Mrs. Lloyd

I was looking around online because the description of Lily at the costume party kind of intrigued me. I wanted to know what the painting she was supposed to be imitating. "not to the brush-work of Reynolds' "Mrs. Lloyd" but to the flesh-and-blood loveliness of Lily Bart" (135).

I googled Reynolds and Mrs Lloyd and found this link:

http://www.abcgallery.com/R/reynolds/reynolds143.html

No wonder everyone was so impressed/shocked - the costume seems rather flimsy.

Sarcasm

I definitely think that there is at least a slight element of social commentary in this novel. I can't not view the sarcasm as not sarcasm. Someone mentioned in class a few days ago that there was a lot of sarcasm and ever since then...I see sarcasm everywhere. I find myself laughing over the descriptions of some of the values of the characters and the characters themselves. I find them ridiculous to begin with, but the sarcasm seems to define them and make the ridiculous more concrete.

Is it possible that Edith Wharton is like Selden - even though she is a part of society - she recognized her society's draw-backs and flaws?

I don't have a specific quote for this blog - the sarcasm is kind of throughout. Once you're looking for it - it's hard to miss.

Doomed

Lily seems like such a doomed character. She just seems so hopeless. She is gradually “growing more sensitive to criticism and less confident in her power of disarming it” (132). “She had a fatalistic sense of being drawn from one wrong turning to another without ever perceiving the right road till it was too late to take it” (129). It seems like this novel is not going to end well. Ms. French seems to be setting her main character up for devastating loss or failure. I almost want to stop reading and not get too attached to Lily – she seems doomed.

“Friends”

Lily is an interesting character – she acknowledges that people use each other for different reasons, but she does not realize that she does the exact same thing. She used Gus Trenor for his money and she uses the Dorsets for her social status. “What she required at the moment, of the Dorsets’ friendship was simply its social sanction” (130). It seems to me like she assesses potential “friends” by what they have to offer her. She doesn’t see actual friendship or caring or kindness – she very coldly assesses her peers and sees just what she can extract from being “friends” with them. Sounds like a very lonely life.

Bridge – Scandalous?

I’ve never really thought of bridge as being such a scandal. “Mercy, cousin Julia, don’t look at me as if I were trying to turn you against Lily! Everybody knows she is crazy about bridge” (127). I usually think of bridge as a kind of elderly activity. Apparently not. Lily’s “gambling debts” are attributed to “playing cards for money”, but I was imagining black jack or poker – not bridge. I never knew bridge could become such a problem.

House of Mirth - Marriage

The descriptions of Miss Bart attempting to woo Mr. Percy Gryce are incredible. It's like marriage and the becoming of being married is an extreme sport. The boredom that she endures on the train to the Trenor's party - all in the name of wooing a man who can sustain her expensive lifestyle. I love the way that she talks about other women not having the "skill nor the patience to effect his capture"(26). It's like she's trying to psyche herself up, trying to replenish her confidence. How she is "almost sure she had 'landed' him; a few days' work and she would win her reward" (29). I kind of feel bad for her - working so hard to convince someone with whom she doesn't even have the slightest emotional connection. Sustaining her lifestyle must be very important if she is to go to all measures to secure it.

House of Mirth - Miss Bart

Miss Bart...hmmm. I can't decide if I like her yet. She's a little judgmental - "It isn't a bit hotter in here than in Mrs. VanOsburgh's conservatory - and some of the women are not a bit uglier" (4), "Oh, I know - you mean Gerty Farish. But I said marriageable."

She is definitely a "victim of civilization", some of the things she says are almost unbelievable - "If I could only do over my aunt's drawing-room, I know I should be a better woman."

She seems rather insensitive and unaware of the feelings and connections of others - when she makes fun of Gerty Farish and when she laughs at Mr. Selden for trying to "make love to her".

Maybe it's just the time period. Maybe everyone of her status was like this and accepted it as normal. But to me, I don't think I'd want to hang around her. She sounds rather mean-spirited in a naive sort of way.

Tax System + Marx = .....

This blog is a comment on Isa's blog about the people at the top getting all the benefits, while the workers at the bottom get none. In micro, we're just learning about the tax systems that have been put in place around the world, specifically in the United States.

Apparently, the principle of tax analysis is this : that "the burden of a tax is ultimately borne by individuals or households." The wage-earners and and laborers are the ones who must pay the tax. The burden of taxes that must be paid by a firm or an institution is actually shifted onto the consumers or workers.

I wonder what Marx would say about this. He'd probably fervently argue for the rise of the proletariat, but would that work as well as the system does today? Understandably, the tax system we currently have in place is extremely controversial and does not have the ability to satisfy everyone. But what can we replace this with? What else can work as (reasonably and comparably) well?

Any thoughts, Marx?

More Marx

I'm reading our assignment for tonight and I'm being assaulted by references to Hegel. Who is this person? Apparently he has a system - "Hegelian System" - that has many different categories - "Substance", "Self-conciousness" page 105. I wish I could get some sort of background or introduction before Marx just jumps in. Although, if Hegel was an extremely important character during Marx's time period, perhaps the audience of this work would understand the references.

I do like to read these sorts of excerpts, though. It makes me feel involved and in the moment. I definitely like Marx's style of writing much better than Gandhi's or Neitzsche's. It is much more urgent and passionate. He italicizes his words quite a bit - that definitely adds to the importance of the matter that he's discussing.

Marx

The most prevalent theme that I've been getting out of these readings is Marx's attachment to economics. I'm taking Principles of Micro and it definitely helps. I can understand what Marx is saying - I get the principles he's discussing.

I have also seen a lot of discussion on family values and the family unit. "The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation." I can definitely see how he would infer this from the industrial system. I never really thought of any other disadvantages to industrialization besides the obvious environmental percussions. The idea that industrialization destroyed the family unit is definitely plausible. I'd just never thought of it that way.

Education

Throughout Gandhi's work, he discusses education. My question is - how can advances in culture and technology be made with the most minimal educational background? With only an elementary level of education - potential would be completely stunted. This seems to be a common theme - restraining society's potential. I understand that Gandhi wishes to go back to weaving and spinning (see page 80), but what about the rest of the world? Would India just be frozen in the past while countries surrounding it would thrive and flourish with new technologies and ideas and cultures? I don't think that all citizens would accept this life - there would have to be some sort of dissent among various sectors of society.

Caste vs Varna System

I'm not really sure how I feel about these two systems.

I would imagine that it would only hold back the participants and prevent them from reaching anywhere near their potential.

"The varna system is ethical as well as economic. It recognizes the influence of previous lives and of heredity. All are not born with equal powers and similar tendencies...no time would be lost in fruitless experimentation, there would be no soul-killing competition, a spirit of contentment would pervade society and there would be no struggle for existence." page 231

I disagree. I understand the importance of tradition and honoring the lives of our ancestors...but not to the extent that one is inhibited by them. Perhaps not all are "born with equal powers" but just accepting the role that your parents and grandparents have accepted seems a little defeatist to me. True, no time would be "lost" on "fruitless" experimentation, but isn't that what life is all about: understanding your potential and acting on it? Granted, society would be very orderly and organized, but filled with rather unhappy citizens.