leela: “Are you ok?” (Helping Amy to her feet)

Amy: “I am now, thanks to you.” (Hugging Leela hard)

Leela: (Whispering in Amy’s ear) “No, the thanks go to you.”

The two stand in the rubble holding each other. Neither one wants to let go. Both are lost in the moment now broken by the noise of the yellow figures that have decided to come back.

Fry: “So, are you two gonna mud wrestle now?” (Leela drop-kicks Fry in the chest)

Leela: “Guess who has clean-up detail. Yup, YOU! (Turning to Amy putting her arm around her) Let’s leave this mess to the boys. We have celebrating to do.”

Amy: “Yes we do.”

I Get It

When I travel, I try to incorporate visits to local museums. During my latest trip I was able to see an exhibit at the Museo de las Americas featuring some of the cultural histories of Puerto Rico. One of the rooms displayed this:

The artist used a photograph take in the 1920s that was originally used for documentary purposes to inform the world of the poverty and oppression in Puerto Rico. The artist painted a background and added color to the black and white photo. Adding color or changing the medium did not enhance or alter the meaning for me. Meaning making is within the individual. Each person will walk away taking something different with them whether they know the history or not.

I saw the Matrix movies, but have never played the video game. I thought the movies were an interesting view on the issues of the digital world and how far the world has been changing. That is the meaning I walked away with. On the other hand, my boys became obsessed with the link between the game and the movie and were constantly searching for answers within the two. Rather than investing that much energy into it, I decided "it is what it is" and that's how I "got it."

Food for Thought

My grandmother made the best potato salad on Earth! When I was a kid, she would let me help peel the potatoes. As my grandmother carefully put each ingredient into her huge mixing bowl I would ask, “Nana is that what makes your potato salad so good?” Her reply was always the same, “Now Tracy Lynn, you know I can’t tell you until you are grown. It’s a family secret and when you have a family, you can know the secret.” Eventually, my mother took over the job of making the potato salad at family gatherings. I continued to help. In time, I knew the recipe just from watching the process.

A few years ago, my brother had a party at his home and asked for my grandmother’s famous potato salad so mom and I went to work! At the party, one of my sister-in-law’s friends asked my mother for the recipe. I told her that it was my Nana’s recipe and couldn’t be shared outside the family. My mother gave me the craziest look. She took me aside and said, “Nana got the recipe from the Hellmann’s Mayonnaise jar.” I was shocked! My mother could not help herself and continued, “Her oatmeal cookies came off the Quaker Oats lid!”

The moral of this is that I don’t think recipes should be authored (or in this case trademarked?). Maybe they can’t be authored. It was very easy for a wide eyed little girl to name them her grandmother’s.

COUNTRY POTATO SALAD

2 lbs. all-purpose potatoes, cut into 3/4-inch cubes (about 6 cups)
1/2 cup Hellmann's® or Best Foods® Real Mayonnaise
1 Tbsp. white vinegar or apple cider vinegar
1/8 tsp. ground black pepper
1/2 cup thinly sliced celery
1/2 cup chopped onion
2 hard-cooked eggs, chopped
1/4 cup sweet pickle relish or chopped dill pickles (optional)

1. In 4-quart saucepot, cover potatoes with water. Bring to a boil over high heat. Reduce heat to low and simmer 10 minutes or until potatoes are tender; drain and cool slightly.

2. In large bowl, combine Hellmann's® or Best Foods® Real Mayonnaise, vinegar and pepper.

3. Add remaining ingredients; toss well.

http://www.hellmanns.com/recipes.aspx

Hip-Hop

I loved the McLeod piece! I think I was about eight-years-old when my grandparents took me to my first block party. They lived in Queens and we stayed with them on weekends. I remember how cool it was to ride my Big Wheel in the middle of the street. I must have been about seventeen when I started “clubbing.” In those days (as if that were forever ago), the place was not as important as who the DJ was. That was about the time when Hip-Hop was going mainstream and some DJs had a huge following.

Hip-Hop always seemed to be original to me. My parents were “flower children,” my grandfather was a Jazz enthusiast, and my other grandfather was a violinist. I was exposed to an array of genres and did recognize that there were glimmers of these genres in Hip-Hop, but it was still a completely different sound. I can see the shady area of gray when McLeod discusses issues of copyrights and sampling. I also saw that the more popular Hip-Hop became and the more money Hip-Hop artists made, the more pressing the issue of ownership became. I agree with the cultural aspects of McLeod’s argument, but I also feel that Hip-Hop was not taken seriously in the beginning; at the very least not by the record industry. I think the fans pushed the importance of Hip-Hop making it clearly evident that it was profitable. The clubs were always packed!

I continued to have a steady diet of block parties while growing up in Brooklyn. I never imagined that history was being made right in front of my eyes (and ears). Like neighborhood Pizzerias and Bodegas on every corner, the smells of family owned Bakeries, and the even blend of Menorahs and Christmas Trees during the holidays; Hip-Hop was part of growing up in the city.

Copy-write?

When I began reading about the laws, the first thing I thought of was pharmaceutical companies. A friend of mine worked for a generic pharmaceutical company. At the time, a high profile drug was coming up to the end of its patent (11.7 years). First, the company filed a bunch of frivolous lawsuits to hold the patent for the drug. Then, they paid the generic company not to make the generic form. Finally, they reformatted the drug and patented the newer version of the drug. My question was, “How can they get away with that?” Well, they didn’t. They had to pay lawyers and heavy fines in order to try to protect their investment. It turns out that the profit from the drug was so enormous that the fines and lawyers were a drop in the bucket compared to what the drug was worth financially to the company.

At face value, laws are in place to protect the common folk otherwise only the rich would be able to afford medications such as the one discussed. But, to find that type of control over culture is creepy. Then, isn’t it a bit contradictory that the “American Dream” is based on the idea that if one works hard they will benefit from it. Yes, the drug company gained financially from their invention, but then the law dictates as to how long they can profit from it.

I find that the author gets lost in the mass production of their “product.” Mickey Mouse, Barbie, Harry Potter become the face of the author/inventor. The bigger the characters become, the less important the person behind them is. It is as if they disappear. I then have to ask, “Does the creativity disappear as well?” Does the profit of the creation take priority over the creativity and become a formula that the creator then becomes.

From the beginning, I felt that authorship and ownership went hand-in-hand. When a person invests time and energy doing something, whether it is art, writing, inventing, etc, they want to protect that investment. We protect our homes, vehicles, and even our bodies by purchasing insurance. Our culture has been conditioned that way.

Walt Disney

I was never a big Disney fan. I always felt that most of the movies (and products) represented patriarchal views; very white patriarchal views. I could never help but wonder, “Where are the mothers? Why don’t the bad-guys have color?” The female characters are either unrealistically beautiful or unbelievably mean bitches out to get everybody. The good characters have bright colors on while the evil-doers are dark and dreary. I have a hard time watching my niece dress-up like Cinderella as both her mother and my mother watch gleefully.
I will say that Walt Disney was a remarkable man. He took the idea of the American Dream and ran with it! He did not start off rich nor was he a city slicker hot-shot. He was just a regular guy with an amazing talent. Not only did he build an empire on entertainment for children of all ages, but he basically convinced the parents of Middle America that their parenting skills were not going to destroy them.
What I find most interesting is that the public picture houses were frowned upon. They were considered dirty and crowded and could spread infectious disease. They were also “…concerned about controlling the moral and behavioral effects of movies upon the poor and ignorant, particularly children,” (page 39 Babes in Tomorrowland). The Puritans wanted to close the playhouses for the same reasons in the early 1600s. They feared they were corruptive. City administrators of that time were bothered by the fact that anyone could go, including the poor. Doesn’t that sound familiar?
I do have to get off my high pessimistic horse right now and say that I really did like Disney World. I took myself away from the characters and outside the plots of the movies and was transported to a place that was extremely culturally diverse. Not only were the employees from all over the world, but the patrons were from all walks of life. Here we were, all together enjoying the same thing for similar reasons. It truly was an amazing experience to see the vision of one man through the eyes of my eleven-year-old son.
It is still a disappointment to see my niece walk around in those outfits when she could be learning how to fish and use tools like I did when I was a kid. I roll my eyes as she tries to get one of my nine nephews or one of my three sons to be her Prince Charming. All is not lost. The boys would much rather be WWF wrestlers than saving damsels in distress!

Entourage

After reading Negus, I thought about a storyline in the HBO series Entourage. For those who have not seen it, it is about four guys that go to Hollywood to make it big. “Vince” is the star, his brother “Drama” hits it in TV, “E” is the business manager, and “Turtle” is basically the gopher. Vince does a period piece that was short on budget. He felt very strongly about the movie, but it turned out to stink. His PR person and agent tried to sell the movie by its trailer, which was beautifully done.

When Negus talks about “suits” I think of Vince’s agent selling producers an idea that was outside of the actual creativity (or lack of it) that Vince and the director believed the movie obtained. It seems that without actually being a creative force, the “suits” in this instance were able to create a product that other thought they needed or wanted. The movie did sell, but Vince did not have a "suit" to write a contract. After the movie was viewed, the buyer pulled out.

When I think about advertising (including movie trailers), I imagine a group of people brainstorming on how to present products to the public. I am not sure they are all authors, but I do believe they are all part of a creative force. I think they are masters of the language and I think they do have a hand in creating values within cultures (what is beautiful, healthy, popular, etc). Which in itself is art.

To Be Published

This is photo of a mural painted on the side of a building in NYC. There are two pieces of art to be discussed here. First, there is the mural itself. Although the author is unknown to me and there is no visible tag, I believe it is signed. The artist has painted a city street with flags of different countries. The flags are stratigically placed possibly demonstrating the diversity and harmony of different cultures living together in one area.

The second form of art is the photo itself. It is a photo of a boy at recess in the schoolyard. It was taken just at the end of the school year and it was unseasonably hot for that time of year in NYC. The boy's teacher is shouting to him that recess has ended and it is time to go back inside, but the boy wants just one more minute. Without that description, the viewer can see that it is sunny and possibly warm. The buildings, cement, and fencing are characteristics of city life. The rest, only the author could tell.

Even though I would produce both pieces, I do not think they would be considered art in other circles. Part of me thinks Bourdieu would consider this art because it is a representation of society at that time (and someone probably got paid to do it). The mural depicts cultural diversity and the tentions of that diversity. It has also been placed there stratigically (like a billboard) so it serves a purpose other than something to look at. It makes a statement about life in Hell's Kitchen. The other part of me thinks that Bourdieu would say that only higher classes decide what is art. The artist used materials that were available to him/her (the wall) which would probably be considered defacing property to those of a higher class. For me, the photo represents summer. For a higher class, it probably represents poverty. It is that class that determines what is art. Therefore, I could not be a determiner of what is considered art.

Shades of Gray

I found that the readings for the past two weeks have displayed the idea that "authorship" is a mixture of different ideas. Macherey says that art is not a creation, but a product of man's labor. If we say that an author is a creator and owner of what he has produced, then we agree with Macherey. Becker says that art is a network of people who cooperate to produce a work. When thinking of movies and television, it is difficult to disagree. Heath says that the author is a product of society, so the work is a product of society. Freud believes the work is the product of the author's fantasies (immagine the reader's fantasies). Foucault says that a text always bears signs that refer to the author. Whichever of the statements one agrees with, at the same time, it is difficult to deny the other statements. I think it is very tricky to be able to choose a single theory.

Derek Kompare's article and the articles in Authors Inc. talk about author-branding. This seems as if it leans toward coding. Wollen says motifs should be used for coding. If a particular author writes the same way, then all the works will have the same motif. Therefore, they will be coded the same way. The author's name becomes the code instead of the work itself. I think that is where some of the theories are conflicting. Is the author the important factor or the work; or are they one in the same (branded)?

I tend to look at an author as a person doing their job. Some just happen to do it better than others. Like athletes, some are touched by God and are extremely successful at what they do. I also believe that authors become what they write. The audience begins to have expectations of what the work will be like. Although the audience will be pleasently surprised at times, it does not always work out that way as in the case of Mark Twain's autobiography. Because of his prior success, his audience still read it. We behave the same when it comes to music. We enjoy a group, buy their CD, and expect there to be a signature style. In many cases we get what we expect. Every so often we are disappointed.

Art as a Collective Action?

It is easy to assume that a painting, a novel, or a symphony is composed by one single person and the creativity is a reflection of that one person. It is easily forgotten that without other aspects of technology and trained craftspeople, the art would be nothing more than a creative thought in the mind of an artist. In his article, Becker says that artwork is made up of a network of people who cooperate to produce that work. Ridiculous at first glance, but it has to be considered that without editors, publishers, publicists, advertisers, printers, and let's not forget the technology used in the artistic process. Where a writer may be excellent with the pen, spelling may be questionable. Just as a painter can work a brush, speaking to endorsers may be a difficult task.

It is easier to accept that film is a collective work. Although authored by one individual, the creative team is announce with equal or more credit. The first scene is presented along with key actors, director, and producers. The writer/author is an afterthought. They are credited at the end or at the end of the list of the rest of the creative force.

A book has the title and author on the cover; front and center. The rest of the team is listed inside. The editor (the actual person that makes corrections) is a ghost. The illustrator of the cover, if their is one, is credited on the back cover unless the illustrations are part of the story as in children's books. In that instance, the illustrator is credited with the author on the front cover.

The more I thought about this, the more bothersome it became. How important is the author by anything other than his or her name? Who allows them such value? If a novel is a collective work, why are they not as important as the author? On film, they are as important. I think that's why authors fear computers. It seems that when it comes to visual technology and authorship, the visual is more important than the author. Google a story such as Cinderella. Several versions, including movies will come up. Technology seems to dilute the author. The author takes a backseat to the text itself. The visual arts tend to do the same.

Favorites

It was difficult to decide which authors are my favorites because I have more favorite works than I do actual writers. I find myself more attracted to time periods and how certain works are reflections of those periods. For example, The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite novels, but F. Scott Fitzgerald is not my author of choice.

I do enjoy Shakespeare, but anyone that has had a class with me before knows that I think Shakespeare was a hack. The only play he wrote that I like, Titus Andronicus, was probably his worst. Shakespeare was a businessman. He wrote plays to sell them and possibly act in them. That's what makes him interesting. He was also part of an underground culture that is now considered "high art." The theatres of the late 1500's were in the worst part of town and to see a show was relatively cheap. What makes Shakespeare great (to me) is that he had a formula that not only worked, but is still used in theatre and cinema today.

Mark Twain comes to mind when thinking about authorship. I would not claim him as my favorite, but I do enjoy his satirical wit and use of language. Pudd'nhead Wilson is his most interesting work (to me) because of the irony of the outcome of the switched boys as they matured to men. I also find it fascinating that Mark Twain referred to himself as an inventor, not a writer. With as much as he had written one would think he would qualify himself as writer.

Although I do not read "for fun" very often anymore, when I have the opportunity I like to read novels by Janet Evanovich. She writes a series about a female bond enforcer from New Jersey. Her characters cannot seem to get out of their own way as life happens to them. Her books are an easy read and I fondly refer to them as "bubblegum for the brain." They are a funny break from real life!

Authorship of My Blog

Because I am the person writing the text on the pages of my blog, I am the author of that portion. Because I am somewhat "technologically challenged," the design of the blog belongs to the creator of the template I chose. The person (or persons) that designed the template did so for people like me that are a bit intimidated by technology or need help. It is understood that I may borrow the template for my blog and create the text (or insert other media), but the authorship does not belong to me entirely.

My blog is a representation of me. The thoughts are mine developed from what is read and/or discussed in class. It has the characteristics of a journal. As I create the text and other medias on the page, it belongs to me (alone) the same way a notebook and pen written journal would be. Once I publish the post, I am no longer the sole owner. My classmates can physically add or comment on my blog and even share ideas. Therefore, my blog has joint authorship.