Papers and Training (non interrelated)

Lia and I have jointly made the decision that formal puppy training is stupid. I know that Lia chimed in on this because when we left Carrvilla before we had attended the class, she was a lot happier to get in the car than she had been on the way to Carrvilla. She got in without me lifting her up and then licked the ever-living crap out of my face for several minutes thereafter. My part of the decision consisted of consideration of the following factors:

1) I have no money. I'm broke and don't want to borrow $85.00.

2) The dog trainer wanted us to go to adult "beginner" training instead of puppy training -- I don't think she's old enough for that.

3) The only dog I personally know who has been through formal training is a nut-job -- Tally

4) Did I mention that I don't have any money?

5) It is fucking hot in the training building and I have MS -- I am a bit sensitive to heat and haven't been able to see since I spent 1/2 hour in that building -- sitting down. I am still waiting for my eye to return to normal -- could be another day or so.

6) Lia is really, really smart and picks up everything I teach her almost immediately. Perfect example -- Doug taught us how to "heal." Yesterday. Today, she is still -- or now, depending on how progressively you think on dog training -- maintaining what she learned -- she heals very nicely.

7) The whole idea for training was Janelle's -- I love my sister (sometimes) and I do think she knows a lot about dogs -- but this is MY dog. I want to do this MY way. Lia trains well and quicly and is a generally good tempered dog. She gets along well with other dogs. She is firmly imprinted on me and this is really obvious -- only when it's me who gets mad at her does she listen -- she responds with it's ME teaching her stuff. She follows ME around the house. She waits by the door after I leave the house -- even though there is someone else with her if she's not in her crate. MY dog. I want to train her myself and I think I'm doing a pretty good job. She is now going to the door when she has to potty -- and it's only sort-of her fault that if someone doesn't get up to take her out immediately -- she messes by the door -- at least it's all centered on one spot :).

8) Oh yeah, I don't have any money.

So I'm thinking, now, on a topic for my biggie final paper in my Victorian Literature class. I loved, loved, LOVED Jane Eyre. Not because I loved the book -- but I love the way it leads to easy criticism. I wonder a lot about the little girl, Adele. I don't really understand her role in the book. So much of the criticism focuses on Bertha -- the "Madwoman in the Attic." Bertha is considered a minor "figure" in the novel -- not even, really, a character.

So why would the criticism virtually avoid dealing with some of the bigger players -- Adele, Miss Ingram, Mrs. Fairfax -- or even the two Reed sisters -- or, for that matter, the coincidence that Jane's new-found family at the end of the book (the "St. John's") are of the exact same makeup -- dead father, two girls and a boy, the "removed" boy, etc. -- as the Reed family. Rather cool, I think.

I thinking of looking at the recurrence of the "black" theme as a demonstration of racism -- Jane Eyre is a racist novel. Instead of attacking the book as an anti-imperalism text -- can I situate it in the criticism by looking at that way? Using it to illustrate that Victorians may have given lip-service to anti-imperialism/colonialism seems like it will work -- really, they were part of the problem, not the solution. Did Victorians understand the concept of racism and recognize that they were racists? Is the novel a good example of this? I think so -- now, can I prove it?