Bright Lights, Big Backlash

            The release of Bright Lights Big City ultimately faced backlash as a result of the prevailing mood of the time.  The late 70s into the early 90s had seen the growth of a new political coalition.  The conservative movement in the United States began to alter in geographical and ideological configuration, as conservative southern Democrats began to weaken in electoral strength due to their association with the Democratic Party at large, which was deemed too liberal by many in the South East United States.  As a result, the political grouping known as the Reagan Coalition began to coalesce.  The group would include moderate fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives, including the notable addition of Southern Evangelicals.  The coalition would in 1980 win a landslide election and gain significant numbers of national and state offices in the election.  After four successful years, the coalition would again make significant gains against Walter Mondale in the 1984 election.

            With the history lesson out of the way, the political power dynamics of the time created a situation conducive to challenging the publication of the book.  The themes of drug, and alcohol abuse would not sit well with the social conservatives at the time.  The political elections four years before and just after the book was published granted office to a number of conservative persons by means of Reagan’s coattails.  These elected officials were among those who would oppose the book, and also had the ability to amplify their opinions due to the public nature of the offices they held.  Similarly, the people who put these individuals into office shared a similar viewpoint to those of who elected them and would therefore also oppose many of the themes and elements of the novel.

            In many ways the book did reflect elements of the time.  Pablo Escobar was an up and coming leader of what was one of many large South American drug cartels which were growing at the time.  With new distribution mechanism, cocaine, the drug which was referenced many times in the book, began to infiltrate some of America’s largest cities including New York.  The novel’s disappointment with the “office job” type of work that the narrator took part in was also a key aspect of social critique of capitalism at the time.  Largely because the 80s were one of the earliest decades where desk jobs become more numerous.  In conclusion the opposition and themes of the novel were both shaped by the broader developments in American society at the time.

Persuasion

             Jane Austen presents a changing society in which the best characters are not of the best classes necessarily.  On the one hand the reader is presented with a Sir Walter Elliot, who is the highest class of the primary characters in the text.  But his situation degrades in his time, and is also shown to be one of the negative personalities in the novel.  Jane Austen ascribes what is important to Sir Walter, and his juxtaposition, Admiral Croft.  Walter’s compliment of Croft was that “He should not be ashamed of being seen with him any where” (Austen 38).  In contrast Crofts compliment was that “The Baronet will never set the Thames on fire, but there seems to be no harm in him” (Austen 38).  These differences in compliments point to the differing values of the people, Walter values the look both physical and class position wise of his company, on the opposite end lies Croft, who places value on the quality of the man holistically.  These statements taken as characterization however are just that, characterization. However, considering the work is satirical the two men likely represent portions of their social strata, with Croft representing the self-made man, and Sir Walter the landed gentry.  Another important aspect to note is that the wealthiest persons in the book are self-made (withholding the exception of Mr. Elliot, who gained his wealth largely through marriage), Captain Wentworth, and Admiral Croft are both wealthy, and at the same time the character representing the landed elite is in both in debt monetarily, and weak in character.

            Another notable comparison is the characters of both Wentworth and Mr. Elliot, the representation of the self-made, and gentry youth respectively.  Wentworth is presented as a moral paramount, kind, honorable, courteous and respectful.  Mr. Elliot also appear to be a good enough character on the surface, but is in reality a manipulative plotter.  So in many ways Austen portrays the faults of the elite in the way she creates the elite characters, presenting them as greedy, overly proud, deceitful and envious, while on the opposite end portrays the everyman as the paragon of moral virtue.  Ultimately the self-made man can also be seen as the winner in the courtship of Anne, and Wentworth, not Mr. Elliot is ultimately successful in the pursuit.

Works Cited

Austen, Jane. Persuasion. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1997. Print.

W.E.G.S. its probably an acronym

There is no doubt many cases where works contain hidden meanings that require for the reader to read between the lines.  However, Wegs’s analysis of “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been” by Joyce Carol Oates might be more in line with a Dan Brown novel, or a special on the History Chanel, than a true literary analysis.  Wegs comes up with a series of claims all of which she believes support the overarching idea that Oates was drawing parallels with religion, or at the very least a demonic figure present in Judeo-Christian faith. Wegs explains that “since music is Connie’s religion its values are hers also” (Wegs 69).  This portion of her explanation is easy to grasp Oates herself described the music as being “like music at a church service; it was something to depend upon” (Oates 2). Yet it is when Wegs begins to describe the nature of Arnold Friend, that it begins to blur the line, and become more akin to a conspiracy theory.  Wegs writes that “when he introduces himself… ‘friend’ is uncomfortably close to ‘fiend’; his initials could easily stand for Arch Fiend” (Wegs 70).  Though we may not know a definite reason for exactly why the original author chose the name, Arnold and Arch have little similarity, and if she bases the arch fiend assumption just off of initials, then there are another phrases that have AR as an acronym.  Arkansas, Argon, Argentina all share the same abbreviation AR, but have no relation to the plot, so just because the abbreviation for Arch Fiend could also be AR doesn’t mean anything.  Furthermore, basing the demon thesis on physical descriptions is equally as foolish.  Wegs claims that “his clumsy bow may be due to the dact that it must be difficult to manipulate boots if one has cloven feet” (Wegs 70).  In this instance Wegs seems to have forgotten the source material and the in text explanation as to why he walks strange.  Arnold Friend and his real life inspiration both filled their boots with cans or other materials in order to make themselves appear taller.  So although it may be tempting to claim that Oates’s antagonist was other worldly, the devil is in the details, and in this case the details don’t support that Arnold was truly a demon, but rather just a dark figure.

Wegs, Joyce M. "'Don't You Know Who I Am?': The Grotesque in Oates's 'Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?'." Journal of Narrative Technique 5 (1975): 66-72.

Oates, Joyce Carol. “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Print.