Old Email Archive
Return to old archive list
digest 1997-02-25 #001
11:27 PM 2/24/97 -0800
From: "Society for Literature & Science"
Daily SLS Email Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1997 07:30:27 -0800
From: Martha Bartter
Subject: Re: question and comment
At 15:18 2/22/97 PST, you wrote:
>
>> re Mike Merrill's comment: I didn't mean that I was concerned
that the
>> quote might be too apocryphal to use, just that it might be too
flippant.
>>
>> Jay
>> Jay A. Labinger
>> Beckman Institute
>> California Institute of Technology
>> 139-74
>> Pasadena, CA 91125
>
>And here I was hoping to open a whole new can of worms.
>But seriously, do folks find themselves citing the
"opinion" of a
>listserve, and what do we think of the validity of such a
reference?
>
>
>> tel: 818-395-6520
>> fax: 818-449-4159
>>
>>
>>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Michael Merrill
>Dept. of English, UCLA
>310-825-6326
>
>
Depends 1) on what has been said and 2) by whom. I can think of
times when a quote from an e-mail list could indeed make a
real difference in how a paper developed and would need citation.
Most of what goes down, however, doesn't matter that much. Like
this.
Martha Bartter
Truman State University
mbartter@truman.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1997 08:38:25 -0800
From: "Dr. Donald J. McGraw"
Subject:
unsubscribe mcgraw@acusd.edu
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Donald J. McGraw, Associate Provost
University of San Diego |
5998 Alcala' Park | "What man really fears is not
San Diego, CA 92110-2492 | so much extinction, but
Voice: 619-260-4553 | extinction with insignificance."
FAX: 619-260-2210 | Ernest Becker
mcgraw@acusd.edu |
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1997 12:37:57 -0800
From: Martha Bartter
Subject: Query
I'm looking for assistance here. Several years ago, I did an analysis
of the Walt Disney movie *Beauty and the Beast*. I did so out of a
sense of indignation -- not so much at the revision of the roles of the
two principals as the casual and deliberate iconographic blasphemy.
The first issue is the most obvious, of course: in the original
tale, Beauty stood for all the young women whose marriages were
arranged (at the time) with older, unattractive men. The tale
supposedly
assured them that, if they gave this 'beast' the proper affection and
trust, he would become the genuine prince he always had been 'inside.'
(Perhaps also, the 'beasts' were encouraged to nurture this attitude in
their young brides.) In the Disney revision, the exterior of the Beast
clearly reflects his true nature; Beauty must 'mother' him into growing
up, learning to get along with other creatures (read people),
controlling
his temper, putting the needs of others before his own. When she has
done this, he is ready for the transformation and the wedding. The
earlier implication reflected social needs (after all, marriages were
arranged for financial and social purposes, not for the feelings of the
prospective bride). The contemporary implication seems much less
positive.
It says, in brief, 'expect your husband to be childish, ill-tempered,
self-centered, and generally beastly. If, however, you manage to nudge
him into adolescence, you will find him a prospective prince. But you
will have to do most of the work, and any failure is your fault.
You can't expect him to help; after all, he's just a child.'
I don't like that, but it may indeed reflect some contemporary
conditions. (If it's nurturing them, that's truly nasty.)
However, the original tale made no religious references. It was
purely secular. Disney's version is not. The transformation scene from
Beast to Prince evokes religious iconography from start -- the shafts
of 'heavenly light' that surround the dead Beast -- to finish, with
the reversal of the Sistine Chapel painting, where God reaches out to
the newly awakened Adam, who reaches up in worship and awe. (Never mind
the numerous times Beauty has posed as the 'pieta' -- the last just
before the Beast is resurrected, or more literally, taken down from the
cross.) As the Beast spins in midair, his body takes on the sequential
postures that medieval and renaissance painters gave Christ's body in
the many scenes of the Deposition they executed. This is not
accidental.
(In fact, a representative of the Disney corporation assured me that
'their artists know exactly what they are doing.')
Beauty as Mary and Beast as Christ. I find this a truly
unacceptable, blasphemous concept.
Even more troubling, when I first noticed this, and spoke of
my (then untested) recognition, virtually every one I discussed it
with rejected the idea out of hand. They had not seen what I had
seen, possibly because they didn't have the odd background in art
history I do, or because their visual memory doesn't work like mine.
When I put together a paper and slide demonstration, however, the
audiences I have addressed have universally agreed that these images
do function in this way -- on a subliminal basis (not because it goes
by too fast, but because it's not recognized) -- and that the message
is both subtle and savage.
OK: now that I've detailed my first discovery, I can get to my
request: have you noticed other, popular, twisted uses of standard
religious iconography?
Note that I exclude such references to religion as Joyce uses
in _A Portrait of the Artist..._ or Faulkner in _Light in August_, etc.
These congruences of a character to Christ are both pretty obvious and
very much discussed. Nor does either author claim that the character
IS Christ. When the message is transmitted visually, as Disney does
here, however, the identification works completely.
I don't think Disney invented this. What else is out there?
Martha Bartter
Truman State University
mbartter@truman.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1997 13:39:55 -0800
From: Stephen J Weininger
Subject: Session on jointly taught courses for SLS Pittsburgh
I'm organizing a session for the SLS conf in Pittsburgh tentatively
entitled _Joint Custody: Cooperative Teaching of Courses on Science,
Society and Culture_. The aim is to examine the logistical, political
and
ideological issues in creating and teaching courses that involve
faculty
from the humanities and the sciences. Among other outcomes, I hope to
attract more of our colleagues in the sciences to the meeting by
providing
them with a rationale for attending that might resonate with their
deans
and/or chairs, as well as being directly useful in their teaching. My
idea
is that this session would have the character of a workshop.
I'd like to hear from anyone who has been involved in such an
enterprise
and who'd be interested in taking part in the session. If you yourself
don't qualify or can't participate I'd appreciate having names of
colleagues who might be suitable, and suggestions of appropriate places
for postings of this message.
Thanks,
Steve
************************************************************
Stephen J. Weininger Internet: stevejw@wpi.edu
Professor of Chemistry Phone: (508) 831-5396
WPI Fax: (508) 831-5933
Worcester, MA 01609-2280
************************************************************
