Tag Archives: #readingresponse

week twelve… the water will carry us home

Posted on by
1

ok professor… where did you find THIS

anyways this short film was so intriguing and sad. how the water was a vessel that took the african people away from their home but then later became something of a sanctuary to those who fell overboard…

I think this speaks a lot to how people view the ocean. Because for some people it was used like a tool, a sort of road, something that didn’t have life. Something that took life (as evidenced by the people “dying”). But to others it gives life, it provides safety, as shown by the big merwoman transforming all the people (pregnant people I may add) into merpeople and saving their lives. The way people interact with the ocean probably also impacts how they see it.

There’s something to be said about having a surface level view of the ocean- how people only seem to focus on the top of the water, where humans can survive, rather than below, which is normally hostile to humans. It probably also speaks to our fear of the unknown, which makes sense as the ocean IS pretty mysterious. But in this the ocean is comforting and secure, but there’s also respect for it as an entity, as seen in the ending portion of the short film where it cuts from stop motion to real life.

week 11? Sirenomelia

Posted on by
1

professor where did you even find this

anyways it was really uncanny, with all of those shots from under the surface of the water. And then the mermaid(?) swimming amongst the human structures, and then later in the middle of the ocean… it felt so out of place and yet so natural..

I think it speaks to how humans are somewhat out of place in nature, just as the mermaid was out of place amongst the structures. All of the shots of the quiet stillness in the ocean and in that tundra area sort of spoke to how nature sort of coexists with itself. That mermaids are a sort of extension of nature in a way, because we see the mermaid in the water almost all the time (naturally).
the film kind of implies that mermaids are indeed the link between humans and the ocean because the mermaid interacts with bare, isolated nature and the equally empty human structures. There’s also a bit of curiosity as the mermaid explores the structures, it could be a nod to how humans are curious about the ocean and explore it slowly.

week ten: the ocean…

Posted on by
1

so we had two readings that touched upon the same issue- focusing on the ocean instead of focusing on the land itself. The article the Ocean Reader brought up a very fair point about how the ocean as a whole was (and still is) something we used in many different ways

“It serves as an introduction to the multifaceted Ocean, which is an enormous and very complicated system. Humans interact with that system in many ways. They relentlessly hunt
sea creatures, taking 90 million tons of fish from it annually. They use it as a highway, with 100,000 ships at sea right now. They study it, find inspiration in it, play on it, and fight over it.” (3)

Now personally, when someone puts it like that, it really kind of shows the impact the ocean has. We were afraid of it for a very long time (our overconsumption and our use of the ocean today is pretty modern) before recently. Even now, we take it for granted, because all we see out of it is something to exploit, to use and to discard. We take the life from it and then pretend like it didn’t have life in it. It’s as the other article says at the very beginning- “Without conscious choice, writers have embedded a terrestrial bias… Dry land is presumed the norm.” (7 Vast Oceans)

We need the ocean more than it needs us, really- and we need to treat it way better. Without the ocean, would things be as advanced as they would? A better appreciation of the ocean would definitely change things, but I think that can only really happen when we shift our focus towards it. Granted, we need to care more about the planet in general, but that also includes the ocean.

Reflection on “The Blue Humanities” by John R. Gillis

Posted on by
3

The article discusses many aspects of humans’ understanding about the ocean. It begins by stating that humans know more about the moon than the depth of the ocean, which is amusing considering we live alongside it. Because of it being unknown, the article explains the ocean was feared before the 19th century. It was perceived as “dangerous and repellant, ugly and unfit for literary or artistic representation” (Gillis). However, in the 19th century it was through literary and artistic representation that humans began to connect with the ocean and use it to reflect their own lives. I thought this was fascinating because it became a sort of trend for people and even those who didn’t associate with the ocean, still represented traces of it in their daily lives, the article quotes, “the ocean entered the minds, homes, dreams, and conversation of ordinary people.” It was in the 19th and 20th century that the sea was finally associated with life rather than death as a “three-dimensional living thing with a history, geography, and a life of its own.” In relation, Writers and painters turned their attention to the ocean when nations turned away and allowed for the ocean to be a place for metaphors. Another big part of this cultural shift is archeology and anthropology because it brought us more knowledge about the history of the ocean through scientific studies. The ocean began to shift from a lifeless place to a place filled with life. Today, we are able to explore the history of the ocean and its characteristics, “ocean currents, tides, and waves.” Overall, blue humanities, as mentioned in the article, “recognizes the close relationship between modern western culture and the sea” which highlights the cultural shift humans have had and continue to have with the sea.

Week 9: Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
2

Chapter 1 of the book “The Environmental Humanities: A Critical Introduction,” edited by Robert S. Emmett and David E. Nye. The Environmental Humanities is an interdisciplinary field that explores the relationship between humans and the environment through various lenses. What stuck with me from the reading was that, “Human beings do not have special rights relative to other species. Rather than view animals and plants in terms of their usefulness to humanity, we can see them as having an intrinsic right to exist. And when an entire form of life disappears, its loss diminishes human culture too.” (Nye, 11) They argue against the idea that humans have special rights over other species and advocate for acknowledging the intrinsic value of animals and plants. By emphasizing the intrinsic value of non-human life forms, the authors promote a more holistic and ethical approach to environmental management. They highlight the interconnection of all life forms, arguing that the extinction of an entire species or ecosystem has ecological effects as well as a negative impact on human culture. Species extinction can destroy cultural legacy, disrupt traditional traditions, and reduce the variety of human experiences and viewpoints.

I agree with the authors that humans should not feel themselves superior to other creatures. Instead, we should acknowledge the inherent worth of all living beings. By considering animals and plants to have an inherent right to exist, we recognize their role in preserving ecological balance and biodiversity. Furthermore, I agree that the extinction of a species has far-reaching cultural consequences in addition to environmental ones. Every species contributes to our world’s richness and diversity, and their extinction reduces the fabric of human civilization as well.

Week 9: Humanities

Posted on by
1

so this time it was a reading and not quite from the penguin book or the other one which is an interesting change of pace. It talks about how environmental humanities have been in the works for awhile, which I believe: we’ve been aware of climate change since the 60s at the earliest (if I recall correctly). But reading it really reaffirmed a theme that we touch upon in class which is that of humanity’s role within nature.

”human beings are not merely observers they are an active part of nature”. (Page 8) We have shaped nature all throughout history physically and figuratively (through stuff like folklore and mythology). Even today we’re still trying to understand nature more and more (especially since we have a profound effect on it)In a way, it makes sense why environmental humanities became more and more relevant (with understanding comes widespread knowledge, and more awareness). At the same time, though, I hope we aren’t too late with it. Maybe being so divorced from nature has made us care less? Not to say that the developed world is horrible and we should revert back to a simpler life, but the more we move forward, the less we seem concerned with our planet

I had to type this on my iPhone. .

Week Seven: The Little Mermaid

Posted on by
Reply

After reading Hans Christian Andersons version of the Little Mermaid, I was very intrigued with the similarities and differences of the Disney movie. I would say that most of the plot was pretty similar, minus the ending and other small details. One concept that intrigued me a lot was the relationship between the Prince and the Little Mermaid. In Hans depiction of it, as the mermaid had no voice or song, she was mute, and the Prince looked at her more as a pet than a lover. One line in the story states “The prince declared that he would never part with her, and she obtained leave to sleep on a velvet cushion before his door.” (page 144) I thought this description was quite interesting, as he gives her permission to sleep outside his door basically on a fancy dog bed. This takes away the little mermaids morality and quite literally turns her into his pet. Their relationship is quite interesting in the story, as he views her as his “little foundling” and pet, but says if he was inclined to marriage it would be with her. This dynamic threw me off just because of how he refers to her in adoration but also disrespect. As he says he never wants her to leave his side, yet he called her his little foundling and his “dumb child.” This could be his way of showing his affection, but it is also clear that he has romanic feeling for the girl who saved him form his death, and even though the mermaid is she, he could never love her. Another aspect of this version of the Little Mermaid that surprised me was how it ended with her death, and her becoming sea foam. The witch didn’t become the new bride, nor did the mermaid end up with the prince. It was a bittersweet ending, as instead of saving herself and killing the prince, she sacrificed herself to the Ocean, sort of facing the consequences she got herself into. I appreciated the non-cliche ending, but it was also sad to see how the prince ended up happy and the little mermaid did not because he didn’t love her or give her his immortal soul. This goes back to the question: Why did she need a man for her happiness and life? This is a repeating question I find myself asking almost after every story or tale we read. Almost all the women depicted in these stories long for a human man and a human love, to save them. I think this goes back to show the idea of the patriarchy even now, and the stereotypes put on love and happiness. Not only do women have the expectation of sacrificing earthing for a husband or family, but also the idea of how the Little mermaid was looked at as a pet, not another human being.

Week 7: Little Mermaid

Posted on by
Reply

So I read “The Little Mermaid” for the first time, and I was blown away from all of the imagery, to be honest. The way that things get described, like the ocean kingdom, it was very breathtaking. “The soil produces the most curious trees and flowers, whose leaves and stems are so flexible that the slightest motion of the water seems to fluster them as if they were living creatures. Fishes, great and small, glide through the branches as birds fly through the trees here upon earth.”(page one hundred and eight)*

This was what intrigued me, as well, because here we see the connection between human and nature. We can establish here that, at this point, we would imagine merpeople to have a similar sort of world as our own, given how the merpeople have things such as trees and flowers. We see the comparison between them and us, drawing similarities and parallels. Some things are done differently, of course, but when we imagined the merpeople, we imagined them similar to us. Granted, you can say that maybe the trees are different, but we don’t GET any of that. What this is giving is that its giving “they’re more like us”.

Ok then I want to talk about the last bit, where the little mermaid goes to Heaven(?)/ascends after her death. First of all, she’s way better than me. Second of all, the ending felt really weird to me. So she’s told, “You have suffered and endured, and have raised yourself into an aerial spirit, and now your own good works may obtain you an immortal soul after the lapse of three hundred years.” (page one hundred thirty). and THEN she’s also told that her 300 years is contingent on children???? Is this supposed to be like religious propaganda or something? Does this mean that nothing matters???

*my number one key on my laptop is sticky so I had to use the actual word for the numbers.

Week 6

Posted on by
2

The Feejee Mermaid hoax showcases how mass communication like the newspaper can shift a cultural belief from being accepted as fact to being seen as fabricated. Oral narrations have been used for thousands of years and have been used to communicate ideas and stories across time and space. Another way that ideas have been communicated has been through the written word. Both are effective at spreading information, but with the development of the press, written communication has become much faster at communicating ideas with the public. In a previous class discussion, Professor Pressman mentioned that the act of writing and the information written down was seen as true and unshakeable. If we apply this knowledge to how the press wrote about mermaids in the early and midcentury 1800s, we can see why mermaids fell from scientific grace so quickly. Scribner states that within this time frame, a Westerner would read about merpeople in their newspaper around 4 times a year (Scribner 126). This consistency for several decades would help cement mermaids as a tangible part of the world, something to be seen and studied. Had stories about mermaids continued to have been spread by oral narration, mermaids might not have been treated with such scientific interest. Communication theorist Marshall McLuhan stated that “the medium is the message.” Written word is more likely to be treated more scholarly, which would communicate to the readers that the existence of mermaids is fact. The widespread discovery and publishing of the Feejee mermaid’s origins helped to dethrone mermaids from their spot as a scientific wonder. In both instances, media in the form of the press helped to shape the public’s perception of mermaids. Despite Western society implying that the written word is something unchangeable, it’s not stagnant and can bring about change towards previously cemented cultural beliefs.

Week 6: Undine, Huldbrand, and Christianity

Posted on by
4

In this weeks reading of “The Penguin Book of Mermaids” by Cristina Baccheliga, I was mainly interested in the idea of Undine, a water goddess, needing to marry a powerless mortal man in order to gain a soul. The reason I was fixated on this idea is because the story seems to create this logic that women are soulless beings that absolutely require a man in order to be complete. I don’t know if I interpreted the reading correctly, but it almost feels like Undine’s significant power was being undermined and overshadowed by the need for a man. This story was written by a man in 1811, and that context tells me that this was a subconscious thought that was shared by men in these decades. True feminist movements wouldn’t begin until about 150 years after this was written.

Despite the unfortunate context of the story, I did appreciate the overall happy ending, as those have not been very common so far. Huldbrand fully “embraced her with the most heartfelt emotion and love” after she revealed that she was not human. Undine was able to keep her new soul but gave up her power as a body of water. While I will admit that the pretext confused me a bit as it seems to contradict the contents of the story, it was an interesting parallel to see how this semi-human entity reacted to a man compared to the sirens with Oddyseus or Melusine with Raymondin. One difference that I found between this story and the others is that Huldbrand seems to be a completely well rounded man, whereas Raymondin was unintentionally a murderer that did not pay the price for his wrongdoings. My theory is that God, or the universe, made an effort for Raymondin to pay for his sins by making him ruin his relationship with Melusine. Huldbrand, on the other hand, has committed no wrongdoings and so he gets to live happily with his wife who shares similar characteristics as Melusine. This would make sense as Christianity was huge in the 1800s and the idea of sinning was taken a lot more seriously than it is today.