Just another WordPress.com site

“You see, but you don’t observe.”

This quote by Sherlock has been recited throughout the series. Suggesting, Watson sees different things but does not pay attention to detail. Detail is key. I think that in the third episode of the second season this quote applied to the “observers”(audience) of the episode. The episode starts the traditional ideal of a serial by Watson saying his best friend Sherlock Holmes is dead. The audience may think that this is a traditional literary element called Foreshadowing. However in Sherlock Holmes nothing is foreshadowed the unexpected becomes the expected. As the episode unfolds, Moriarty is planning a major destruction of Sherlock Holmes in every aspect imaginable. The audience questions the reality of the scenes because we are given two different aspects to choose from specifically, Moriarty as a villain, Sherlock as the hero, and Moriarty as the victim and Sherlock as the villain. Moriarty starts portraying himself as the victim and even writing on the case “Call Sherlock”, it seems as this was sort of mocking in the sense that no one else will be able to figure this out but Sherlock, he has the answers for everything. When Sherlock gets involved, he ends up securing Moriarty’s idea that what he is capable of has no limits. Moriarty then starts to portray Sherlock as the victim by exposing him to the children that were kidnapped and having the child scream when she saw him. Symbolizing that his face had caused some sort of trauma. Moriarty plays this game through the episode by never giving up his title of villain; he just uses it to his advantage, manipulating the thinking and actions of others. Sherlock encounters two people who are killed right in front of him suggesting that he could be next at any time. Moriarty then shifts to the idea that he is the victim and Sherlock made this all up. Sherlock created Moriarty in his head. When Moriarty tells them that Sherlock made it up he plays the victim role well appearing to be offended and upset because who would do something like that. Sherlock begins to question himself we think throughout the episode or was it a ploy to never let Moriarty get as close to defeating Sherlock as he would like. At the end of the episode Watson, “sees” Sherlock jump off the building and kill himself after he “admits” to Watson that everything that was the reality was fake and the fake was the actual reality. Watson “sees” Sherlock kill himself in the middle of the street and is very distraught. At the end of the episode Watson again is distraught that Sherlock is “dead”. When Watson turns to leave we actually see Sherlock sitting observing Watson. Due to the gunmen Moriarty hired to kill Sherlock’s friends unless they saw him die, Sherlock stays in secret protecting the lives of his “family”. Does this perhaps show that Sherlock does care and show some sort of emotion in his own way? In addition, if Watson “saw” Sherlock die, but he is alive, does that mean the Morality actually died? Reality vs. Allusion is strong throughout this episode and really makes the audience question the reliability of characters and their stories… Sound familiar? Mr. Peanut and Use of Enchantment I am talking about you…


Sherlock & Watson

It was an interesting change from reading novels to getting to watch the first season of Sherlock Holmes. It seems as though not many people are fond of Mr. Holmes, however it appears that this is due to jealousy. Sherlock’s mind is a fascinating tool throughout the whole season. He is able to piece together the puzzle faster than a bolt of lightning. Sherlock is obsessed with always being on track and being correct. Everyone follows the lead of Sherlock. In episode one towards the very end, instead of calling the police to arrest the cab driver, Sherlock took a ride with him because he was fascinated by the whole process, this cab driver took to kill his victims. When the cab driver reveals his game to Sherlock and asks him to choose the correct pill, that did not contain poison, Sherlock’s abilities were put to the test. His ability to put himself in the victim’s shoes is uncanny. However, this time he finds himself debating whether to bet his life to prove that he is a master at what he does. Towards the end when Sherlock is slowly putting the pill towards his mouth, I think that he would actually have taken it. Sherlock lives for this stuff and he would risk his life to prove that he is the best at what he does. As he tells Watson, the police would not consult an amateur and he is far from that. When Watson shoots the cab driver, Sherlock is still obsessed with knowing whether he made the right choice. Choices are everything to Sherlock and he makes them constantly throughout the season. He has a real intuition for these types of crimes.
Another thing that I find interesting is the situation with Watson. When he comes back from war, he uses a cane and seems to be depressed. However, Sherlock’s brother brings him aware of the fact that he does not loath the war he misses it. Watson sprints following Sherlock to catch a cab driver leaving his cane behind. From then on out, he ditches the cane. Dr. Watson and Sherlock become quite the team. However, I never really understand why Sherlock does not do his job for money, since it seems like there is no other options for him. He enjoys this profession way to much even if he must do it for no money. Sherlock Holmes has yet to fail when piecing the puzzle together.

Berlant Piece……

1) Many different individuals appreciate the argument presented in the book “Introduction, Intimacy, Publicity, and Feminity”, by Lauren Berlant. Weber who is associated with Contemporary Literature explains that this text is a clever piece that brings new things into perspective claiming the connection between feminine literature and female belonging. (Brenda R. Weber, Contemporary Literature). Mary O’Hara who has a Feminist blog suggests that this book brings attention to the fact that our culture is creating scenarios with stereotypical women and these roles in movies, TV shows, even novels is being exploited. She supports Berlant’s argument and takes it a step further suggesting the creation of such literature is to exploit the roles of women. Lara Langer Cohen a literary critic mentions that in this book Berlant contributes to the notion that world believes that we need love and how much is lost in that process of trying to find it. Critics believe that the book itself if a very clever discovery of the current acts of the media as well as literature. The marketing role of the female is being exploited and the feeling of belonging is attached to this role. The common roles allow women to relate to one another no matter how different their situations are.
“My claim is that the gender-marked texts of women’s popular culture cultivate fantasies of vague belonging as an alleviation of what is hard to manage in the lived real-social antagonisms, exploitation, compromised intimacies, the attrition of life. Utopianism is in the air, but one of the main utopias is normativity itself, here felt a condition of general belonging and as aspirational site of rest and recognition in and by a social world”(Berlant, 5). Berlant is asking the public to reconsider the ideas that literature is promoting.


2) Berlant is arguing that women experience feelings of belonging specifically when they are engaging in feminine literature rather than intervening into the political world. The female complaint is to gain an increased understanding of power produced by women’s culture and acknowledge the molding that is trying to take place in order to urge women to feel the same as one another. Berlant suggests specifically that the female complaint is “women live for love, and love is the gift that keeps on taking”. Specifically this element of Femininity in literature not only encourages love, but also monitors failure with fascinating love. In many different stories in this genre women experience romantic love, however there is nothing perfect about these relationships. Women are engaging in normative behavior based on the concept of love in order to stay within the norms of society.

3) Within the book the Uses of Enchantment by Heidi Julavits there are examples of Berlant’s claim. Referencing Berlant the female complaint again is “women live for love, and love if the gift that keeps on taking”, we see this specifically in the novel when we learn that Mary is using Bettina’s story specifically for attention. Mary seems to be neglected throughout the novel especially by her mother. Mary’s longing for love enabled her to fabricate a story that would be believable by everyone else who was not paying attention to her. Since part of loves gift keeps on taking when Mary’s mother dies she does not get the chance to ever gain her love, leaving her hopeless. This quote also applies to Regina in the sense that Regina has had many different finances, and never gets married. She finds love but never actually makes in permanent.

4) I think that these genres are changing literary texts because instead of portraying something that is realistic feminine readers are engaging in something that is unrealistic in hopes that something realistic will come of it. These self- help books and novels that tell stories of love are fiction. It is important to keep that in mind. Berlant considers real to be normative, engaging in love in normative ways instead of wanting to become a character. Thinking that if I were these characters things would be a lot easier in the present world. I think that the way Berlant relates to Wood’s piece is the use of hysterical realism. These fantasy novels are not producing something that is realistic to its readers, instead it is forming an ideal that each reading would like to experience, taking over their emotions rather than their idea of what is realistic.

Loaded in Every Sense of the Word; Imagination and Reality

The word loaded comes to mind after reading Mr. Peanut, because the book is literally loaded with including but not limited to; suspense, imagination, confusion, reality, death, mystery, love, personalities, literal, figurative, lust, empathy, emotion, you name it it’s in there.
Mr. Peanut blended three separate stories together. David and Alice, Hastroll and Hannah and Sheppard and Marilyn. Each story talks about the struggles of marriage and portrays the male characters as individuals who do not realize what they have until they have lost it literally or figuratively. For example, David and Alice have struggled throughout their marriage with Alice’s health conditions, primarily her weight. David lost Alice figuratively when their marriage went through a rough patch with Alice losing her weight, gaining it back and then losing again a constant cycle. This alerted Alice’s personality and their relationship as a married couple. Peppin(David’s alter ego) comes about as the Freudian term known as the id throughout the story. The id is all about desire and selfishness. All about what Peppin wants and nothing else matters. Peppin imagined Alice’s death numerous amounts of times. Considering he was in the process of writing a book, he lost a sense of reality. When Peppin is summoned back to earth, he would sometimes have tears in his eyes for realizing the brutality of his thoughts. In Peppin’s figurative world, he lost Alice literally. David looses Alice literally as well when he realizes she has died during her surgery. In the novel when seeing the name Peppin it was the book that was being written from the third person. Hastroll and Hannah also went through some rough patches in their marriage; however, we do not get to see a lot into their lives, not as much as Sheppard and David/ Peppin anyways. However, Hannah and Hastroll have problems of their own and he two imagines his wife’s death. Hastroll looses Hannah figuratively when he refuses to get out of bed. He is unable to have a meaningful relationship with her and does not realize that he took her for granted until he no longer lives a “normal” life. His wife choosing to be bed ridden and Hastroll desperate for the return of things to the way they used to be. Hastroll never loses his wife literally, so he is the only lucky character. Sheppard who we get to know a lot about in the middle of the novel has an awful relationship with Marilyn. He loses her figuratively while in the process of having numerous affairs with other women. Sheppard also loses her literally, when she is murdered. Sheppard never seemed to appreciate his wife for anything that she did. Not even respecting the fact that they have a son or asking her about her needs to fix their relationship, he takes the easy way out. This drives Marilyn to speak to Mr. Eberling, encouraging herself to start an affair of her own, not realizing this man has been silently stalking her. It is arguable that figuratively Sheppard killed his own wife, drove her to her own death. The three marriages are linked heavily but all end separately which shows the difference in how different situation will end when they have a commonality.
Throughout the course of the novel I found myself sometimes confused about what was actually happening and what had occurred in the minds of the characters. In the beginning pages of the book (pages 1-20), I finally came to realize that this was the start of Peppin’s book. It was a slap in the face after jumping from story to story trying to keep everything straight as well as distinguishing from reality and imagination to see the words on page 445 “ HERE’S HOW IT (ACTUALLY HAPPENED)” and then page 446 “HERE’S HOW DAVID’S BOOK ENDED”. After reading, the titles and what came after that it made me realize the whole time I was reading the reality was about David. All of the stuff associated with Peppin was his book. It was not till the end of the book that all the puzzle pieces fit into place one step at a time.

Oh Hey!

Hello Everyone. I am Amanda Kollias. I have a Bachelors degree in English Adolescent Education from the College of Saint Rose. I have tried my hardest to only commit to Facebook and leave the rest of the new and upcoming social media sites behind. However, I think that this class is going to get me up to speed with the rest of the world, considering I am now tweeting and on Tumblr. As Far as reading goes, I prefer to have a book in my hand. I feel as though when I am reading a text on the internet or another digital source I can feel my comprehension level declining. However, I think that it is a good tool because I am paying attention to my comprehension and acknowledging when I need to go back and reread something, rather than just reading a text and convincing myself I am comprehending because there is nothing else in front of me. I feel as though I am becoming more open to reading texts online however certain things I need to print out and have in front of me. As the length of the text that I am reading increases, I need to have the hard copy in front of me. I feel as though I am a good writer and enjoy writing as well. I think that I was given somewhat of the short end of the stick throughout my undergraduate career because when you are an education major concentrating, Strose takes all your time and encourages a focus on education. I did well in my undergraduate English classes don’t get me wrong, however I did not get to put most of my time into the English aspect of my degree because I was producing 100+ pages for each one of my Education classes. I am excited to be able to devout my time to writing. I think that writing is a great way to express your thoughts and feelings. Just connecting with the themes of the class, I am writing now or should I say typing my thoughts, for my blog instead of writing in a notebook that will be turned in next class. I think that the digital age is evolving quicker than we can imagine. It seems to boggle my mind when thinking about some of the things that we discussed in class. Like what is going to happen when there are no more books. I think that I have good narration skills and am interested to see what happens when I put them to the test. It seems weird to think of myself as a scholar. Just because I have heard my whole career about scholarly articles and scholars of a particular area of study, it seemed like these people were held on the highest pedestal, almost intangible. However, I have no problem accepting this title and working with it. I am looking forward to experiencing all different aspects of this class. After all this class is the reason why I have now crawled out of my hole and accepted some new technology.

Carnival Bow Dree Ard

Jean Baudrillard is known for his thoery that most things are misleading, nothing is really as it appears to be. While reading Baudrillard we came across his notion of DIsneyland. Meghan posts in her blog ” According to Baudrillard Disneyland serves as a distraction. It helps us think that we are escaping from reality when we go there to visit. DIsneyland is what is real while America is not”. Disneyland is completely predictable. You know what to expect, however America is not predictable at all. Disneyland is just one place not the whole world. That is why there is a notion that people from other countries may go to Disneyland and think that every place is similiar. Boy are they in for a surprise. In class Alison brought up the example of a “perfect ” family portrait. Ann expands on this idea and connects it to another in her blog. Ann talks about the theory of the vietnam war in her blog post. Ann goes a step further to say that the vietnam war is the family portrait. She expands on this idea by saying ” This family takes beautiful photos at Sears, matching sweaters, all smiling with their hair done. The Father is home for dinner, the Mother has it all ready to go and on the table. The children are good at school, there are only two. 1 boy and 1 girl. Everything is perfect! At least to everyone else. On the inside there is nothing but destruction and sadness. This family is the Vietnam war. There is an image of reason, of perfection, of being strong and put together. And maybe it started out like that, like the war (sort of) started out like that. But then it falls apart. Maybe there’s alcoholism involved”. This makes Baudrillards arguement of everything is not what it appears to be completely valid.


“The old idea of convergence was that all devices would converge into one central device that did everything for you”. While reading this piece it was something I could totally relate to. While that quote seems to be a great idea, it really isn’t all that. Yes it would be great to have one device that did everything that you would need 5 separate devices for. However we must thing about what we are losing when we only use the one device instead of the five separate devices. We must also consider all the things that could go wrong with that one device as opposed to the 5 separate ones.
I have a blackberry. I have phone, text, email, internet, Facebook, translator, dictionary, music, TV, radio, there are applications for literally everything on the blackberry. However because there is so much that the blackberry can do there is a higher possibility for things to go wrong. The blackberry is trying to do something that different devices specialize in however the blackberry is tying to specialize in everything which can make it go on overload. Then you have nothing. I have heard of something called a kindle. It’s where you can download tons of books at your fingertips and you read it online. I like the feeling of holding a book while I read. I can’t imagine looking at a screen all day. I like the tactile tangible feel of the book itself. In the future who knows, libraries and book stores will probably be obsolete.