well well well

I've been working on everything but my draft.

But, it's okay, because i've finished writing study notes for my three biggest topics, I'm half way through extension notes and half way through art notes.

I'll be posting a (hopefully) finished, dodgey, awful and horrible essay for you all to help me improve. Excellent.

So i wrote some more

and I feel it makes very little sense but who cares!

Enjoy reading!

As historians, the simple desire of an ‘inquiry’ into the past has always been a driving force behind the recording and presentation of history. This presentation of the past however, has been refashioned over generations and influenced highly by predeceasing historians, the historian’s personal context and the complex cultural and sociological impact placed upon the historian.

Acknowledging this, one must ask if in our rapidly developed, technological society, can film be seen as a valid way of presenting the past? In order to answer this question a series of smaller questions must be taken into consideration, regarding accuracy of the history being told, audience perception, motivation behind the creation of the movie, the influence of context, and of course why film should or should not be seen as a valid way of preserving the past.

Why is any of this of importance? It is in my opinion the relationship between history and film should be of concern to those who hold the preservation of history n their best interest, due to the fact that film is, one of the most accessible media that a majority of people have. If you consider the power film as to persuade, argue, expose and vilify, you can imagine the impact of presenting history in a manner that, when placed in a mostly realistic visual and oral way, audiences will be under the power of the sensationalist views of Hollywood totalitarianism grasp.

If we think about the film industry, we are considering a multi-billion dollar corporate machine, functioning purely on the use of film as a profitable endeavor. Its motive of profit is achieved through creating an entertaining outlet for the consumer audience to buy into. One can argue despite historical themes and ideas within, a film is just trying entertain an audience rather than convey the most accurate truth of history possible. A prime example of a film based on history is the move 300, directed by Zack Snyder. The film, based upon a graphic novel, is the retelling of the Spartan-Persian battle at Thermopylae 486 AD. As Herodotus tells us about the event, [insert Herodotus quote]
The history’s written by ancient writers such as Herodotus can be arduous to read, often confusing, fragmented and long-winded. Not quite average reading material for the general public, is it? However, when film comes into play, creative license allows for the story to become more fanciful, with all the elements most appealing to a modern audience such as bravery, gore, a highly emotional plot and of course, the small elements of romance, making the film even more tragic than before. This film even goes further, of course, including ogres-esque creatures, clawed beasts and portrays the Ephors as half human monsters who take care of a young, convulsing oracle.


[there will be more essay here and I’ll probably finish and conclude after this paragraph]

One important aspect of film as a historical source is how we perceive the films value. Do we take into consideration the traditional view of films being created solely for entertainment purposes, or do we approach this study with the idea of films holding mostly truths with a few inaccuracies. Furthermore, do we just assume films are mostly fictions with a few granules of factual information or do we simply trust in the statement that films are nothing more than a story based on historical events? In order to assess the value of
Cinematic productions as valid historical sources we must take into consideration the different ways we can approach these texts.

Introduction

I know it's short but it's a start! I'm currently answering my first question about perspective.

You know,
Perspective
- Film is entertainment so it doesn’t matter if its right or wrong
- Film can have grains of truth but is mostly wrong
- Films can be quite accurate with a few mistakes.
- Films aren’t records of history- they’re just based on history

Anywho, here we go!




As historians, the simple desire of an ‘inquiry’ into the past has always been a driving force behind the recording and presentation of history. This presentation of the past however, has been refashioned over generations and influenced highly by predeceasing historians, the historian’s personal context and the complex cultural and sociological impact placed upon the historian.

Acknowledging this, one must ask if in our rapidly developed, technological society, can film be seen as a valid historical source? In order to answer this question a series of smaller questions must be taken into consideration, regarding accuracy of the history being told, audience perception and motivation behind the creation of the movie.

Before addressing these issues however, one important aspect of film as a historical source is how we perceive the films value. Do we take into consideration the traditional view of films being created solely for entertainment purposes, or do we approach this study with the idea of films holding mostly truths with a few inaccuracies. Furthermore, do we just assume films are mostly fictions with a few granules of factual information or do we simply trust in the statement that films are nothing more than a story based on historical events? In order to assess the value of
Cinematic productions as valid historical sources we must take into consideration the different ways we can approach these texts.



NOTE: With this last paragraph, those ideas of how to perceive history are derived from a text I'm using (Lessons from the Reel Life: Movies, Meaning and Myth-Making by Michael Frost and Robert Banks) and I'm not sure how I should go about referencing this, as I haven't directly quoted anything, i've just derived these questions from the discussions in the book about how to approach studying film.

Do I reference the pages that I got the ideas from? Or do I just reference the start of the chapter about historical films?

I referenced it like this: Michael Frost and Robert Banks, "Personal History- Life is Beautiful and the Interplay between Memory and Fable", Lessons from Reel Life: Movies, Meaning and Myth-Making (April 2001): pp 159-165

The pages span so largely because even though the chapter later on focuses solely on Life is Beautiful, for the first six pages it just discusses generally how we can perceive history and therefor what judgements will be made.

So today the tiny librarian lady gave me these three books

and they were called called

1) Lessons from Reel Life: Movies, Meaning and Myth-Making by Michael Frost and Robert Banks
2) Flicks: Studying Film as a Text by Dinah Partridge and Peter Hughes
3) An Introduction to Film Studies: Second Edition (edited by Jill Neimes)



...I wanted to cry after reading the chapters relevant to my new question. Why? Because these books are my holy grail.

Heres some stuff I wrote down today after sifting through these books :



Should movies be considered valid historical sources?

Perspective
- Film is entertainment so it doesn’t matter if its right or wrong
- Film can have grains of truth but is mostly wrong
- Films can be quite accurate with a few mistakes.
- Films aren’t records of history- they’re just based on history

Distortion of events
- Cinematic techniques and creative licence
- Accidental distortion- the watch incident in ben hurr durr a derp derpity derp.
- The confusion of eras
- Applying modern standards upon the past
- Director, actor and audience reception of the actual event.
- Historical fictions → Stories based in the past that never happened.

Motivation behind movies
- Money
- Fame
- Awards / acclamation
- Entertainment
- To tell a story???
-

Accuracy/ Inaccuracy
- Does it matter? (discuss if it matters within history anyway- post modern support, YEAH !)
- Films are designed primarily to be entertaining, so should this detract from inaccuracy?
- The idea of history as a story is raised once more as films closely relate to history’s written by Thucydides and Taticus
- The idea that history within films may not be 100 % factual, but they can capture the spirit of the time and moment.
- “Don’t let the truth get in the way of a true story”
- Address the idea that film isn’t mean to be factual and it doesn’t claim to be factual.
→ historical fiction?
- There is so such thing as bare facts in history anyway- historians pick and choose and so do films.

List of films to use as examples

• Ben Hur
• 300
• Gladiator
• Frost v Nixon
• Robin Hood
• Saving Private Ryan
• Black Hawk Down (?)
• Coco (the history of Coco Chanel)
• That Johnny Depp movie about John Dillinger
• Sophie’s choice (Almost like an annalist view of history)

Starting work this weekend!!

As you may or may not recall, a few posts ago I set myself my question (Evaluate Frost/Nixon's value as a historical source) and I provided myself with six different debates I will discuss within my essay. I've decided the most productive way to go about writing this essay is to answer and discuss the questions, then put them in essay formatting once I'm finished. This will also allow me to gather evidence to support my argument in question.

So after leafing through my questions I think the most sensible two to start with are
Why should/shouldn't films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?

and

Is it important if films get it right?


With these two questions following my introduction, I'll have the chance to non-specifically discuss film and they're treatment of history, and begin to incorporate Frost/Nixon as my main example. I have been considering, however, discussing this topic more broadly and using a variety of historical films and their inconsistencies rather than just the one. I'm not sure about this though.

I'll be missing extension history on Thursday

Sorry about that, I was hit by a bus.
I will however, be watching frost / nixon tirelessly until my return on monday :)

>.>

Working full time. My brain kind of shat itself for lack of a better word.
Starting study notes today, I'll get back to posting my progress with the movie once the show is over. Hope everyone had a good easter and is making better progress than I.

:)

Reading

Frost / Nixon the book by Frost himself - quite snide and humorous, features transcripts I can compare to the movie.

Nixon's autobiography - boring. I hate it. I'm only reading watergate / resignation / media related pieces. It's the biggest tool of propaganda in Nixon's favour.

Can't get my hands on all the presidents men book though, which will be good to get once I can get to St Mary's Library.

Proposal Task- Final Result

So I didn't ask for criticism, instead sent this to Mr. Wright himself and got my mother (a teacher) to proof read. There isn't a conclusion and I'm currently to tired to try and cut down my word count to allow for one.

2/5 marks, here I come! Yay! ¬.¬


-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

Description of Preliminary Research

Initially terrified and thrilled at the idea of an individual research into any topic of my choice in history, I sifted through every piece of history I’d ever found interesting. For the first term or so, I wasted very little time on the topic of The Holocaust deniers and wasted too much time on the topic of Vampirism in folklore before deciding both were far too narrow to write about, nor did they interest me that much.

So, I got back on track the only way I know how: watching television. The History Chanel, to be exact. Moving into the realms of Modern History, I was fascinated by the scandal of Watergate, and the involvement of Richard M. Nixon. I began to explore the Internet as a springboard for further research, finding a site dedicated purely to the Presidency of Nixon, the Watergate scandal and his resignation. From this I also came across multiple resources (including online books, docos and movies) about the Watergate scandal. The one that particularly caught my eye was the use of film as a historical recollection. After discussions with Mr Wright, I chose to watch and explore how the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men dealt with Watergate, and how they could be assessed as history in film. I decided to explore under the project type “History in the Media- Film”

I came to my final essay question of “Assess the historical value of the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men as historical sources” From this I found myself questioning a few aspects of using film as history. Things like “Is it important if the film gets history right?” and “Are the audiences perceptions of the film important” and lastly “Why should/shouldn’t films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?”

Though far from finished in this topic, I’m pleased with the progress I’ve made already. However, I need to acquire a book called The Contemporary History Handbook by Brian Brivati, Julia Buxtun and Anthony Seldon, in which a whole chapter of assesses how to use films as a historical source. I’ll also need to analyse the films further in comparison to things like the Frost/Nixon interview transcript compared with the dialogue in the film’s interview, or read auto/biographies of the men involved at the Washington Post at the time of the scandal. I’ll also need to answer questions on reliability and eventually assess the value of the films, even compare them to other historical sources and weigh up their value as historical material. Further reading into memoirs of Frost, Nixon, Bernstein and Woodward will also be useful in my assessments of the films, as a contrast between personal recollection and what changes the directors may have made. Despite my project being initially “History in the Media” I’ll also be looking into other project types inadvertently as this project progresses, I’m sure.

Questions, websites and a bunch of other things.

So, I have a few questions using film as a historical text, and figured I may as well post them here.
PART ONE OF BLOG.
THE QUESTIONS.

1) Is it important if the film gets history right?
To explore this I'll try to acquire transcripts of the Frost/Nixon interview to see whether lines have been added for dramatic effect.
Similarly I'll try to explore the situation the Washington Post was actually in when reporting on the Watergate Scandal.

2) Are the audiences perceptions of the film important?
Ie. If the audience watch the film and takes it LITERALLY as what happened, is that really an issue?
Furthermore, is it any different to reading a bias piece of literature?

3) Can it be argued that the films are really a product of the directors own personal context?
Adding to this, can it be argued that the films are also a reflection of the social context they were created for?

4) Is the portrayal of the media as heroic, brave and truth seeking entirely accurate? Should we question this portrayal?

5) Is the directors manipulation of audience's emotions through various techniques create an unfair image of the historical issue? Does it detract from it's value as a historical source?

6) Why should / shouldn't films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?


So, they're some of the questions I'm hoping to include later on in my essay. Anyone has any other suggestions, feel FREE to offer them up :)


PART TWO OF BLOG
WEBSITES

Okay so Google books has offered me up this delicious little gem, known under the title The contemporary history handbook By Brian Brivati, Julia Buxton and Anthony Seldon. As per usual though, google censors most of the frigging chapter from me, NOT TO MENTION A PAGE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FEW PAGES THEY ALLOW FOR READING. I HATE YOU GOOGLE BOOKS.

The only useful bits are from page 394 down, I might look into a purchase of this book for referencing and for answers to the questions I pose above.

I did a library search on some online website to see if anywhere had it. Results came out as "Sorry, we cannot find libraries in Australia that have this item.
The nearest locations with libraries that have the item include:
Germany"

I hate you internet. I really do.

link:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rmO7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq=film+as+a+historical+source&source=bl&ots=7K_52JTA8v&sig=Pw8janKUFdRPfZtnF9CfYNo5on8&hl=en&ei=QVuPS5faJZHutQPXk7DbCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=film%20as%20a%20historical%20source&f=false




Also, this website is amazing. Like, woah. Way to do all my questioning about the historical value of films for me. If i cite this, basically all I'll be doing is justifying these things through the examples of the two movies. AWESOME.

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/thinkingabouthistoricalfilm.html



Well, after this I'll post a seperate blog about the contexts of the two films, both within the film, around the time of the films production and the directors own personal context.

I'll also include some background information on the directors which may include some insight into the portrayal of Watergate and Nixon's involvement.




OH OH OH, and I'm thinking that all this research is leading to A NEW QUESTION.
DAA DAAA DAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

"Assess the historical value of the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men as historical sources."
OR
"Evaluate the historical value of the films F/N and ATPM in their treatment of the Watergate Scandal."

Perhaps? Yes ? No?

2/3 movies I'm analysing I'll need to order in, unless someone owns them and wants to lend them to me.

Hope I didn't miss too much Thursday, had all the symptoms of death and thought I'd go to the doctors.

The Events of Watergate

So here's a neat little time line I found of watergate at http://www.watergate.info/burglary/
The site is SO helpful in providing information as a background to Nixon resignation.
I've decided having a good background knowledge about Nixon will be important because to assess the ways the films handle his resignation and the events that caused it will need a comparison to a non-hollywood influenced source of information which will explain the events as best they can.

I'm thinking that a composite from a multitude of non-fiction books, biographies and possibly even Nixon's autobiography would be a good place to start compiling the facts, in order to have a strong suit to compare with the films.

From this though I've also been thinking about looking at the films. When comparing them to each other and to the real story of Nixon's resignation, I'll have to explore the emotional response they're attemping to revoke. When doing this background information won't exactly prove my point, but perhaps references to the films audience, director and the context under which the film was made is more information I need to look into.

Until next time (Meaning later today, I'm going to be posting a lot !)
Alex

-x-

Brief Timeline of Events

1968
November 1968: Richard Milhous Nixon, the 55-year-old former vice president who lost the presidency for the Republicans in 1960, reclaims it by defeating Hubert Humphrey in one of the closest elections in U.S. history.


1970
July 23, 1970: Nixon approves a plan for greatly expanding domestic intelligence-gathering by the FBI, CIA and other agencies. He has second thoughts a few days later and rescinds his approval.


1971
June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins publishing the Pentagon Papers -- the Defense Department's secret history of the Vietnam War. The Washington Post will begin publishing the papers later in the week.
September 9, 1971: The White House "plumbers" unit - named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration - burglarizes a psychiatrist's office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.



1972

June 17, 1972: Five men, one of whom says he used to work for the CIA, are arrested at 2:30 a.m. trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex.

June 19, 1972: A GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, The Washington Post reports. Former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation.

August 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier's check, apparently earmarked for the Nixon campaign, wound up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar, The Washington Post reports.

September 29, 1972: John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the Democrats, The Post reports.

October 10, 1972: FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection effort, The Post reports.

November 11, 1972: Nixon is reelected in one of the largest landslides in American political history, taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee, Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota.


1973

January 30, 1973: Former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. are convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Five other men plead guilty, but mysteries remain.

April 30, 1973: Nixon's top White House staffers, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resign over the scandal. White House counsel John Dean is fired.

May 18, 1973: The Senate Watergate committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson taps former solicitor general Archibald Cox as the Justice Department's special prosecutor for Watergate.

June 3, 1973: John Dean has told Watergate investigators that he discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon at least 35 times, The Post reports.

June 13, 1973: Watergate prosecutors find a memo addressed to John Ehrlichman describing in detail the plans to burglarize
the office of Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, The Post reports.

July 13, 1973: Alexander Butterfield, former presidential appointments secretary, reveals in congressional testimony that since 1971 Nixon had recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his offices.

July 18, 1973: Nixon reportedly orders the White House taping system disconnected.

July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over the presidential tape recordings to the Senate Watergate committee or the special prosecutor.

October 20, 1973: Saturday Night Massacre: Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus resign. Pressure for impeachment mounts in Congress.

November 17, 1973: Nixon declares, "I'm not a crook," maintaining his innocence in the Watergate case.

December 7, 1973: The White House can't explain an 18 1/2 -minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes. Chief of staff Alexander Haig says one theory is that "some sinister force" erased the segment.


1974

April 30, 1974: The White House releases more than 1,200 pages of edited transcripts of the Nixon tapes to the House Judiciary Committee, but the committee insists that the tapes themselves must be turned over.

July 24, 1974: The Supreme Court rules unanimously that Nixon must turn over the tape recordings of 64 White House conversations, rejecting the president's claims of executive privilege.

July 27, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.

August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. president to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford assumes the country's highest office. He will later pardon Nixon of all charges related to the Watergate case.

"Evaluate the historical value of three films treatment of the end of Nixon's Presidency."

I like it, thanks for the suggestion Mr Wright!

This weekend I'm going to be at the state library researching what ACTUALLY happened, (even though I have a pretty good knowledge that leads me to understand Nixon was in the same sort of league as Mao in my books), giving what reliable information I can to set the situation of the real event. Then I'll compare them to All The Presidents Men, Frost/Nixon and the movie Nixon (the semi-biographical one, still more of a movie that it is factual)


Few questions though:

- When I'm doing this though, should I be putting the directors into their own context? ie. What age / situation they were in during his resignation, their political views or any other factor that might change the portrayal of the end of his presidency?

- Should I also include things like dramatic techniques which may exaggerate tension or heightened emotions for commercial purposes?

- As for the actual film themselves should I look into how realistic and accurate they are as opposed to how much Hollywood has polarised them in order to make a major film ?

- Maybe a small delve into human emotions? Perhaps things like conflicting emotion about Nixon in the movies (Like Nixon/Front) where the director attempts to create sympathy for the situation of Nixon, portraying him as the 'broken, lost, lonely man who made a lot of mistakes which cost him his life" type person. This, I suppose, is an interesting thing to assess, whether this spin on the character comes from the Director (Ron Howard) own personal context or whether it was just employed to make Frost/Nixon a good film. Perhaps it is the loathing you feel suddenly challenged by the directors appeal to look at Nixon in a sympathetic light after all the atrocious things he did is a good thing to evaluate and assess

- When I go about writing my Proposal and eventually my practise essay, should I be assessing the film based not only on historical values but on influences from Hollywood, Target Audience and the Directors personal Context?

- HISTORICAL VALUE: Are we talking how accurate? Once again, are we addressing how the influences previously mentioned affect this?

-Should I perhaps look at the film from differing perspectives? I'm not quite sure if this will work, I'm just thinking that by using broader scope such as this I'll be displaying strong analytical abilites.

If anyone (and I really mean, anyone) wants to discuss, answer or tell me I've written something useless up here, PLEASE TELL ME! This stuffs going to help me with my proposal, and I'd love feed back!

PROPOSAL QUESTION TIMEEEE !

How exciting, I finally hit a spring of inspiration.

IDEA ONE:

How has the Presidency of Richard Nixon and the Events that followed influenced modern pop culture?

IDEA TWO:

Were the values of the American Constitution and Democratic system devalued by the presidency of Richard Nixon?

Comments? Suggestions?

So I rented Frost/Nixon and The Assassination of Richard Nixon.. Nixon

I have no idea about the latter, but my essay will be on the influence of Watergate on popular culture. Obviously the scandal was big enough to have three movies made about Nixon and his involvement (Predominately Frost/Nixon) but it also allowed for other stories surrounding the scandal to emerge,


BlahBlah, still no question to write about, I have however come across some delicious recipes for flour-free cake.



Also, I rented public enemies. It's not as good as I expected, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it.

So after a complete emotional melt down this after noon, I've decided the easiest thing to do is a topic with conflicting evidence. Right?

Whatever.

Watergate scandal. Thoughts? Better? Worse?

i seriously hate all forms of major works right now, they're sending me insane.

I have made

No progress since my last post.

Success! No, wait.. it's not.
Whatever.

Anyone want to hit up state library wednesday?

Question for Extension History

My focus question for this course will be developed from the topic of Oral History with components of History in the Media, as I'll be exploring not only oral myths and legends, but how they were portrayed over time in films, novels, poetry and art.

My question:

How has the image of the Vampire expressed in oral history and folklore transformed into the image we perceive through Modern medias? How does this change of image reflect the society of the time?



*awaits puns nervously*

Vlad the Impaler

As a few of the Extension English people know, one of the most commonly known images and ideas surrounding vampires comes from Bram Stokers Dracula, arguably one of the most well renowned novels about vampires. The nature of this story does hold some historical significance however.


Introduction

Most authorities believe the character of Dracula in Bram Stoker’s novel was based upon the historical figure Vlad Tepes (pronounced tse-pesh), who intermittently ruled an area of the Balkans called Wallachia in the mid 15th century. He was also called by the names Vlad III, Vlad Dracula and Vlad the Impaler. The word Tepes stands for "impaler" and was so coined because of Vlad’s propensity to punish victims by impaling them on stakes, then displaying them publicly to frighten his enemies and to warn would-be transgressors of his strict moral code. He is credited with killing between 40,000 to 100,000 people in this fashion.
Origin of the name "Dracula"

King Sigismund of Hungary, who became the Holy Roman Emperor in 1410, founded a secret fraternal order of knights called the Order of the Dragon to uphold Christianity and defend the Empire against the Ottoman Turks. Its emblem was a dragon, wings extended, hanging on a cross. Vlad III’s father (Vlad II) was admitted to the Order around 1431 because of his bravery in fighting the Turks. From 1431 onward Vlad II wore the emblem of the order and later, as ruler of Wallachia, his coinage bore the dragon symbol.

The word for dragon in Romanian is "drac" and "ul" is the definitive article. Vlad III’s father thus came to be known as "Vlad Dracul," or "Vlad the dragon." In Romanian the ending "ulea" means "the son of". Under this interpretation, Vlad III thus became Vlad Dracula, or "the son of the dragon." (The word "drac" also means "devil" in Romanian. The sobriquet thus took on a double meaning for enemies of Vlad Tepes and his father.)*


-x-

* http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm

Vampirism is a disease?

So speaking in general terms, vampirism was something passed from vampire to human either through a bite, or through the humans consumption of vampire blood. However in more modern times, we can see the influence of science coming in on this myth through the V5 virus.

== Virus ==

A possible medical explanation for the physiological differences between vampires and humans comes in the form of a virus called V5 ("Vee Five"), not to be mistaken for HIV5. "Viral vampires," as they are called, have been known to experience anemia, increased night vision or sensitivity to light, a stronger immune system or slowed aging process, and in some cases, more acute psychic capabilities. This would explain the propagation of much vampire folklore.

V5 can be passed on to a child via the mother, or from an exchange with an infected person, much like HIV or the flu. The virus alters the recipient's DNA, but theoretically, he or she must have an ideal blood chemistry and relatively weak immune system to allow the change.*

Ah, is that so? So vampirism is something similar to a cold? No blood sucking, no brides and sons of satan running around slaughtering the innocent? You may be thinking this is far fetched... You are most certainly right. It's a fake. the V5 virus is NOT a form of human evolution, it holds no links to turning a human into a vampire and most likely the disease itself doesn't exist. Still interesting how in medieval times the vampire myth was promoted so the churches could keep control of people and the hierarchy influenced how the folklore was told, as todays society has used science to try and promote the phenomnia as real.




-x-
* http://www.helium.com/items/675909-the-lifestyle-choice-of-being-a-vampire
http://www.sodahead.com/living/v5-virus-do-you-belive-in-it/blog-123429/

Books Books Books

I'll be hitting up the library soon, not sure how much information I'll find on vampirism.

Apparently though, this is an amazing book.. worth getting??

http://www.amazon.com/Vampires-Vampirism-Montague-Summers/dp/0486439968/ref=pd_sim_b_4

I'm never going to Romania.

Romania
Romanian vampires were known as moroi (from a Slavic word meaning "nightmare") and strigoi, with the latter classified as either living or dead. Live strigoi were described as living witches with two hearts or souls, sometimes both.[40] Strigoi were said to have the ability to send out their souls at night to meet with other strigoi and consume the blood of livestock and neighbours. Similarly, dead strigoi were described as reanimated corpses that also sucked blood and attacked their living family. Live strigoi became revenants after their death, but there were also many other ways of a person becoming a vampire. A person born with a caul, an extra nipple, a tail, or extra hair[41] was doomed to become a vampire. The same fate applied to the seventh child in any family if all of his or her previous siblings were of the same sex, as well as someone born too early or someone whose mother had encountered a black cat crossing her path. If a pregnant woman did not eat salt or was looked upon by a vampire or a witch, her child would also become a vampire. So too would a child born out of wedlock, although many of these superstitions rose from the clergy in order to keep their subjects compliant. Others who were at risk of becoming vampires were those who died an unnatural death or before baptism. Finally, a person with red hair and blue eyes was seen as a potential strigoi.

Well, theres one holiday destination I can strike off my list.

oooh, vampires everywhere :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_folklore_by_region

The folklore extends SO BROADLY across the ancient world, however what I've learnt is that the modern vampire is based upon early 18th century conceptions from Southeast Europe.

Ancient beliefs

Tales of the undead consuming the blood or flesh of living beings have been found in nearly every culture around the world for many centuries.[3] Today we know these entities predominantly as vampires, but in ancient times, the term vampire did not exist; blood drinking and similar activities were attributed to demons or spirits who would eat flesh and drink blood; even the devil was considered synonymous with the vampire.[4] Almost every nation has associated blood drinking with some kind of revenant or demon, from the ghouls of Arabia to the goddess Sekhmet of Egypt. Indeed, some of these legends could have given rise to the Eastern European folklore, though they are not strictly considered vampires by historians when using today's definitions.[5][6]

In my assessment I'm not sure how many cultures I should delve into for the comparative study. I want to be able to display some similarities of where the vampire myth we know today originates from, and some differences and why they might have come about.

The Evolution of the Vampire

My confirmed topic choice, I'm so excited! So many instances over time has the image of the vampire been used in literary forms to convey different social standards and images !

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/vampires_movies/60392

This website is an awful good read, exactly what I wanted. It also touches on ancient perceptions of vampires based on the culture the folklore came from, like Malaysia verses northern Europe. It also explores the vampires appearance in film and book much more extensively than the concept of the vampire itself, which can prove to be very helpful.

I'm thinking for printing out my blog, I'll print out the articles as well, I may as well have them for reference and quoting, but I'll have to ensure I put a bibliography down for each site so I can reference them well.


Note: Sorry for the onslaught of posts, I just got really inspired today to do some history and I was just on a roll. Not that anyone will really read any of this :)

I'm on a ROLL today

http://www.tampabay.com/features/media/article870160.ece

A timeline from the St Petersburg times online about the change vampires have undergone over time. It's brilliant, but not as scathing towards Twilight as I would have preferred. It does mention True Blood though, and I like that show...

even though the vampires should be more fearsome ._.

I like the introduction of the article the best:

"For our money, there is no cooler creature in pop culture history than the vampire. • Infinitely adaptable, mysterious and powerful, vampires are the hip kids of the zeitgeist.They dominate humanity while standing apart from it, embodying all things forbidden and seductive in one conflict-laced package. • Little surprise, then, that the form each ghoul takes through history says a lot about its time and place. • "It's ironic: They say vampires don't cast a reflection, but vampires really are a reflection . . . of society," said Eric Nuzum, who drank his own blood, watched 605 vampire movies and took a Romanian vampire tour to write his 2007 book, The Dead Travel Fast: Stalking Vampires from Nosferatu to Count Chocula."

I'm liking the sound of this book by Eric Nuzum, I'm going to look into ordering this. I'm thinking vampires might become my folklore focus, it gives me a chance to express my *ahem* distaste for a few things via my blog.

Guess who is extremely excited about this task now? :3

I was thinking

A fantastic example of myths transgressing into modern culture would be that of the Vampire. A once feared and taboo topic becoming a cult hit and in some cases, a sex symbol is utterly astounding. The advancement* of mankind has turned that which once struck terror into peoples hearts into one that emotes other.. ahem, strong feelings. A little strange isn't it. I suppose the waning influence of religious tyranny, scientific advancements and the more cynical nature of man has reduced what was once a fearsome creature into a sparkling ninny in a tree**. Wikipedia (an unreliable source but a good springboard regardless) notes,

Vampires are mythological or folkloric beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures regardless of them being undead or a living person. In folkloric tales, vampires often visited loved ones and caused mischief or deaths in the neighbourhoods they inhabited when they were alive. They wore shrouds and were often described as bloated and of ruddy or dark countenance.

So how then, has our pink faced, fat, blood-slurping, mischievous undead vampire turned into a vegetarian, sparkling, cold as ice and pale as a ghost whiney little prat? A creature once famous for causing mass hysteria, the blame for unexplained happenings, a minion of the DEVIL for goodness sake, has becoming nothing more than a big wuss. That glitters.


As much as I denote and despise Twilight, I regrettably say this could possibly be a good topic for my Ext. History project. Surely you all approve of any assignment bent on mocking Twilight to the fullest extent, no?

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

*I'm hardly counting Twilight as an advancement of man, if anything it's a massive regression.
** I'm looking at you, Edward Cullen, you big idiot.

Yay I'm pretty excited.

I've finally found something I'm passionate about, and I'm excited to be hitting the state library next week to check it out.
I'm most definitely going to be doing a study of Ancient and Medieval myths and either their modern counterparts or their influence on modern story telling (movies and novels).

http://www.minervaclassics.com/movimyth.htm

Another awesome website to check out ! I like how it mentions that we can either appropriate myths into a modern context / movie, or we can actually subconsciously take elements from the myths and place them in a completely different plot !

This snippet from the website I found to be particular fascinating.


Identifying the elements of myth: The Godfather and Odysseus

Blood spurting from his chest, the young Italian writhes in a dance of death, his body jerking to the rhythm of the machine gun bullets. A shark's ragged jaws open, red and mangled with the flesh of victims, and a man disappears screaming into the bloody throat. Do these scenes, from The Godfather and Jaws, represent an American myth of cruelty and violence? Or should the word "myth" be reserved for more austere and decorous tales, like those we associate with the gods and goddesses of an idealized Greek and Roman antiquity, leaving us to dismiss The Godfather and Jaws as gruesomely hypnotic stories? (A third definition of "myth" would simply say that it is "something that isn't so," which gets us off the hook without supplying an explanation.)

Many people are surprised to learn that ancient myth was often at least as violent, if not more so, than the mayhem of our modern fantasies. The Greek god Kronos castrated his father with a pruning hook, then swallowed his own children; later, he was forced to vomit them up. The accursed hero Atreus cut the children of his brother Thyestes into little pieces, then served them to their father at a banquet. So much for the austere and decorous. But mythologers today define "myth" in a more subtle and discerning way, to include both the Corleone family and the shark, and Kronos and Thyestes, as well as gentler products of the human imagination. Myth is the system of recurring patterns and themes that people use to make sense out of the world. Significantly, ancient and modern patterns often turn out to be the same, even in small details; in their universality, they seem to have an intimate connection with the way all human beings think. The Godfather, and its companion, Godfather II, have been justly praised for excellence in such technical matters as acting and direction; their popularity is enhanced by less pleasant preoccupations: a lust for violence accentuated in recent years; an obsession with the details of organized crime; a cynical belief that only small distinctions separate lawless behavior from ordinary business practice. But deeper, more archaic reasons lie back of the Mafia saga's tremendous vogue. These reasons have to do with the film's mythic content.

How interesting.

In my new exploration of folklore I may do a study of the influence of european folklore on his writing styles and stories. Here is link which proves to be very interesting :)

http://www.colorq.org/Articles/ca.aspx?d=lore&x=SE_LOTR

I Don't know if this will be my focus topic, I'm still looking around. I can't focus, so sue me ._.

I am

abandoning any hope on doing the holocaust deniers. I'm lazy, thats why.

Plus, I'm much more passionate about ancient history, particularly mythology and folklore.
Perhaps an exploration into folklore shared across different civilisations and societies?

Anyone have any idea for an angle I could put on this?