aykaykay3

I don’t think that The Tiger’s Bride is focused on sex that much, in terms of domination and submission. Rather, I think it’s more focused on the narrative of “love’s true form.” Moreover, traditional fairy tales are focused on sex themselves, but not as blatantly as contemporary narratives. The various versions of Little Red Riding Hood, for example, are cautionary tales for young women to not interact with men so as not to compromise virginity. It’s been difficult for me to read Beaumont’s version with not only a feminist lens (can’t help it, that’s who I am) and a contemporary lens. Beauty’s character and interaction with others seems very contrived. Moreover, her virtues are only illuminated because they contrast her sisters’ so much. I found that her return to The Beast is one of pity, like you said. However, I read her love for him as her “settling” for him after seeing her sisters’ husbands’ horrible nature.

I want to begin my comment by saying that I LOVE that you began your article with House of Leaves and Pale Fire. I actually read these books together in my meta-fiction graduate seminar last semester. I would absolutely argue that both of those texts are novels, although they don’t follow the traditional novel format.
Danielewski’s novel, I think, problematizes the way we read. The text’s inherent narrative multiplicity beckons to literary criticism itself. The constant asides are meant to make readers recognize literary criticism as figurative doorways (mirroring the “actual” house’s own doorways) which can detract from purely enjoying the actual act of reading. Nabakov’s novel, also, beckons to literary criticism. Much like Danielewski’s narrative multiplicity, Nabakov’s constant insertion of the editor’s comments also provide these figurative doorways. I think that this very beckoning to literary criticism is not only what makes these texts meta-fiction, but what makes them novels as well.
That being said, I do think that literature in general is advancing toward new mediums to accommodate our own technologically advancing society. The form is being lost, I would say, considering the kindle and other mediums. I have a LOT to say about that. But I just wanted to say that I appreciate your inclusion of those texts!

I completely agree with your analysis of the program overall, and the specific episodes you discuss. I’ve always felt that part of South Park’s hilarity is their social commentary on current, and sometimes not so current, issues.