Christina’s African American Analysis of The Princess and the Frog

Princess and the Frog is a newly added addition to the historic Disney collection of princess movies.  But what’s the history behind the making of The Princess and the Frog? Why did it take so long to make an African American princess? These are a few questions that arise when developing an analysis of the movie.

To start off, we’ll talk about the history of making the animated film.  The film came out in 2009 and is about a young African American girl (Tiana) who has dreams to start a restaurant with her father.  Her father dies in WWI, but the commitment for building a restaurant is even stronger in the now young woman.  The young woman is best friends with a white woman (Charlotte) who’s family is very wealthy.  Tiana’s mother is the seamstress to Charlotte, and Tiana and her mother live in a shack on the lower end of New Orleans.  The rest of the movie is about Tiana kissing a prince frog and then turning into a frog herself.  On the adventures the two go on to undo the curse put on the prince frog, they encounter jazz and the blues, live in a bayou, eat gumbo, and blah blah blah they end up fixing everything and Tiana gets her restaurant.

princesses

The first question I would like to answer is the one about how long it took to make an African American princess movie.  It seems silly to have a white black-haired character, two white blonde-haired characters, one white brunette character, one Asian, one Middle-Eastern, one Ginger, and one Native-American and not an African American! Disney started making it’s animated princess movies in 1937 with Snow White.  During that time World War II was going on followed by the Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement.  Not making an African American princess until 2009, about 50 or so years after the movement took place with rights granted African Americans seems like a long time.  This is a prime example of how society today still has racial issues.  Just like Tyson mentioned “[i]t’s just gone ‘underground'” (Tyson 367). Racism is a problem a lot of Americans don’t like to consider still goes on.  Disney could have feared that making an African American princess earlier would have raised too many conflicts. Even when the movie was first introduced as an idea it caused controversies.  Why did the place in the film have to be in New Orleans? Why does Charlotte have to be the wealthy one? Why does Tiana’s mother have to be a seamstress of Charlotte?  Having Charlotte be the wealthy one shows she is in a higher class, one that has authority over others.  A term we used in class that defines this well is hegemony, a dominance over other groups in a society.  Charlotte’s family, being white, feels they have a dominant position over Tiana’s family.  It also brings about this type of “white privilege”.  Having Tiana’s mother be the seamstress could be seen as a derogatory thing. As for the location of the film, New Orleans is a hub for many African American ideologies.  It’s the birthplace of jazz and many important and famous black artists like Buddy Bolden, Louis Armstrong, Sydney Bechet, and so many more! It has seen its past with slavery, and has even a present (and past) voodoo interest.

This all also ties in with the literature canon.  Yes, this is a film and not a written piece of art but the concept still applies.  The canon before the film was made was still in the past, in a place that wasn’t accepting of African American art.  It was hard to make such a big step in a society that still discriminates.  Obviously, this was overcome, but it took many years to finally have the confidence Disney needed, and support, to make a disney movie. The social construction of race is a theory based on what should be categorized for race.  However, history shows something different. History shows that it still exists among many different ethnicity’s through biological and physical aspects.

BDDefinition-PrincessAndFrog-b-1080

 

 

Madeleine’s Deconstructive Analysis of “Under My Thumb”

under-my-thumb-kirsten-reifeiss

The famous Rolling Stones song articulates the point that the singer, Mick Jagger, holds a new position of power over a girl, presumably his girlfriend. The basic binary opposition here is dominance and submission, the term “under someone’s thumb” literally meaning to be submissive to someone. The lyrics suggest the preferred binary here to be dominance from the fact that the singer smugly suggests all the ways in which he controls his girlfriend, calling her “the sweetest pet in the world.” He states that she “talks when she is spoken to” suggesting that she is polite and docile to whatever he says, that she “does just what she’s told” again suggesting that she is compliant to any of the singers commands, and that “her eyes are just kept to herself” but that the singer can “still look at someone else” meaning that while the singer ogles other women, the girlfriend sits idly by and neither confronts the singer about this behavior nor tries it herself. Overall, the songs over-arching idea is that of empowerment through a person’s gained dominance over a partner who “once had [them] down” (was once dominant themselves).

While the song is typically understood like the above analysis, the text can be read in more ways than just this one. On a basic level, those that view life through a different ideological mindset than that of male rockstars, such as feminists, may look at this song and not see a person’s newfound pride in the gained dominance over a previously dominant person but a more negative message of a man’s suppressive actions towards an outspoken and assertive woman. The way that the singer refers to his girlfriend as a “pet”, “cat” and “squirmin’ dog” can be seen as very debasing terms when referring to a human being. This shows the singer to be less of a powerful, dominant figure and more of an oppressive jerk.

More towards the actual deconstruction of the text, we may allot different meanings to sentences and words that are commonly accepted to mean only one thing in this song. The lyric, “The girl who once had me down,” might mean a girl who once completely understood the singer instead of a girl who was once very controlling of the singer. This replaces the binary opposition of dominance and suppression with understanding and misunderstanding. The lyric, “The way she talks when she’s spoken to,” may put the focus on how it is she talks (i.e., grammatical structures, accent, etc.) when someone speaks to her, rather than the fact that she responds when someone speaks to her. Again, this does not suggest dominance, but the singer fawning over the girl’s habits. Even when Jagger describes her as “the sweetest pet in the world,” this could be an affectionate form of address meaning that she’s dear to his heart rather than she’s domesticated like an animal. The Stones are British after all! These examples show that it is possible to read the song as a singer’s declaration of love for his girlfriend which undermines the original reading of the lyrics. This supports the general idea of deconstructionism that language is slippery and unreliable, and what might seem obvious to us as what is signified is actually an ongoing chain of signifiers that are based on our inherent ideologies. Therefore, we can never establish a True meaning as the meanings are infinite.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYYTLJ8YHi4[/youtube]

“Under My Thumb”

Under my thumb
The girl who once had me down
Under my thumb
The girl who once pushed me around

It’s down to me
The difference in the clothes she wears
Down to me, the change has come
She’s under my thumb

Under my thumb
The squirmin’ dog who’s just had her day
Under my thumb
A girl who has just changed her ways

It’s down to me, yes it is
The way she does just what she’s told
Down to me, the change has come
She’s under my thumb
Ah, ah, say it’s alright

Under my thumb
A Siamese cat of a girl
Under my thumb
She’s the sweetest, hmm, pet in the world

It’s down to me
The way she talks when she’s spoken to
Down to me, the change has come
She’s under my thumb
Ah, take it easy, babe, yeah

It’s down to me, oh, yeah
The way she talks when she’s spoken to
Down to me, the change has come
She’s under my thumb
Yeah, it feels alright

Under my thumb
Her eyes are just kept to herself
Under my thumb, well I
I can still look at someone else

It’s down to me, oh that’s what I said
The way she talks when she’s spoken to
Down to me, the change has come
She’s under my thumb

Say, it’s alright
Take it easy, babe
Take it easy, babe
Feels alright
Take it, take it easy, babe

Some Gatsby Afterthoughts

Special thank yous to Adrienne for planning (and silverware), to Rachel for the best potluck contribution, to Ashton for bringing the DVD, and to Tedward for valiantly taking home all leftover food so no one else had to carry it.

Confession: I did not expect to like the DiCaprio/Mulligan version at all.  But I did.  A lot.  It’s  gorgeous, of course.  And both Gatsby and Daisy were significantly more human in this version–reinforced even in simple ways like the fact that Nick repeatedly called Gatsby “Jay,” which is not true of the novel or Redford/Farrow movie.  As a result, Leo-Gatsby seemed more vulnerable, his carefully constructed world on a much shakier foundation.  I had loved Redford-Gatsby, but he is a cardboard man, and Leo-Gatsby showed the work it took to be Gatsby.  And Mulligan-Daisy was both much more likeable and more awful, since her guilt for Myrtle’s death is more profound if she isn’t simply a twit.

Still struggling with how I feel about the Nick-in-a-sanitorium invention.  And with the combination of explicit information about the 20s for an ignorant American viewing public being carefully woven into the film, only to be juxtaposed with radically anachronistic elements (not the music– I liked that much more than I anticipated).

Both Toms stink.  Bruce Dern-Tom is not nearly enough of a “brute,” to use Daisy’s word.  And Joel Edgerton-Tom is not believable as old money– would Tom Buchanan ever wear dirty polo clothes to a dinner with guests?  No way.  Very interesting difference in George Wilsons, one of whom is so beaten down and lost and the other of whom is a man ready to kill.

It has already been well established that I can find a phallic symbol anywhere.  But please, people: Nick and Gatsby on the porch with a huge white column between them (Redford version)??  The sharing of one cigarette??  Etc. etc.  Don’t even get me started psychoanalyzing Gatsby’s wombish swimming pools, in which he meets his death.

Lastly (maybe): why did Leo-Gatsby say “old sport” to rhyme with “Colbert Report”?  That was awkward.

Claire’s Reader Response Analysis of “Radioactive,” by Imagine Dragons

The song “Radioactive” is a very popular song over the last year, and most people have seen the music video. People that I have spoken to about the music video had interesting reactions to it, so it seemed like a rich source for analysis by reader-response criticism. I’ll be focusing mainly on transactional reader-response and affective stylistics in my analysis of the music video.

Watch the first video (lyrics only) first, or at least read through the lyrics, to get a feel of the song and it’s message, and then watch the music video and go ahead and feel confused. I did too. A link to the lyrics is here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JnxmI1ojYc[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU[/youtube]

Transactional reader-response, according to Tyson, focuses on how a reader and a text interact, and the significance or meaning of the text is the poem, which is found in the transaction that occurs between the two. In order for a meaningful transaction to occur, the text must be read in aesthetic mode, with attention to emotional subtleties, and not focused solely on the facts. Affective stylistics centers on the idea that a text is an event that occurs as it is read, and it analyzes the cognitive processes that occur to the reader as they read.

My analysis will incorporate these two perspectives, focusing on the cognitive processes and subsequent emotional transactions that I experienced while watching the music video, and then evaluate what the text accomplished overall by scrutinizing the “poem” I experienced and analyzing my response to that interpretation.

The music video starts off with a shot of a girl walking down a wood path. There is a crow cawing, and the leaves are blowing across the ground. The sky is gray, and there is no music. The natural drama of this scene excited me and made me a little nervous. It reminded me of the eerie, twilit pathway in Jane Eyre, right before she meets Rochester. There’s a feeling of imminent action. The shot is also shown from far away at ground level, which resists my idea of my normal position in my world, subverting my feeling of normalcy, solidity, and self. As the music begins to play, scenes of the girl with shocking blue eyes, carrying a covered case, are interspersed with shots of the band members in a jail, and eventually some scenes of a group of men betting on something. I felt disappointed at the direction the video was taking. The camera repeatedly paused for close-ups on the girl’s eyes; this combined with the theatrical scenes of the men felt a little overboard.  I had interpreted the song to be very meaningful, and (at this point) I wanted to take the video very seriously as well. But it seemed like the music video was taking itself too seriously – predictable and overly dramatic.

Then comes the unexpected.

The rest of the music video is about a puppet monster that brutally fights and kills other puppets in a ring surrounded by angry, betting men. The monster is undefeated, until the girl brings in her teddy bear to fight in the ring. The teddy bear uses its power-punch and laser-vision to destroy the monster and several cronies as well. The girl takes the key from the head honcho and frees the band from jail. Hooray! The head honcho is then presumably killed by the angry horde of puppets.

When I first saw the music video, I was honestly incredibly uncomfortable with it. The transition from what I thought was an artsy, classy, albeit predictably melodramatic music video to a startlingly violent puppet massacre really took me by surprise and put me on edge. My viewing of the rest of the movie was strongly colored by my disapproval of the sudden, uncontrolled direction change. I’ve never been a fan of puppets (the Muppets so frightened me as a child that I hated every one of them, sans lovable Kermit, of course) so I wasn’t exactly thrilled with that plot choice. Scenes such as the beheading of a puppet, a puppet in a noose, and a horde of puppets surrounding the bad guy as he screams in terror to presumably maul him to death, I found disturbing, out of context of the song, and confusing. However, I found myself (a little against my will) smiling at the (darkly) uplifting plot of the music video. Good (fluffy pink teddy bear) triumphs over evil (puppet monster that mutilates other puppets). It was unexpected, and maybe a little refreshing. It felt good to see the plot sort itself out, and I had to admit that it seemed to fit with the lyrics of the song, which reference a revolution and reform- a new age or awakening (“I raise my flags … it’s a revolution I suppose” and “I’m waking up, I feel it in my bones … welcome to the New Age”).

As I looked back to analyze my response, I began to appreciate more what the music video had accomplished. The way the video had made me feel when it subverted all of my norms expectations and spun around in a completely different and unexpectedly positive direction (uncomfortable, confused, disapproving, even a little scared) mirrored the subject of the song itself: a revolution. The video had shaken me up, as revolution usually does, but had given an uplifting, positive message of new life, reform, transformation, and renewal in the end.

Reader-Response Applied Theory: His Dark Materials

His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman has been a subject of controversy since the first installment, the Golden Compass (US)/the Northern Lights (UK), was released. The trilogy becoming controversial originates from readers’ responses to the text that delves deeper into the questions of religion, good and evil deeper than most adult novels do.

Dogmatic Christian readers have been outspoken about the text as being anti-christian. Pullman is an outspoken British atheist, however their focus on its anti-christian nature makes them miss lots of the deeper themes and subtleties other readers find.

Lyra, as well as a compilation of the characters especially Lord Asriel, could be seen as the Antichrist as she basically undoes everything Pullman’s “God” has done. She is called by the Dust “Eve” in reference to Eve from the Garden of Eden who got humans kicked out of paradise. Lord Asriel as well, obviously, because of his dogmatic intention of killing “God”. These readers have reacted so strongly because against HDM because is penetrates into the fears of their psyche, that their faith/belief is not strong enough.

Personally, when I read HDM I didn’t see the whole anti-christian/anti-religious theme. Oh sure, I saw the Church and “God”. But did not see it at all the same way the previously discussed people did. I grew up in a primarily protestant home, my mother of eclectic religious interests yet still a self-identified Christian, while my father’s family were staunch Catholics (no divorce, fish is not a meat, if you are not a Catholic your soul is doomed. They did not approve of my lapping up The Da Vinci Code or HDM). Personally, I identify as agnostic given my own mistrust of organized religion and confusion about the existence of a higher being/power. Easy to see how my interpretation would be different than, oh, say my Catholic grandparents who would never read HDM. I saw the Church as the monster that organized religion can (some may say has) become, and the angel who calls himself “God” is a misconception of the Church’s thought of what is God. Because my thoughts go more toward higher existence, to me the Dust represented some level of a higher power, or divinity.

Here is a Reader-Response statement of what I got from the characterization of His Dark Materials:

I loved Will and Lyra, they were both characters I could personally identify with. Lyra is a pathological liar, usually when a character lies once I hate them but strangely it was part of Lyra’s appeal as a character. She’s a precocious little girl who runs wild and doesn’t let anyone or anything stop her. Her personality as a child was very similar as mine was – down to insisting on wearing dresses/skirts and not pants despite Will’s reasoning. Why? Because she’s a girl. Of course. Silly Will. Objectively, I shouldn’t like Lyra as much as I do; but my reading was far from objective. I responded emotionally (aesthetically) to both Will and Lyra as characters. The book wouldn’t mean much to me if I didn’t read it subjectively, if I didn’t react emotionally to the characters plight none of it would matter. The death of Roger, the betrayal of Lord Asriel, the separation of Lyra and her daemon/soul Pan would not be so important for my interpretation if they weren’t emotionally riveting. However I strongly disliked Lord Asriel because of he also lies, even though it is strangely one of the main points to which I like Lyra. I justify this reaction by seeing it as Lyra’s lies are not designed to be harmful whereas Lord Asriel recognizes their harm and does so anyways because he believes his thoughts are more important. To me this is a foil representing the thematic question throughout the trilogy questioning what is evil. Looking at Fisher, this likely because of a psychological defense triggered by the character’s effect on my psyche and was then fantasized and transformed into my interpretation – which I am acknowledging here because I realize the contradiction of my responses to these two characters.

I followed a list of steps taken directly from Tyson to guide me through making my statement:
1. What was my response to the text as a whole?
2. Identify various responses by aspects from text.
3. Determine why I had these responses.
Think about any themes prestructured in the text, psychological reader-response theory, or the influence of interpretive community, etc.

*note: this is not to be confused with the 2007 motion picture. The thematics were altered from religion to more of a “big brother” society vs. free will in an attempt to make it less controversial.

Amanda’s Reader-Response Analysis of “The Rainbow Fish”

I found reader-response theory to be one of the most interesting yet perplexing literary criticisms. The fact that a reader’s own, individual interpretation could have more credibility than authorial intention or the actual text on the page seemed almost sinful. However, this theory allows some flexibility in how one understands literature and texts. Taking this even further, Tyson states in her chapter that one’s analysis of the text is not the only aspect of reader-response criticism. After responding to a specific text, it is then the reader’s job to analyze their response. This analysis and re-analysis is then influenced by one’s interpretive community. Readers in the same interpretive community will approach literature in much the same way, using similar strategies and contexts to bring meaning to written works. For my applied theory post, I chose to analyze how two different interpretive communities bring meaning to the children’s book The Rainbow Fish by Marcus Pfister.

Below is a video of Ernst Borgnine reading the story. (It’s a little cheesy, but cute.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9mryuEKkKc[/youtube]

I analyzed The Rainbow Fish based on two different interpretive communities. The first community consists of young children, most likely between the ages of five and nine or ten. I will refer to this as the “child’s interpretation”. The second community consists of young adults, ranging from the ages of young teenagers to early twenties. I will refer to this as the “young adult interpretation”. Each group’s interpretation is vastly different because they each bring in unique strategies, experiences, and emotions to give meaning to the text.

Young children experience their world through an innocent lens. They are naïve to many pains and tragedies of life understood by adults, so when bringing meaning to certain texts they do not have many past experiences to relate that text to. As a child, when my parents read The Rainbow Fish to me I never perceived it as a deeply emotional novel. I could relate to the sadness of the rainbow fish or the jealousy of the other fish, but I did not see the story as having any strong implications towards my own life. In the simplest of forms, the short story taught me to share with others and be friendly and kind to all people. However, I probably would not have pulled that meaning out on my own without my parents to guide me through my understanding of the story. So in many ways, the “child’s interpretation” that I am referring to is greatly influenced by older, more experience individuals.

In contrast with the “child’s interpretation” is the “young adult” interpretation. Reading the story again, with many more years of experience since my childhood, I had a much different interpretation and a greater meaning. Events I experienced in middle school and high school suddenly came to mind as I reread the story of the rainbow fish. I was reminded of my own feelings of not fitting in and not being accepted by certain people or groups in my school. Drawing on the psychoanalytic branch of reader-response criticism, my interpretation of The Rainbow Fish became a means of coping with my own uncomfortable emotions. In a way, rereading the story was like a personal therapy session to release and understand my suppressed memories. On top of all this, the story was a great reminder to be kind to others, accepting of others, and generous with my gifts and talents. One thematic aspect that I did not pick up on as a child though was the rainbow fish’s happiness after sharing his sparkling scales with the other fish. This is proof of the stronger implications one can pick up on depending on past experience and context. A child would have great difficulty understanding that sharing and kindness can create an inward happiness, but as a young adult it is easy to understand because one has experienced this kind of event before.

In conclusion, each person or community of people brings a predisposed opinion of literature and their own strategies in creating meaning in literature. A child approaches The Rainbow Fish seeking a fun story that makes them smile and feel happy, while a young adult reads the story in context of their past or current experiences and then interprets based on how it relates to their individual context. Reader-response criticism allows both of these communities to hold a credible interpretation of the text and gives The Rainbow Fish a much greater influence.

Kelly’s Queer Reading of A Separate Peace.

A Separate Peace

A Separate Peace is a screen adaptation of John Knowles’s novel of the same name. THe book is told from the perspective of Gene Forrester, a roughly 17 year old boy during the time of World War II. He attends an all boys academy where most of the story is set. The main conflict centers around him and his best friend and roommate, Phineas, whom he greatly admires but ends up betraying. Through a queer reading it becomes apparent that the conflict arises from Gene’s repressed feelings for Phineas.

Phineas, also known as Finny, is the most popular guy in school. He’s described of having an easy going charisma that attracts everyone to him. Finny even charms his teachers to the point where it is almost impossible for him to get in trouble. This is most exemplified when he attends dinner with the principal of the school. Finny shows up to the dinner breaking dress code, specifically he wore a pink shirt. The pink shirt is both feminine and a sign of non-conformity, both of which are gay symbols. The shirt even becomes iconic with Finny because it was such a defining moment in the characterization of him. Gene responds to this situation with shock that Finny would where that but also with deep admiration that he had such courage.

A Separate Peace 2

 

The plot kicks off when Finny, Gene, and a few of their other friends go to the river. It is an honored past-time of their school to jump off of a really tall branch into the river. It is supposed to show how brave you are and is a very masculine activity. Finny suggests him and Gene go up together, which is a very feminine action. This scene is has a plethora of symbolism.There are the conflicting traits in Finny of masculine and feminine, there is the tree and the branch of the tree standing in as phallic symbols, and the river which is a yonic symbol. When they get to the top of the tree and are standing on the branch  Gene is so overcome with emotion that he jostles the branch, knocking Finny off. Finny lands on the bank of the river and breaks his leg. Gene interprets his feelings as jealousy but it is actually pent up love for Finny. Finny is the unattainable desire that is so close to him but is out of Gene’s reach. Gene essentially is sexually frustrated and act out aggressively to the person he blames for it.

Finny has to stay at home while he heals and while he is gone Gene becomes like a whole new person. With out the burden of Finny being a constant reminder to him of his sexual desire Gene is free to be the man he thinks he should be. He becomes more confident and happy. He takes Finny’s place as top dog on campus. His love for Finny is not gone though, which can be clearly seen by the way treats Finny’s belongings. There is once scene where Gene puts on Finny’s pink shirt and wheres it around his bedroom. Not only is it a very romantic idea to where someone else’s clothes but it happens to be a shirt that is in itself a gay symbol. Gene also only feels comfortable doing this behind closed doors where no one else can know.

The books ends with Finny coming back to school with a mostly healed leg. While there the other boys inform Finny about what actually happened on the branch. He had previously thought that it was an accident but when he finds out that his best friend seemingly knocked him off on purpose he becomes irate. He rushes out of the room and in his haste he trips down the stairs and in doing so breaks his leg again. The next morning the doctor informs Gene that during surgery Finny died when a piece of bone marrow got into his blood stream and traveled to his heart, stopping it completely. The symbolism of Finny’s death is apparent. He essentially died of a broken heart and Gene was the cause.

A Separate Peace may on the surface seem a novel about dealing with social power and learning what it means to be a man during such hectic times but when looked at deeper it is the story of young man dealing with his own internalized homophobia. Gene hates himself for the way he feels and so he takes out his anger on Finny.

Robert’s Marxist Analysis of Chumbawamba – She’s Got All The Friends That Money Can Buy

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byXI2sHTYug[/youtube]

This song, I find, is espousing a number of Marxist ideals. The chorus “She’s got all the friends that money can buy, she’s the apple of her Daddys eye” is referencing not only that a member of the Bourgeoisie more often than not has friends among the proletariat only because it allows those members of the proletariat to “get close” to that money , hence ” The family money has a magnetic pull”. It is also implied that this theoretical “She” has friends among the bourgeoisie only due to the fact that “she” is also a bourgeoisie, because as a human being her value in this case is dictated by her sign-exchange value.  The line about being the apple of her dad’s eye is also talking about her sign-exchange value that is, her father only values her for the increases in status she will grant him once she is married off to some one of even higher status within the bourgeoisie.

The line “And both her faces–so easy on the eye” is talking about how “she” wears two faces, presumably one for interacting with the proletariat to maintain her apparent connections there and the sign-exchange value that such interactions grant her. (Rather like Tom Buchannan in this way).  The other face she wears for interacting with her fellow bourgeoisie where she undoubtedly discusses her unrivaled contempt for the proletariat.

“Style has a price without much change … If you have to ask then it’s out of your range ” Is talking about the folly of consumerism. The latest style is the new hot thing that you must have! But it’s really no different than what preceded it. In addition the cost of acquiring this new style is irrelevant to the bourgeoisie.

“Well, you can buy your friends, but I’ll hate you for free Hate you for free” This line is speaking to the hatred the proletariat should be expressing towards the kind of bourgeoisie this song is talking about. Its placement late in the song is meant to bring the hatred that the proletariat has to a boil as they have had time to think of an example in their day to day life about the bourgeoisie that irritates them.

 

The end-cap on the song (that is only in the album version) refers to two other major Marxist elements.

“You see, it’s magic, and it shouldn’t work

I still look at it most surprised it does”
The magic referenced here is the illusion that by befriending the bourgeoisie a member of the proletariat can ascend to the bourgeoisie. The continual surprise is aimed at the proletariat that is still buying into the lies of the bourgeoisie that keep them in their current place; unwittingly supporting the bourgeoisie. The final lines ” Pass it along, pass it along ” Are asking the bourgeoisie in a tongue-in-cheek way to “pass along” their wealth to the masses because they are ” make[ing] too much money”.

Change to Applied Theory Post Assignment

Hey folks–

I am changing the TIME that the applied theory post will be due, starting this week.  Instead of being due before class on the assigned day/theory, the posts will be due no later than midnight on that day (that is, AFTER class if you wish to wait).