Hey all,

Here comes another blog post from yours truly.

So this week (next week) we had to read Foucault’s book (i dunno if it is an essay or what) called The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An introduction. When I first learned we were reading a book about the history of sexuality I was super excited because finally we were reading something that wouldn’t make me want to jump off of Buchanan A; finally something that would keep me engaged, because it is about a subject that i don’t find to be archaic and a waste of my time (sorry Hobbes, I still don’t a rat’s ass about you and your polisci things). Unfortunately as I began reading more and more of Foucault’s work, I came to the realizations that:

A) He is a dry writer. Like my god, add some sort of literary device to keep the audience engaged. Now I am not saying that he needs to jam apostrophes (not the ” , ” type_ throughout his dissertation, but please please please use some sort of interesting language.

B) If you are going to pick a subject like sexuality which is so exciting and, may i say it, carnal, you have to give everything you got. Instead of making it interesting, Foucault literally made it so dry that I was about to start doodeling all over the words.

I also couldn’t figure out what he was talking about. He started by stating that the repression of sexuality started during the Victorian age, which I totally agree, but I could never figure quite out whether he was pro or against sexual repression. He evidently did some research but I never found myself be gravitated to any side of the argument. I don’t know if I am just an idiot or if it was lost in translation, but wowza.

I want to go more into an interesting discussion about the philosophy behind this book, but I can’t because I just didn’t get it.

Sorry,

Seamus

So here is the post we have all been waiting for, Freud’s Dora!

To begin; Penis, Dick, Cock, Member, Organ, Lollipop, disco stick, Anaconda, Black mamba, manhood, Baby Maker, Second head, Bald Eagle, woody, Cattle prod, dong, schlong etc.

Now that we got that out of the way, i can continue on with my blog post.

I think that everyone in general was very excited to read this analysis because A) it’s Freud so you know it will be weird and awesome. B) It is written quote well and C) it isn’t Hobbes. I know that Freud has been a name that i have heard thrown around alot but i have never read any of his stuff so I was so interested to dive into the screwed mind of the man who created the Oedipus complex.

First off I have to say that I am of two minds about Freud. On one hand I applaud his fearless pursuit of theories during a period which stigmatized so much BUT after reading the analysis all I could think about was that he seemed to berate and lead Dora in his questioning to get to the answers that HE wanted. it seems to me that Freud was so stuck in his own theories of what the psyche was, that he could not see clearly that maybe sucking your thumb doesn’t necessarily mean that you want to perform fellatio.

One element of this text that i thoroughly loved was the characterization of all the characters. At times i felt that like I was reading a romanticism era novel. It truly was as cryptic and full or twists as Frakenstein or its contemporaries.

Did anyone else find Freud to be very egocentric throughout is analysis of Dora. When he deduced that Dora wanted “to have a kiss from me [Freud]” because upon waking up from the dream she smelt smoke. LIKE CUT ME A BREAK. It sounds to me that Freud was developing feelings for the patient and needed to rationalize it.

I also loved how Dora was not afraid to talk back. She seemed reluctant to speak and through it, we came to understand who she was more and more.

I was also so happy that in the end she ended up happy and married and pretty much said “fuck you” to Freud.

So yeah. Freud is messed up,  but awesome and apparently if anyone gives someone a jewelry box, it means they want to get freaky!

So here is my first literary blogpost of the year and I think this is a good book/reading to start with.

this is not my first time around the Austen rodeo. In the past I have read Sense and Sensibility, or as I like to call it – WTF nothing happens as well as Emma, also known as SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND GET LOST. As you see from my intense bolding of the seocnd titles, you can probably deduce that I find Jane Austen and her writing a waste of my ever so precious time, or atleast i did! (cue duh duh duh)

When i saw that Northanger Abbey was on the reading list, it was bitter sweet. YAY we aren’t reading more philosophy (atleast for a week or two) and NO, I have to read about women sitting. Luckily enough in Northanger Abbey the women do not only sit, they also walk, bathe and ride in carriages.

In all seriousness, I did enjoy reading Northanger Abbey. It was a quick and easy read with some good characters and a nice flow..

Now I think Imma go through the cast list and have soem fun with it.

CATHERINE- I want her to get a life, stop reading novels and get it in. ( can i say that on a UBC blog?)

HENRY- Stop being a wuss and learn to flirt. I imagined him as this like awkward but super good looking man..i.e Paul Rudd.

P.S anyone else get a bit freaked out when at the end they were like ” …begin perfect happiness at the respective ages of twenty-six and eighteen: (p186) like i have read enough Phillipa Gregory to know that like that happened, but still….That shit is ratchet.

Mrs. Allen- Stop buying dresses and work on your face/talking (she reminds me of Mrs Bennet)

Isabella- Now this girl knows what is up. I know she and General Tilney are supposed to be the villains, but honestly, she was fucking boss. She wormed her way into a strangers confidence and used her to get at her brother, as well as other men and like was not afraid to get violent (i.e the scene when she grabs Catherine’s arm) I laughed so much at her glibness and how stupid Catherine was in respect to her. There should be a spinoff for Isabella Thorpe.

Eleanor- GET A PERSONALITY!

Those are the characters that i really remember. i know there are others but no one really cares so whatever.

My major issue with Austen is that all of her stories/characters are interchangeable. Like all of her books are about a middle class girl falling in love and her misadventures. Now I know that that is what sold back then but holy cow, be a bit more original.  Atleast with this book, it has the element of a parody of gothic novels (although i felt that there wasn’t enough of it).

I did enjoy how the narrator would address directly the reader — that is always fun.