PHALLIC SYMBOLS!1!11!!

Starting of with this will hopefully ruin your day. I couldn't actually find the right video that I was looking for, but it was a segment from the Colbert Report called "Mysteries of the Ancient Unknown" it was basically ten minutes of this man (Williams Tapley) talking about phallic symbols in the Denver International Airport (along with interviews of staff and songs!)

If this chapter didn't prove that we are all naturally perverted, I do not know what will. I would have never thought that a bowl would represent the female sex organ (along with keys being a phallic symbol, keys in the bowl a reference to sex, etc) but that is exactly what happened in Ann Beattie's Janus. Of course the bowl was a gift from her love affair, and of course her actual husband was not allowed to put his keys in said bowl, but come on. The whole bowl and key this is a bit nonsensical when you ask me. Don't get me wrong- I think it is absolute genius, but some of the ideas are far fetched. Maybe I'm just the only seventeen year old boy who never thought putting a key into a bowl represented sex, but being a seventeen year old boy MOST things represent sex as is so I probably should have caught that one.

Along with the bowl, chalices, grails, rolling landscape, etc there are a very endless possibilities of what could be a female sexual organ, but mostly EVERYTHING seems to be a phallic symbol these days.
Pencil? Phallic symbol
Swords? Phallic symbol
Guns? Phallic symbol
Keys? Phallic symbol
Buildings? Phallic symbol
Hot dogs, Twinkies, and even every aspect of the Denver National Airport. Give me a break. The only things that AREN'T phallic symbols these days are apparently symbols of female sexuality/sex organs.

Where did all of this nonsense begin, you ask? None other than Freud. It is solely because of his Interpretation of Dreams that we are doomed to a life of implied sexual symbols. Okay~~ that WAS a harsh statement and I'm positive that there were many references to sexual organs before then, but this was the first thing that "unlocked the sexual potential of the subconscious". I would like to imagine what life was like directly after this was published. I am imagining a huge frenzy of writers running around trying to think up any innuendo they could. It probably looked something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2VAn-U5KTo (replace "name" with "phallic symbol" obviously)

I could very well be wrong about all of that though. Maybe the readers were the ones who TURNED everything into a disgusting sexual innuendo for their own amusement or due to paranoia after Freud. Maybe the writers always wrote with symbols for sexuality since writing was possible, and it just took Freud to point it out? In all honesty it was probably a combination of the both. I mean where would all the phallic symbols be without Freud? Still present, just less apparent. Maybe we needed someone to come along and tell us all that we are disgusting perverts.

Oh the Sparkles they make....

“What a difference a preposition makes!”

AGREED. Dropping the “with” from “nice to eat with you” turns the sentence into something unfavorable and quite frankly, rude. 

Of course when I read “vampire” I thought not of Dracula or Nosferatu  (yes, I know they are the same character, just copyright issues involved), I thought of the ridiculous Stephanie Meyer excuse for a vampire, Edward Cullen. Who is actually more of a pale princess, NOT a vampire. Honestly he would probably say “nice to stare at you” than “nice to eat you”

I’m just glad our beloved Count Dracula didn't sparkle as well…

But I digress-
The most interesting piece of literature mentioned was Daisy Miller because the vampire is almost implied instead of being a physical person and not in actual form. Daisy died from "contracting malaria on her midnight jaunt" which is when foster brought in an interesting point: "you don't need fangs and a cape to be a vampire" which by Hollywood's definition is extremely debatable. Fortunately enough for Foster, I learned to ignore Hollywood's definition for most things these days. So he made me curious as to what HIS definition for a vampire was.

It is one thing for vampires to not need fangs or capes, but for them to completely lack physical form seems a little absurd to have them lack any physical form whatsoever. Saying that Winterbourne has a "vampiric personality" is a bit amusing, but then i thought about how he actually lines up with the points to be a vampire as listed by Foster earlier in the chapter. (older figure representing corrupt, outworn values the virginal female, etc). It has become intriguing to me that Henry James never explicitly mentioned a vampire, but that it was up to the reader to figure it out for themselves. Especially since James (according to foster) is the master of psychological realism. He has two stories mentioned by foster that while similar are very different. The Turn of the Screw is also a story of his, but it contains a physical vampire instead of an implied vampiric personality.

Honestly, at this point I can say that I would much rather read about a vampiric personality that isn't explicitly stated than read directly about a vampire just casually sucking blood all day (night) long. OR of course, in the case of Edward Cullen, climbing trees, graduating high school an ungodly amount of times, and staring at a girl 90 years younger than him while she sleeps.

Summing up a vampire to be someone (or something or maybe even nothing at all) who places their ugly desires in front of another's needs seems like the perfect explanation for any REAL vampire. I'm sure Count Dracula, Nosferatu, Winterbourne, and even Count Von Count (of Sesame Street fame) are entirely happy with that definition, because while saying that their intentions are "ugly" they are aware of the fact. Just as long as Edward Cullen is not included in the real definition of a vampire, the authentic vampires are free to roam around and steal the life from anyone and everyone (mainly virginal women) all night.

Kissing in the Rain

"It's never just rain” ~~ I think it is.

Foster talks about how rain can either mean good or bad things (symbolically) depending on how it is used. REALLY?? Something can mean both good AND bad? ……so can sunshine. Good and bad things happen regardless of the weather.

I do not mean to argue with someone who obviously has a higher level of knowledge than me and definitely knows what he is talking about, but that is exactly what I am trying to do.  I am sure that when a writer takes time to include rain for whatever reason in their work, it IS for a reason, but there are too many reasons. If someone dies in the rain, it is because rain is a bad thing. Evil! Bad! Rain=despair! Wait. Rain can mean wonderful things as well. It can be a symbol of a “new awakening” or a “rebirth”

In the interesting case of Mary Jane, rain can mean both. Her rainy situation starts off with being mugged by four men at once. I mean obviously rain is bad this time, right? Just as things are looking bad, she is saved! Hmm this whole rain thing is starting to look up! Who is her savoir? None other than the amazing Spider-Man himself! After he defeats the attackers (very quickly I might add), he goes to the Mary, while upside down of course, and they kiss. The rain is now signifying the birth of a new romance, when it was clearly about to mean death for poor little Mary Jane. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3bs_eUvf7Y)

While indisputably this iconic scene is not literature, it very clearly conveys the point I am trying to make: If rain can mean anything, why does it mean anything? It switched very quickly from death and despair to happiness and blossoming of a new romance, and all it took was a superhero! Here is a crazy idea: maybe rain can mean good or bad because it does not mean anything at all. It is a weather element that writer can use to shape their stories a certain way. I am certainly not trying to be cynical about this, but it is one of the few points in this book (How to Read Literature Like a Professor) that I disagree with. There are ways around what I am saying, such as: “the writer only includes certain weather elements for a reason” and my reply is this: you can use anything to your advantage, so why is it significant when it is when it is the weather?

Yes, rain probably will not be mentioned unless it means something, such as in the case of The Three Strangers in which foster notes it as being a "Plot Device”. I would like to say that the rain is just used as a “Plot Device” when actually mentioned in a story and that symbolically it does not really mean much, since it can mean either good or bad things at the same time (not concurrently). I’m sure Foster, assuming he would ever read this, hates me for having my own, less educated, opinion on the matter, but I couldn’t resist sharing.