Post 4

“And, ma’am,” he continued, “the laundress tells me some of the girls have two clean tuckers in the week: it is too much; the rules limit them to one.” 

“Julia Severn, ma’am! And why has she, or any other, curled hair? Why, in defiance of every precept and principle of this house, does she conform to the world so openly—here in an evangelical, charitable establishment—as to wear her hair one mass of curls?” 

“Naturally! Yes, but we are not to conform to nature; I wish these girls to be the children of Grace: and why that abundance? I have again and again intimated that I desire the hair to be arranged closely, modestly, plainly. Miss Temple, that girl’s hair must be cut off entirely; I will send a barber to-morrow.”

“(T)hree other visitors, ladies, now entered the room. They ought to have come a little sooner to have heard his lecture on dress, for they were splendidly attired in velvet, silk, and furs. The two younger of the trio (fine girls of sixteen and seventeen) had grey beaver hats, then in fashion, shaded with ostrich plumes, and from under the brim of this graceful head-dress fell a profusion of light tresses, elaborately curled; the elder lady was enveloped in a costly velvet shawl, trimmed with ermine, and she wore a false front of French curls.”

(Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë)

Analyze the author’s use of irony in describing Mr. Brocklehurst’s family in the second passage. How does the author contrast this description with Mr. Brocklehurst’s lecture to Miss Temple to provide social commentary on perceptions of class during this time?

This passage is notably ironic because prior to when Mr. Brocklehurst's family entered the church, he is lecturing Miss Temple on how people should dress not only in church, but in life as to show one's devotion to God. He notes that the young girls do not need large meals or more than one clean tucker a week. He thinks they much be dressed modestly as to not show gluttony and so they can focus on what is important:  God. However, the irony lies in the fact that his own family does not follow this crucial sentiment. As his children were adorned in "velvet, silk, and furs." Mr. Brocklehurst claims that he is dedicated to his religion and praises God, and to do this one must not live in abundance. But the author shows that he follow his own beliefs as she describes his family as being attired in the fanciest of expensive clothing, which leads the audience to believe that this must be how they live all the time.

This contrast between the description of Mr. Brocklehurst's family and his lecture of the dress code to Miss Temple provides a social commentary of the perceptions of class during this time. From Mr. Brocklehurst's hypocritical expectations of a Christian follower, it is reflected that he is attempting to note that the higher class holds more importance over the lower class since it is apparent that he does not necessarily hold his family at the same standards as he does with the orphanage children. It is possible that he almost expects God to value him more because of the social standing he has. Brontë is showing that she believes that the higher class is privileged, but this doesn't mean that they are automatically closer to God. The higher class may use religion to convince themselves that they are good people, even though they don't necessarily follow the word of God how they expect others to.

Based on this passage, I believe that Brontë may also be commenting on the power that the higher classes display over the lower class. She wants the audience to understand how selfish the higher class with all the excess they have, while at the same time the lower class has so little. But through this passage, it shows that the higher class prefers that they lower class stays at the bottom with little possessions, as Mr. Brocklehurst tells Miss Temple that "the rules [of which he made] limit [the orphans]" to one" tucker each. The upper class is portrayed as unkind and arrogant while the lower class is shown as being victims being mistreated by the higher class who get to dictate how they live their lives. It can be assumed that Brontë acknowledged the power differences between the two classes and felt that the upper class utilized their position in organizations such as businesses and the Christian church to exert their power over the poor social groups.

Post 3

Lust and gluttony, the two deadly sins that Pope Gregory categorizes as the least deadly of the seven. But that doesn't stop the media from filling their ads and commercials with these immoralities, maybe it is because they are truly irresistible to the human psyche.

https://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/prints-outdoor/harvey-nichols-gluttony-7153905/

This photograph is for the Harvey Nichols Company, taken by Tim-Bret Day with the Tribal London agency. It was released in March of 2005 with the place of publication being the United Kingdom.

At first sight, I see a red carpeted room with white walls, filled with tables with crisp white table cloths and sleek white chairs. Though the tables are piled with various fruit, most of them red, like strawberries, cranberries, and watermelon. There are beautiful women all throughout the shot, dressed in elegant gowns. There is one woman at the foreground looking seductively at the camera, while the others seem to not notice the camera and are engaged in their own activities like pouring champagne on another woman, eating fruit, sneaking marshmallows under the table, or sipping champagne. These women are covered in the mess of the excess of fruit, but still are pristine looking, their hair perfectly in line, their makeup without any smudges. In the bottom right corner of the ad, an emblem of the company, Harvey Nichols, a chain dedicated to the luxury lifestyle, specializing in designer fashion, beauty, food, and wine; all things shown throughout the ad.

Two colors that stand out in this photograph are white and red. The white of the tables and chairs may represent the perfection of the lavish lifestyle that the people shown in the ad lead, this is a contrast from the red in the carpet, fruit, and dresses. While white shows purity and cleanliness, red shows emotionally intensity, it can represent power, strength, energy, lust, and love. With the red aspects of the picture disrupting the white it is showing that the lavish lifestyle is one that praises indulgence over innocence and chastity. Buying products from this company will make people jealous of your extravagant life. The extreme excess of food, and wastefulness of the champagne shows gluttony and makes it appealing to the audience since it represents wealth and a life without struggle. It may also allude to art of the renaissance period where there are dozens of painting of women lying on a sofa, draped in red cloth, being fanned and fed grapes. This period is one that is enthusiastic toward the finer things in life, things appreciated by the higher classes. Also, by placing a woman at the foreground, staring straight into the camera, and thus looking into the eyes of the intended audience, she becomes sexually explicit, showing the desire and craving for eroticism. Finally, by not having the company's symbol by the main focus of the ad, it is showing that this company is far too fancy to have to scream their name in order to get business. They are far too refined to have to beg for customers, making their products for desirable for the wealthy viewer. Overall, this ad persuades the audience to buy from the Harvey Nichols company which would allow them to partake in this lustful way of life where you have all your needs and wants in excessive amounts.

Harvey Nichols is a company centralized in the United Kingdom, so first off, the intended audience will geographically reside in this area. Also, since it is a company known for being focused in high-end brand name products, I believe the intended audience of this ad are the people that seek this luxurious lifestyle. These will most likely be people that are higher on the socioeconomic scale, with them belonging in social groups that often join together for extravagant parties where the atmosphere is extremely fancy and echoes praise of having excess. This is all part of "rich culture," something the intended audience of the ad would be very familiar with. The creator of the ad took the broad knowledge of what the extravagant parties are like that rich people may attend and hyperbolized the event to make it even more appealing and lavish. Looking further, because the ad only depicts gorgeous seductive women, it can be assumed that the ad is specifically trying to appeal to rich men, knowing that they would be more likely to splurge with their money at the sight of the ad. Based off these stereotypes of people that have more money and can afford things from this company, the ad utilizes the aspect of beauty and having more than enough for themselves, things that the creator of the ad assumes rich people take pride in.

Post 2

For most of my life, adolescence and on, I have tried to explore the meaning and origin of my last name:  Cavalchire. It is quite obvious that this is an extremely rare name. All my family is sure of is that it is of Italian origin. Us Cavalchire's, we're an elite group, there are not many of us, which makes it even harder to determine the history behind our name and behind the existence of our entire family. We've determined that when our family arrived at Ellis Island from Italy that our last name was written down incorrectly, which was surprisingly a common occurrence due to the amount of immigrants coming in and the existing language barrier. It is debated in our family that our true last name could Cavalcare or something of the sorts. I've always been jealous of people that have a definite last name that can easily trace back to ancestors. But either way, we are Cavalchire's and that is how we've made ourselves known here in America. The constant mispronunciations and misspellings are something we are used to and appreciate because of the times it has made us laugh, Though I can't stop my dad from joking that he is going to change our last name to Smith to avoid any future misunderstanding.

My last name strongly defines me because I align myself so closely with my Italian heritage. I love my name so deeply that I have already decided that if I am to marry, I will retain my current last name. I am also the youngest and last Cavalchire and I want to preserve the family line. I'm a Cavalchire and I always will be. It's not something I would give up without a fight. I do recognize that this feeling may change once I reach that point in my life, but for now, I find importance in maintaining my given name. Though I feel that the tradition of a woman adopting her husband's name, originated out of the overwhelming power that men felt they had over women and their intent on preserving the "more important" history of their family, I definitely think people's reasoning has veered far away from this and I do not judge anyone that chooses to adopt a new name at marriage. Today, I see a woman adopting her husband's last name as a way to preserve a joint family history that is important to them, while creating a unified group.

After reading Anna Quindlen's article, I too, notice the two me's that I show at different times. I'd hate to say that children of divorce don't face their fair share of hardships, because we for sure deal with plenty. But if we are being honest, being a child of divorce comes with perks, after the emotional turmoil part is over at least. For me, many times I feel like I have two separate families:  the one that consists of my mother and I and the one that is my father and I. Though because my mother kept my father's last name, and mine, after her divorce, sometimes we are mistaken as a generic nuclear family.

But even bigger than that, I feel that I am stuck between the me that hates the fact that I come from a divorced family because of the struggles it brings me and the me that acknowledges the benefits it brings me and the lessons it has taught me. When people learn that I come from divorced parents, their is the initial respect that they have for me because many people realize that it is difficult growing up in a split family, especially due to financial issues and the continuous fights that many of us had to suffer through. But I can also start to explain to them what having divorce parents has taught me and the good things it has brought me. With parents that were constantly fighting, even after their divorced, I now know that before a big decision, like marriage, is made, it has to be significantly thought out beforehand since I would never want it to negatively affect people like my parents' divorce has done. I also have a new found respect for couples that are effective in calmly discussing their issues and concerns instead of resorting to fighting.

In different circumstances, I notice myself either showing more of the positive side of being a child of divorce or the opposite. I can't determine whether this is a good or bad thing and if I should attempt to most often paint the full picture.