Chapters 3 + 4

I thought that the history of the American theater in the early nineteenth century was a very interesting part of the reading. It seemed to be like a microchasm of everything that was happening at the time. It involved the evolution of a culture from regarding theater as blasphemous to the acceptance of upper-class women. It involved the evolution of the theater itself from a basic nineteenth century bar scene (complete with prostitutes and class division) to a family-friendly environment. However, the part of the evolution that wasn’t yet complete was the inclusion of women’s independence. The part of the reading that struck me was that it seemed pretty much anything was acceptable for a woman to do on-stage, but not if she appeared dominant. I think this helped me better understand the nature of our discussion last class, of why burlesque in particular was so controversial.

I also thought that it was kind of ironic that P.T. Barnum was said to be pretty much solely responsible for the movement of the theater scene towards family-friendly, or more specifically woman-friendly. To think that the same man who put “freaks” on display to earn his living would be responsible for the cleansing process of the theater industry was just mind-numbing to me.

Also, I apologize for the lateness of this post. I was going to put it up last night, but fell asleep reading the end of the fourth chapter.

This novel makes me feel like I don't know how to feel??

This novel makes me feel like I don't know how to feel?? 

While I feel nothing for this novel, I feel everything at the same time. Like I said in class, at some points I wanted to slap Montraville, and at others, I wanted to slap Charlotte. Even though many things are different between the century that this was written in and now, I think that is probably what was most appealing to readers at the time. You couldn't blame Charlotte for being naïve and innocently falling for Montraville, but at the same time you couldn't completely defend her somewhat foolish actions either. For example, on page 37, the page I believe the true deduction really began. Charlotte tells Montraville "I shall ever wish you well, Montraville," she said she; "but we must meet no more." (Rowson 37). Charlotte knows what she should do, yet still chooses to indulge in Montraville's stupid little games. I believe that the author knew how her audience would interpret the story and see where it was going and at the same time did not want to let Charlotte lead an easy life after her decisions to go against her parents- that would just be too risqué. Despite all that though, I did not feel a connection to this story in a way that it's original audience must have. 

While this novel definitely emphasizes the importance of being obedient to your parents, I think it has strong undertones of the value of women helping other women out (or in Mademoiselle La Rue's sake, not helping other women, which eventually kills her in the end). After all, Rowson was trying to brainwash/scare tactic her young female readers into behaving like ladies to prevent their lives from becoming seduction tragedies, such as Charlotte Temple's. I also agree with the theme of karma that many other people have commented on in their posts. 

Overall, this novel was a very easy read and I can't say that I was bored while reading it. I think that the storyline, characters, and values emphasized are very much outdated and that's why no one in our class got too emotionally involved. Perhaps as our class readings become more contemporary, our feelings and opinions will develop as well. 

How did the women of this time period react to burlesque?

At the end of the first chapter, Allen poses a dilemma between how women should act and be represented onstage and how the relationship between the women onstage to real world women.  This makes me wonder what the “real world” women of this time thought of this performance.  This was a very different time period than today, especially in terms of women’s rights, but was there a female reaction to this?  In the book, we see the male reaction that, of course, is mainly focused on the physical attractiveness of the performance and not the actual themes the show was conveying.  Later, in chapter 4, the ‘“true” woman’ is defined and she is modest and pure.  Women’s fashion of the time reflected this in that dresses became wide around the hips, to hide the lower half of the body.  The “true woman” was refined, well mannered, spiritual, and definitely not sexual.  The Thompsonian burlesque troupe was the exact opposite of this kind of woman.  Women were told not to go the theater during the ballets, which were much tamer than burlesque, but did they still go to the scandalous burlesque shows?  The author points out that a female in the audience thought the female ballerina “danced beautifully.” Burlesque was different than ballet, because ballet was considered art, so how did they react seeing untraditionally beautiful women play all the male roles? I wonder how the real world women of this time reacted to this, was it liberating to see women take on such a different role than they were used to seeing in the theater?  Does this have any impact on the changed fashion and norms of the 1920s, when the flapper look became popular? 

I think the female reaction to this may have been similar to I reacted to Miley Cyrus’s new look.  For me, I wasn’t opposed to her bleached, short hair and videos like “Wrecking Ball,” but it didn’t mean I was going to cut my hair like that and wear more suggestive clothes.  Her music has entertainment value, regardless of how sexualized the performance is.  Allen’s dilemma of how women onstage relate to the women offstage is still going on and will most likely remain unresolved. 

Are We Thinking of the Same Thing?

My very initial thought upon reading the first two chapters of this book was what on Earth is going on? My idea of Burlesque is tainted by the film featuring Christina Aguilera. I think of very provocative dancing with equally provocative clothing. Understandably, the definition of what was considered to be risqué in this time period is far different than my own connotation; however, the author stated that the clothing of the Thompson was different in style but as appropriate as that of ballet dancers. I also was not expecting for the show itself to be a literal play. Granted, they made some changes to modernize the scripts. In the Burlesque that I have come to know, there is not an actual plot. There is simply singing with vulgar dancing. The whole concept of Burlesque back then is drastically different than what I had envisioned. While the show is the main event, there are other forms of entertainment at the theater/museum. When I was reading it, the event seemed more like a circus act than a show. They are featuring a giant and a baby woman. And if you stick around you can watch the burlesque show. Would you like peanuts while you’re watching, too?  I also wondered what they thought to be the basis of beauty. There was a comment about how some men were dissatisfied by Thompson’s looks. Although her body proportions were fine, they thought that her face was not handsome. Is someone deemed beautiful simply by their face or by how they present their body? To me, even her body proportions seem off. In Burlesque, all the actresses are stick-thin. I know that times are different and in the past different body sizes were more appealing; however, does her face really matter? If I go to the ballet, I am looking at the dancer’s legs and arms and the shapes she makes with her body. I pay little to no attention to her actual face! Is it not enough that her body is pleasing enough? Would they have been more satisfied by a “beautiful” face with a body that does not match? 

Burlesque: Not for feminism...but sure not against it

I am a huge fan of theatre and media and anything to do with the art of acting. I am also against the unrealistic portrayal of women and their sexuality through these media. Have you ever seen the movie Burlesque with Christina Aguilera? Surprisingly I enjoyed the movie. Normally I denounce anything that belittles women to nothing more than outwardly appearances. BUT the movie had a strange effect on me. I felt a little offended but also empowered. My first reaction was to like the movie, but then I was just honestly confused. I think Horrible Prettiness has done the same thing to me.

The first chapter discusses that the suffragettes were opposed to the burlesque shows and performances. I get that. Burlesque shows were/are a bit crude and include nudity. Obviously nudity and sexuality were a large part of Lydia Thompson’s performance considering men were be so aroused that they would fight and kill themselves over her! That is belittling to women. Even one review mentioned in chapter one states how the women were judged on the beauty from waist down and not neck up (or inside beauty!). Focusing a whole theatrical performance on flashing and shaking isn’t exactly doing a whole lot of good for the overall view of women.

On the other hand, women were playing masculine roles. Nearly all male roles were played by women! I find that awesome! I’ve been in so many plays were the male roles are written to be so great and the women roles are verging on average. I even asked one of my directors if I could play the male role. Before I finished my sentence, the answer was already no. I think that the burlesque shows also put women in this great position to be viewed as popular, funny, charismatic, and admired for talent instead of appearance. I personally believe that is why Thompson was such a success…not because of her appearance but because of her communication talents. Finally, some of the burlesque shows themselves were written to be for women’s suffrage! I find that SUPER interesting! …also a bit confusing…

In conclusion, I can’t say that burlesque shows were for feminism or suffrage, but it sure wasn’t against it.

Acting Out Contradictions

It's great to see that Katie has jumpstarted our conversation on the British Blondes. Katie anticipated some of the questions I'm going to be pushing us on these next weeks, specifically the challenge of analyzing cultural forms contextually. How do you make a cultural form intelligible within its own moment? Especially when it is a performance?

With Charlotte Temple we tried to analyze a text on its own terms while subjecting it to critical analysis. As 21st-century women, we found Charlotte's choices (or lack thereof) extremely frustrating. We considered Rowson's larger message to her readers, and debated different interpretations of Charlotte's fall. Was she a woman undone by passion or indecision? Who was the real villain, her true seducer, Montraville or La Rue? Perhaps women at the time were equally irritated with Charlotte. However, we didn't focus on contemporary conversations about novel, but instead subjected it to our own readings.

Well what happens when the text we want to analyze is a performance that we will never see? We can read some of the burlesques Lydia Thompson and her British Blondes performed and examine photographs but those sources only underscore the difficulties we face as historians trying to understand this distant cultural phenomenon. SO how does Allen do it? As you read through this book, pay careful attention both to what he tells us about burlesque but also his methods as a scholar. Paying attention to his methodology is challenging but extremely important because his approach can help us think about our own projects and how to approach the history of popular culture.

How would you characterize Allen's larger goals? What is the relationship between his interest in burlesque and his interest in 19th-cenury America? Why, according to Allen, does the study of burlesque matter? Consider what he means on p. 27 when he explains, "burlesque is emblematic of the way that popular entertainment becomes an arena for 'acting out' cultural contradictions and even contestations and is exemplary of the complexities and ambiguities of this process."

(We're also going to start talking more about your own project ideas. Bring a few ideas to class Tuesday as well.)

Contradictions in Proper Society

When thinking about the culture of the late 1800s into the early 1900s, the words prim and proper come to mind. Society, especially high society, was confined to strict conventions and inflexible gender roles. Even alluding to sex was considered taboo. It was frowned upon for visibly pregnant women to go outside because then people looking at her would obviously think about the process that led to her state. During this rule-laden era, men were gentlemen, and women were ladies and some things were simply not talked about in polite society.

That’s why the phenomenon of burlesque seems so out of character. Although the burlesque show of Lydia Thompson and the like seem relatively innocent now, at the time it was quite scandalous. While the can can probably made more than a few people blush, what made burlesque scandalous were the ideas that it represented and the perception that it was provocative. I think it is evidenced by how they first promoted the show. Lydia Thompson was portrayed as a classic temptress-a seductress with undeniable beauty and the will more than likely cause men’s downfalls. If you believed their stories, men across Europe were head over heels, trying to send her gifts, even committing suicide. But, by all accounts, Lydia Thompson was pretty average looking; she was not even the most beautiful girl in her troupe. A crazed fan abducted that girl in a carriage and tried to force her to marry him, a move that would surely generate a high five from Montraville of Charlotte Temple.

Burlesque continually violated the norms of society. It bent gender roles, altered the traditional structure of fine theater. Society was so sheltered, it was intrigued by anything out of the ordinary. It is not much of a surprise that “freak shows,” like the one at the theater where Thompson’s show first premiered in the New York, were common. Beneath the turn of the century’s veil of purity and convention lay a curiosity and fascination with the erotic and grotesque.

What Goes Around, Comes Around

As I read the ending of Charlotte Temple, the idea of karma immediately came to my mind. In today’s world, the phrase, “what goes around, comes around” seems to come true more often than not. As I was reading the story, I was somewhat annoyed as to how Charlotte continuously was punished and suffered emotional distress due to her vices. However, Mademoiselle La Rue, who was the main culprit who actually led Charlotte into this life of misery, did not seem to suffer any such pain. She lived a life of immoral choices but seemingly, in the end, lived a lavish life as Mrs. Crayton. The same goes for Montraville and Belcour, who both seemed to continue with their lives while Charlotte suffered alone.

However, as the story played out, this karma came into play. All of the characters seemed to suffer some of the consequences of their vices. Rowson even suggests that Mrs. Crayton had the possibility of a happier life if she would not have turned poor, helpless Charlotte away when she was in most need. She could have somehow bribed Charlotte into not confessing her evils and they both would have been better off. Instead, her selfishness in the situation partially caused her downfall in the end.

These vices, however, do not necessarily lead to a life of poverty and misery, but instead of emotional distress and guilt. This phenomenon is especially true in the case of Montraville. Montraville does seem to live out a happy life with Julia, but he continues to suffer from the guilt he feels about hurting Charlotte. Rowson seems to use this novel to make a direct correlation between one’s immoral choices and their eventual fate.

One should attempt to live out their lives morally, such as the characters that Mr. and Mrs. Temple and Mrs. Beauchamp suggest. Although their lives were far from glamorous, they did not need to suffer the guilt from their vices. I think one of Rowson’s overall goals of the story was show women the importance and significance of one’s family. Due to Charlotte’s naiveness and ignorance, if she were to have followed the advice from her family, she would not have been caught up in this downward spiral.

Women & Writing Style-Why I didn't like it, but women of the 1800s did

Now that I have finished reading Charlotte Temple, I numerous points I’d like to talk about.  First the painful views on women. I couldn’t help but read this story and cringe. In the second half of the novel Lucy Temple was not allowed to travel to see Charlotte (for her last living moments, I might add) because she, as a woman, was too frail to make the journey. Her sex prohibited her from seeing her daughter one last time. Charlotte also remarks how no decent women will befriend her because of her indecency and no man will take her either. When I read this, I was annoyed that one mistake has the potential to practically cast you out of society. THEN I thought that it wasn’t even truly her mistake! She was raped!

               I’d also like to discuss Susanna Rowson’s writing style. Now I will admit that I’m not incredibly familiar with popular writing styles in the late 1700s. I can, however, tell you that the asides in Rowson’s writing, whether popular or not, have not extended into today’s writings. The entire 28^th chapter is an aside for us to keep reading even though we have already discovered that Charlotte dies and La Rue gets what is coming to her. Honestly, I was not a huge fan of it…especially when the ending came over 20 pages early.

               After considering the above points, I contemplated why people the 1830s or so enjoyed the novel so much. I think that the two points that I disliked the most in the novel might have made it so desirable to the people of the time. Aspect of the female portrayals could have seemed romantic to readers. I also think that Rowson’s writing style could have made the novel more personal and insightful for the readers of the time. I also believe that the topic of a young woman traveling to meet the people of her past while she is pregnant with a “villian’s” bastard would have been quite taboo. I would say that it was at least not a common topic to be spoken of in any form of media.

Susanna Rowson is Feisty

Susanna Rowson gets a little feisty with her readers during the last few chapters of the novel.  The examples I am thinking of specifically are in Chapter XXVIII and XXX, when she addresses her readers directly.  I would like to point a couple of things about these passages that caught my attention.

In chapter XXVIII, Rowson addresses the "dear, cheerful, innocent girl" who is supposedly reading her novel.  She means to make any girl who is not considered innocent to feel guilty for their lack of morality.  In addition, she believes other girls to be blinded by "prosperity."  She writes, "But if perchance the heart is rendered impenetrable by unbounded prosperity, or a continuance in vice, I expect not my tale to please, nay, I even expect it will be thrown by with disgust."  Rowson even calls herself "conceited" in the eyes of her readers. She really means to make her readers feel horrible and especially guilty if they do not finish her novel.  What struck me particularly about this aside is that Rowson assumes her female readers are only interested in happy endings, and since her novel is pretty much the epitome of spiraling depression, she had to find some way to make sure the girls reading this novel finish it--lest they decide to follow the path of La Rue, since she seems happy enough with her life by this point in the novel.  It bothers me that Rowson would consider all her female readers fickle enough to put down a book just because it's a bit sad, and then proceed to tell them exactly what they are supposed to feel about each character.  We should get to decide for ourselves what to think, or at least not have it spelled out to us like we don't have any idea who is on the good side and who the bad.  It's rather insulting.

Speaking of insulting, in Chapter XXX, Rowson speaks directly to her male readers.  She calls them out for assuming that Charlotte was stupid enough to assume herself in poverty while still holding on to multitudes of expensive possessions. Then she writes, "I hope, sir, your prejudices are now removed in regard to the probability of my story? Oh they are. Well then, with your leave, I will proceed."  Although we can see this is Rowson standing up for Charlotte's intelligence (and her ability to avoid plot holes) in the face of skeptical readers, it felt like another blow to my poor, feeble heart (sarcasm). Why should Rowson assume that only her male readers would question her story?  I like to consider myself a questioning person and had, in fact, asked this same question about Charlotte possessions to myself before she mentioned it.  I guess us innocent girls just don't know how to question anything we are told, unlike the "wise, penetrating gentlemen" of the 1790's.

I might be reading into these lines a little too much, but these were just some thoughts I had about Rowson's (feisty) asides to her audience.  Let me know if you agree or disagree or have anything to add!  Also, sorry for the lack of page numbers.  I also am reading a Kindle version.

Remember girls, always let others make decisions for you

I didn’t want to post until after I had read the novel completely, and now that I have, I can’t help but call to attention just what kinds of “morals” and “virtues” that Susanna Rowson seems to be advocating. Before I do this though, I want to emphasize that it is not my intent to try to pull Charlotte and her author forward. These morals and virtues I’m sure were completely legitimate for this time period and probably had deep import for Rowson’s audience. I’m simply arguing that as an audience from the 21^st century looking back on this novel, we also cannot simply jump on the bandwagon that Charlotte Temple is a poor, naïve girl that should be pitied and simpered upon. These “virtues” that Rowson presents in this novel I believe can be just as debilitating as any sin conducted by La Rue or Belcour.

                To focus on Charlotte, my overwhelming criticism of her character is that she has an absolute lack of responsibility. I felt like I was watching Disney’s The Little Mermaid, a girl waltzing her way into bad choices because consequences don’t exist, right? Charlotte does die in the end, but Rowson shows in the novel that suffering is a worse punishment than death, and maintains that Charlotte should still be pitied: “Oh, thou benevolent giver of all good! how shall we erring mortals dare to look up to thy mercy in the great day of retribution, if we now uncharitably refuse to overlook the errors, or alleviate the miseries, of our fellow-creatures” (Last sentence of Chapter XVIII, sorry my ebook doesn’t have page numbers).

                When Charlotte finally gets a letter to her parents explaining her situation, do they reprimand her for her bad choices? Not at all! Just like in The Little Mermaid daddy comes in and saves her, and she is completely forgiven. Nobody brings it to attention that if she had thought about what she was doing and had enough gall to make a decision for herself and not follow the prodding of others, she might have avoided all this. Rowson instead seems to be saying that what she lacked was a strong moral character, and she disregarded her parent’s wishes, and these are the reasons why she is punished.

Last point just so people don’t jump down my throat: I understand she’s 15, but come on. When someone gives you a letter saying move to another country with me, arguably a bigger move in 1790 than today, that’s when you need to be thinking things through a bit.

Rowson's Style

I rather enjoy Susanna Rowson’s style of writing. I found it interesting that she formatted some chapters to show you a scene and then to go back and explain the lives behind the characters. For instance, she begins the novel with an opening scene of Montraville seeing Charlotte Temple outside of church.  She then begins the very next chapter explaining who Charlotte Temple’s father is so that the reader begins to form an idea of who Charlotte is based on knowledge about her parents.  I also find it somewhat humorous and delightful that Rowson takes the time at some points to give an aside to the reader and explain her exact views on a subject before continuing the story. I find it comical because she still tries to maintain good graces of society with the reader. It is as if she says “by the way, audience, I do not condone what is about to happen because I am a lady but this is what happened.” This is evident multiple times when she fails to procure in detail the contents of Montraville’s letter to Charlotte and Montraville’s reasons for wanting to Charlotte to run away with him. That being said, I do think that she tries to stay in the favor of the reader to keep them reading because this novel came out in a time when the activities of a woman are very public and very heavily judged. Rowson claims to refuse to reveal in too much detail Montraville’s letter because she says that she does not wish for young women to become enchanted and day dream about kind things that men may say. Which is ironic to be reading in today’s society when books like 50 Shades of Grey are so explicit in their detail and are written primarily to enchant. If anything, I was somewhat displeased by the lack of detail. I wanted to read every lovely thing that Montraville must have said to Charlotte; if only to be able to mentally live a romance and day dream about a man saying such sweet nothings to me. 

Charlotte Temple and The Scarlet Letter

The first section of Charlotte Temple was intriguing and thought-provoking, as well as a surprisingly quick read. There were two passages I noted as particularly interesting, especially due to the way they portrayed or described the female characters. First, the poem on page 19 first caught my attention because of the phrasing used to describe Miss Weatherby. Specifically the lines, “born just to be amir’d and die; when gone, no one regrets its loss, or scare remembers that it was,” seemed harsh and uncaring (p. 19). Describing a woman as something to merely be admired for beauty and then forgotten seems to perpetuate the mindset that women should be valued for their appearance and nothing more.

            A second passage that caught my attention was on page 69 and described Charlotte’s situation after arriving in America as the “mistress” of Montraville. The passage compares Charlotte’s predicament to that of a married woman who “meets indifference” from her husband. The wife still retains many comforts that Charlotte does not, such as having friends and receiving some relief from their consolations. On the other hand, as a mistress Charlotte does not have access to such comforts. The passage specifically describes that Montraville “may leave her in a moment to shame and want; he may marry and forsake her for ever; and should he, she has no redress, no friendly, soothing companion to pour into her wounded mind the balm of consolation…she has disgraced her friends, forfeited the good opinion of the world, and undone herself…” (p. 69). The passage immediately reminded me of Hester Prynne’s predicament in The Scarlet Letter. I felt as though there were some similarities between the treatments of both women. Although the stories are different overall, both women are described as essentially disgraced and friendless as a result of a relationship with a man. Although Hester ultimately chose to take responsibility for her actions by refusing to admit her lover’s name and being outcast, whereas Charlotte was misled and influenced by Mademoiselle and Montraville, I still find the way both women are treated by society shocking. It seems as though Charlotte will always be pitied and cast out, just as Hester was, but that Montraville will not endure any societal repercussions. This caused me to wonder why women are disgraced in situations of adultery or sexual interactions outside marriage, but men are not. It may be a stretch, but to me that idea seems similar to the modern concept that women who sleep with numerous men are “sluts,” but men are expected to have sexual experiences with multiple women.           

I want to punch Montraville

Montraville deserves a swift kick to the face. Or a punch, like I said in the title. Regardless, Montraville definitely is not my favorite character.

First, Montraville guilt trips Charlotte into visiting him again and again, even when she expresses that their meetings need to end. On page 42 he turns into a whining, prepubescent schoolboy with he thinks that he "was dearer to Charlotte than any thing in the world beside." Where does this dude find the right to assume he is more dear to Charlotte than her PARENTS? Why should she "brave the dangers of the oceans" for him? What has he done for her? Why is it her duty to soften "the hardships of war?" Of course she's like 5 years old (okay she's 15 but still) and doesn't know any better, so she's overtaken by his charms and his whining and his guilt trips. Presumably he knows this, and he uses her innocence and inexperience to play into his favor.

And when Charlotte CLEARLY tells Montraville she doesn't want to go with him and wants to stay for her parents' sake, he LIFTS her from the ground and forcibly PUTS her into the chaise to be taken away to the ship. (And of course, in typical damsel in distress fashion, she faints). He's even called "her betrayer" like hello that should be the first sign she needs to jump right out and turn right around and go home. It seems to me that she's not happy right from the start.

Then Montraville doesn't even send her letter to her parents letting them know she's okay! As if he could be anymore selfish.

On page 65: "He laughed at her simplicity, called her a little ideot, and patting her on the cheek, said she knew nothing of the world." Wow. So did he just want a little puppy to follow after him and take care of him, or did he want a woman? Sorry she's only 15 and he's probably 40 or 30 or something not close to 15 and she hasn't had a chance to discover the world for herself, especially since this guy has decided to take control of her.

Toward the end of our reading, Charlotte is stuck waiting for Montraville to spend any amount of time with her. Yet she still hangs on, hoping he'll show, because he's all she has now (thanks to him).

It seems to me Montraville is a prick.

But then again, I can't put all the blame on Montraville. Charlotte did put herself into this situation. She couldn't stopped it from the very beginning if she hadn't read Montraville's letter or had not agreed to meet him. Still, I prefer to blame Montraville since he is the adult in the situation.

Interesting Photo I Found on Pinterest

"

"This photo is ironic because it goes against social norms. Most people believe the men to be the strong powerful protector and in this photo the man is naked and positioned in a very vulnerable position. Most people would be uncomfortable with this picture because men are supposed to be masculine and strong, not weak and vulnerable."

 

I found this photograph posted on Pinterest (we even talked about that in class today!) and here is the caption that goes along with it. I thought that it fit the discussions in our class perfectly. Though I hate to admit that I have conformed to the ideas of "gender roles" in our society, it did shock me as I first scrolled by; now, the more I look at it, the more I love it and what it stands for! Hopefully you all find it interesting as well..

 

 

Reading Charlotte

Hey Everyone, My first real post! This week we're reading Charlotte Temple, the first American bestseller. I'm really interested in how you'll respond to this novel. Late-eighteenth-century fiction isn't popular reading these days and most Americans only read this novel in a classroom setting, unlike, say, Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, which I know many people still read for pleasure in their teens. Or maybe I'm outing myself as a 19th-century novel nerd. Well, I'm your professor, after all!

It can be hard to learn about a society through its popular fiction, but that our task here, to figure out this novel's perspective on the world, its message to readers (and Rowson has a lot of those), and of course how it works as a text (those classic literary criticism questions). Think about how Rowson describes her characters, how the book is structured. What's the plot? Is there a plot? And of course, how does this novel deal will questions of gender and sexuality. And what else is it dealing with? Are there other important themes or issues to discuss here?

When I read an 18th- or 19th-century novel, I try to be very aware of myself as a reader--twice over. I try to pay attention to my own reactions to the novel, what I found moving, boring, confusing, intriguing. When did I feel the desire to put it down? When did I want to keep reading? Then I try to imagine one of the thousands of Americans -- and not just young women but men too -- who devoured this book, who cried in the closing deathbed scene (sorry, spoiler alert!), gave this book to their children to read and treasured it as a beloved possession. What spoke to them? What scenes might have moved them and why?

P.S. Here's an interesting tidbit about the novel's popularity: An English professor from Barnard writes about her experience teaching the novel, and shares the anecdote of Rev. Covell. Charlotte Temple played a starring role on one of his sea voyages in 1844, apparently turning a crew of hardened seamen into god-fearing men...

Course Intro

Welcome! This is the course blog for Uhon 390 Sexuality and American Popular Culture. Below is a brief intro to the course. Check out the Course Syllabus for more details.


In August 2013, Miley Cyrus shocked fans and critics with her performance of “We Can’t Stop” at the MTV VMAs.  The next morning, news media was abuzz with what amounted to a national debate about Cyrus’ performance, which seemed to push new boundaries for both the former child star and the music industry. But did it? What exactly was new here? To many observers, this seemed yet another chapter in a longstanding debate over the appropriate expression of female sexuality in popular culture. When did popular culture become so consumed with sexuality? Well, if you take the long view, when wasn’t it?

This course will examine the intersection of debates about sex and sexuality with the emergence and transformation of American popular culture, looking at patterns and changes from the 1780s through today. We’ll explore how different cultural forms—from the novel to blues music—introduced new ideas about sexuality and gender, challenged existing social mores, and gave voice to different groups within American society and culture.  Examining these moments can give us a unique window into the past, while providing us with tools for examining our own culture.  In this class we will do both – examine past struggles over sexuality and popular culture and learn to think more critically about struggles over sexuality today.