I really enjoyed reading about the Annancy stories in general prior to the class so the fact that we've gotten to read it in this class was a pleasant surprise - Emma did a great job on her presentation too, it was really informative and a great question. I've always been intrigued with the trickster tales and how closely it's interwoven in West-Indies and African culture.

I personally liked Houseman’s fairytales especially as they seemed very different from the other works we’ve read in class. It’s interesting to know that he’d been influenced not only by Oscar Wilde’s arrest but his sister’s participation in the women’s movement. I’ve personally always liked fairytales because they were this space that were catered to children (most of the time) but with Housman actively throwing in messages of shedding the constraints of traditional Victorian notions—it’s nice to see.

The discussion seminars really helped in understanding the context in which Sherlock Holmes has been written and its implications in modern society. It’s interesting but also disappointing to see that the racial ideologies really impact an illustrator (and author’s) writing, but it makes sense. The fact that England had the whole desire of wanting exotic Eastern cultures but to keep them (and constantly remind them) of their “savagery” and “inferiority” to England really is something to research into.

I enjoyed annotating "The Lady of Shalott“ poem as it really added more information and considerations into a poem that has been read numerous times. It makes the experience more unique, so to speak. I hadn't really thought too deeply about the poem previously, save for the examination of its content generally. But to add it into the context of the Victorian period and understanding what influenced the illustrations - the pre-Raphelites, gender roles etc - it adds a whole new layer.

The concept of bitextuality—specifically the relationship between text and illustration being similar to masculinity, femininity and the reception by the audience—is intriguing to think about. In the explanation of the text being the male, domineering role; capable of standing on its own compared to the illustrations being feminine (incapable of independence and needing the text) is what stuck out to me. Going further on that notion, it could go two ways.