In Wednesday's class we discussed three readings 1) Blessings of a Free Press 2) Pernicious Effects of the Art of Printing 3) Rambler 23. There are many things to examine within these poetry and prose pieces, but there was only so much time to discuss them in class. Please offer any additional comments about the passages that were brought up today, or feel free to point out something that wasn't covered. Did you find a passage or line that was particularly interesting? Which reading did you find to be the most fascinating in regards to the print culture topic? Why did you feel that way and what made it so stimulating as opposed to the other readings? Your classmates brought up many interesting points about the topic for today, would you like to elaborate on anything you said in class or respond to any comments or interpretations that a classmate had?
Also, there were some really good points brought up during the group activity that not everyone had a chance to hear. I will put some of those responses under the questions they pertain to. Feel free to comment on those as well.
In your groups you discussed the illustration that was handed out (seen above). Below are the questions from the worksheet. Feel free to discuss your / your classmate's interpretation(s) of the image or pick a question to expand on.
1. What do you see in this picture? Point out the details and list the tools/weapons that are being used to express the artist’s message.
2. Who are these figures? What do you think their class status is? Why do you think the artist chose to include a woman in this image, and why is she the one protecting the printing press as opposed to a male?
- The woman represents freedom of the press [Neil, Mariam, Michelle, Sara, Bianca]
- The woman represents those without voices (lower class, women, etc.) and the men are trying to prevent the woman's access to the printing press [Paul, Westyn, Molly, Elizabeth]
3. What do you think this image is saying about the print era and/or the printing press? In this era, many people in society were cut off from reading. Also, consider those who were illiterate. What is the significance of using illustrations?
- It's demonizing people who are pro-censorship, showing them as monsters. The illustration makes it so this message can be understood by a wider audience [Ryan, Noble, Madison, Jason, Jeff]
4. This image originally appeared in William Hone’s The Man in the Moon. Hone was a political activist, writer, and publisher who fought against government censorship in 1817 and fought for freedom of the press. Do you think an illustration can convey a message more or less effectively than print, or do you think both are equally capable of making the same point? Why or Why not?
- Both are capable in different ways. Illustrations "catch the eye" and makes a quick / effective point. Writing can make stronger points and create more debate [Ryan, Noble, Madison, Jason, Jeff]
5. In Rambler No. 23, Johnson discusses that the reader is at the mercy of the authors ideas. In what ways do you see this happening here?
- The author is relying on the reader to put together the message [Neil, Mariam, Michelle, Sara, Bianca]
4 comments:
In regards to Pernicious Effects of the Arts of Printing I'll admit that I was slow to the realization that it was a satirical piece. The language was very harsh, but the broad viewpoints were in line with upper class ideologies. Many upper class were afraid that because of the accessibility that print offered, all of the 'wild' ideas of equality and freedom were going to infiltrate the lower classes. They referenced Jacobin ideologies and revolutions. So the ultimate fear was that there would be a revolt by the newly educated lower class in which the king would be abolished and the upper class would be stripped of their wealth.
I'm glad the satirical aspect was brought up in class. The satire is making fun of the upper class. However, more purposefully it uses the extreme views and ridiculous language to make the anti-press, upper class ideologies seem a bit absurd and irrational. This technique can also be seen in the picture we looked at in the end of class. As someone pointed out, it is absurd that the men have so many weapons to get rid of the woman in front of the press. However, like the satire in Pernicious Effects of the Arts of Printing, it makes the real, underlying argument/message more effective.
I have the same confession as Michelle: I didn't realize it was a satirical piece for a while. Perhaps that goes to show how effective a satirical piece can still be. I also have the same confession for the picture, because I kind of took it seriously. If I was a part of the lower or upper class during this era, I would see this picture and be bothered. I can see where one may chuckle, but imagery can have a powerful effect. Seeing weapons, angered men, and the vulnerable woman shows true rage and brings up a red flag at how angry some people are. In addition to the answers given for number 2, I think the woman represents vulnerability and innocence that pulls at the heart of who sees the image. It almost humanizes the printing press and makes the men look like villains for trying to destroy it. I don't think the picture would send the same message if the woman was not included. With that being said (adding to #4) I think the illustration is equally influential as the written word, if not more. I think it would be the tipping point if one was exposed to both.
I think the part of question 2 about the role of the woman in the picture is an interesting thing to think about. During the discussion, my group thought the woman was being prevented from using the printing press, that is to keep her away from writing and reading. The other group mentioned in the post thought the opposite, that the woman represents the freedom of the press. Seeing both of these responses shows that the role of ordinary women were not set in stone when it came to how they were to act towards the new idea of books being a more regular commodity.
I also think being able to see women in these ways represents how readers of the time would have reacted to women participating in the writing process. Writings were mainly done by men, with some offerings from women, but the idea that there was a printing press to offer many more people the opportunity to read all styles of writing would also allow people to read what women thought rather than me. This would ultimately read to writings by authors such as Jane Austin who had the potential to affect how women ran their lives.
I think this picture does a really good job of further illustrating the discussion that surrounded the printing press. With such a powerful machine, literature was able to reach many. On the surface of this new technology, the idea of literature for the masses seems like the greatest thing to ever happen. What bad can come from making books and magazines and newspapers available for many? Why did so many people have a violent response to it (as the cartoon shows)?
This goes back to the pedestal that literature was placed on in the eighteenth century. Being able to write and to publish was an honor and the printing press destroyed that honor. With the printing press, anyone who could pick up a pen could get published. Back then, this was almost as ridiculous as someone being able to perform surgery simply because they could hold a scalpel. Seems ludicrous when put that way so I can almost sympathize with where these men attacking this woman are coming from. They are protecting what is holy from the unholy (women and underclassmen) and yes that type of culture and thought is not something I agree with, but nevertheless it was the culture and thought of the 18th century. I would have hailed them for protecting the purity of literature.
Post a Comment