Georg Lukacs on the commodity

[Lukacs, Georg. "Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat." History and Class Consciousness. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. MIT UP, 1971.]

It is no accident that Marx should have begun with an analysis of commodities when, in the two great works of his mature period, he set out to portray capitalist society in its totality and to lay bare its fundamental nature. For at this stage in the history of mankind there is no problem that does not ultimately lead back to that question and there is no solution that could not be found in the solution to the riddle of commodity-structure […] The essence of commodity-structure has often been pointed out. Its basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a ‘phantom objectivity’, an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people. (83)

Chapter 24- Frank/Pitch

p. 160 "You are another one of them" Pitch initially identifies Frank as a confidence-man

Pitch- displays skepticism throughout conversation (p. 163 "who are you lecturing for" / consistent assertions that Frank is a confidence-man) he is pessimistic (Frank says he likes to have many people around him, to which Pitch responds that the pickpocket does as well p. 165)

Conversation consists of a debate between philanthropy (Frank)/misanthropy (Pitch)

Frank uses raillery in his rhetoric ( "pie" p. 162 and reference to Jeremy Diddler) similar rhetoric as previous confidence men

Frank likes to talk, "let me undeceive you by arguing" to which Pitch responds "no more arguments" (164)

In the conclusion of the conversation, Frank makes a reference to Diogenes, leading Pitch to believe that the cosmopolitan is actually a misanthrope in disguise. The cosmopolitan tells Pitch that this mistake of man stems from his distrust in all men, and urges him to "get confidence" (reference to confidence denotes rhetoric of previous confidence men)

Ch 33

What does it say about fiction?/How does it relate to Ch 14?

-fiction=life

it does more than life itself can show

-want something new that still connects with reality

-Fiction as an augmented reality

"It is with fiction as with religion: it should present another world, and yet one to which we feel the tie" pg 218

-people in a fiction- must be different than those in the real world

-inconsistency of characters in the book

-inconsistencies of deception and life.

"...proprieties will not allow people to act themselves with that unreserve permitted to the stage; so in books of fiction, they look not only for more entertainment but, at bottom, even more for reality, more than real life itself can show" pg 217

Ch. 22 (Primarily Pgs. 150-155)

What is Pitch’s problem with the intelligence officer?

- The intelligence officer “talks too much” and is a man of only puns

Pitch says, “Ah, you are a talking man – what I call a wordy man. You talk, talk” (Pg. 151). And “But is analogy argument? You are a punster…you pun with ideas as another man may with words” (Pg. 150).

- Pitch seems to believe that the Intelligence Officer doesn’t really say anything meaningful, but rather dances around with words to sound “intelligent”

“Pun away; but even accepting your analogical pun, what does is amount to” (Pg. 151)

- Pitch believes the Intelligence Officer is more of a bs artist

Pitch says, “This knowledge of yours, which you haven’t enough knowledge to know how to make a right use of, it should be taken from you” (Pg. 152)

-Bottom line: Pitch is revealing the Intelligence Officer as a sophist instead of a rhetorician and insults him saying the Intelligence Officer knows nothing

Ch 33

Ch. 33

What does it say about fiction?

-critics might state characters not realistic but M later justifies with the idea that our appearances do not actually describe our true nature

-free from social boundaries

-appearance vs reality

-hate reality because it is boring

-want reality more real than what it truly is, free from social boundaries

-relatable but abstract to prove a point

-middle of bottom paragraph

-“in real life proprieties will not let them act out as themselves”

-fiction explores reality better than non fiction because people do not actually reflect themselves in nature.

-reality is somewhat unreal --> fiction is real version of reality

- you can only be true to the self in fiction because it seems to have no boundaries due and judgments that are placed upon the self

-Melville needs to justify truthful characters over and over again

-M is complaining that he is not being published

How it relates to chapter 14?

- from the narrator

- have tautology for a title

- address inconsistent nature of character

- used as justifications and not edifications

-people’s actions do not reflect reality of characters

-relates because they are both talking about how characters do not match true “self”

-“DON’T HATE APPRECIATE”

-does not have significance to the story but it tells a great deal about authors opinions

-it is break from the story so people are not inundated with all the ideas presented

-ch 14 address multiple characters

-ch 33 address cosmopolitan

Essay #2 Deadline Extended

Please note: as announced in class yesterday, the Franklin essay is now officially due next Wednesday, Oct.27.

For Monday, continue reading Melville, chpts.23-39. Next class we'll talk about race, character, and whether this book is really a novel or not.

Israel Potter (1855) - Benjamin Franklin as confidence man

[Melville, Herman. Israel Potter: His Fifty Years of Exile. Ed. Harrison Hayford. Northwestern UP, 2000.]

[Benjamin Franklin speaks to the novel's title character, Israel Potter:]

"My good friend," said the man of gravity [Franklin], glancing scrutinizingly upon his guest, "have you not in your time, undergone what they call hard times? Been set upon, and persecuted, and very ill entreated by some of your fellow-creatures?"
[Potter]"That I have, Doctor; yes indeed."
[Franklin] "I thought so. Sad usage has made you sadly suspicious, my honest friend. An indiscriminate distrust of human nature is the worst consequence of a miserable condition, whether brought about by innocence or guilt. And though want of suspicion more than want of sense, sometimes leads a man into harm: yet too much suspicion is as bad as too little sense. The man you met, my friend, most probably, had no artful intention; he knew just nothing about you or your heels; he simply wanted to earn two sous by brushing your boots." (40-41)