The End.

This is my last post for the semester. I've enjoyed interacting with you all and loved receiving feedback from you. It's been fun and challenging at the same time. Thanks for taking the time to read my posts. Good luck on finals!!


I’ve never heard of a “Quixotic” reading. I can’t say that I completely understand everything that Jacobs talked about in the two chapters we were assigned to read. I have lots of questions…which is a good thing I suppose but I wish I had a better grasp on the theories/concepts. One particular quote of Jacobs’ stuck out as important in comprehending Quixotic reading:

“It is not only the powerful who transform books into mirrors; surely more common is the reader who discovers reflections of his or her weaknesses, struggles, and puzzlements.”

This style of reading is an “invitation” between the author and the reader who are seekers on this “common venture.” Both can grow and learn from the text. Both have the opportunity to discover unknowns about their identity and who they are. I feel like a main purpose of this type of reading is for all humans to be able to find some relevance within the writing. It is creating a welcoming environment where all readers will have a place or purpose in the text. Jacobs emphasizes the importance of “hope” for the readers through this invitation.

As the end of this semester is quickly approaching I find myself looking back over all the essays we’ve read for this class. I can’t believe how many new ideas and theories I’ve been presented with during this time. I don’t always understand the text fully but through class discussions and blog interactions I usually gain a better sense of the literature we read. I definitely appreciate all the insight my classmates provide me with through blog comments and posts. So guys, keep it coming! I’d love to hear your views and opinions on Alan Jacobs’ book. J

Aquinas

I liked Aquinas’ arguments concerning biblical text. The bible makes these comparisons or uses parables in order for us sinners to understand and learn from them. These examples provide clear images that are relatable or can be transformed into situations in our own lives. Isn’t that the point? God wants us to learn and grow from His word and if the bible had been written in this divine language we wouldn’t be able to understand, for we are but mere humans. Aquinas says this much better then me: “spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it” (244). He also goes on to say that these “divine truths are the better hidden from the unworthy” (244). It goes to prove that we can’t handle the power of God. It’s like in the Old Testament where often prophets couldn’t look into the face of God because it would most likely kill them. Instead they would fall face down or listen to God’s voice. I think what I got out of this essay was that the bible is a text written for the sinners of this world, for everyone. And in the word sinners can find freedom and salvation. And we can understand and relate and grow from this because the truths are presented in a way that is accessible to all human beings.

Augustine

Okay so after reading Augustine of Hippo’s essay “On Christian Doctrine” my mind got to working on this idea of “signs” and “significance”. He says in his first section that “in this distinction between things and signs when we speak of things, we shall so speak that, although some of them may be used to signify something else, this fact shall not disturb the arrangement we have made to speak of things as such first and of signs later” (188). Here I was intrigued because he is saying that before we can try to find some sort of meaning or underlying significance, we need to just speak of the object as the object. I can remember in my high school English class when some of my classmates would get irritated at the teacher because she was always assigning deeper significance to every single thing that happened in the books we were reading. They would argue that maybe the author just meant for the reader to take it at face value and nothing else. I never chimed in because secretly I liked to derive hidden meaning from the words on the page and I wanted to believe that the author intended for the text to mean something more. However, I found Augustine’s words to be refreshing after spending three years enrolled in English classes here at Messiah. I guess I too appreciate a little face value reading every now and again.

Augustine goes on in the next section to write “Just as I began, when I was writing about things, by warning that no one should consider them except as they are, without reference to what they signify beyond themselves, now when I’m discussing signs I wish it understood that no one should consider them for what they are but rather for their value as signs which signify something else” (188). So here Augustine is focusing on the “sign” itself and not an object or thing. These signs need to be interpreted as signs with some sort of larger meaning. Augustine goes on to talk about the different signs surrounding Jesus Christ’s time on earth. He writes about the lady who reached out and simply touched Jesus’ robe and was healed of her bleeding. To me this is a vivid image of the power of signs. This sign of healing proves Jesus’ divinity. Signs are proof; signs make connections between something concrete and something spiritual.

Does anybody still read???

I definitely believe that less and less people are reading. I have many, many friends who always question my love for literature and English. They ask why I would ever pick to major in something where I read constantly. And I always respond with the same thing: How can you not enjoy reading? Now I'm not going to sit here and say I loooove reading all the time. There are days when I'm exhausted and there is no way that I'm going to be able to sit down and actually comprehend the words before me. However, the days where I enjoy reading outnumber these bad days and so I find myself a bookworm even after all these years. So when I read Professor Power's essay, Reading Ethnic Literature Now, I was shocked at the arguments and statistics he gave about college students leaving college and still unable to read and comprehend labels for some sort of experiment with blood pressure and physical activity. This shocked me. Now maybe I'm just naive and unaware, but seriously? Is it that bad?

In some ways I wasn't completely surprised. Many of my friends seem to be almost elementary in the way they read and write. I know that sounds horrible but I'm honestly not trying to be mean or act high and mighty. I've corrected some of my friends papers (and I know this isn't the same as reading but I feel like these two go hand-in-hand) and I've been blown away at how undeveloped they appear. It's as if either students absolutely LOVED English throughout their school years and so they really excelled at it and worked on it or they absolutely HATED English and so they didn't even try.

I know the majority of Professor Powers' essay is concerning multi-ethnic literature and how it is important to incorporate this in our reading but I was just really struck with the information regarding people's lack of interest in reading books. Am I alone here?

Who I am and Where I come from?!

In my last post I talked about Ngugi's eassy on the abolition of the English department. When first reading that essay I thought that Ngugi was addressing the white European's, specifically I took it to address America. However, after our class discussion I realize that Ngugi is actually talking to Africans. This changed the way I interpreted the essay. I think I saw it as more of an attack against English literature and it most definitely was not. Ngugi isn't saying that English literature is bad and no one should read it. He is stating that English literature is great for that specific cultural and it isn't necessarily universally human in nature. Each culture, or country, is going to relate and connect with the writings and history of their own. This isn't to say that different cultures can't learn from one another. It just means that in order for this diversity to occur each culture must first be immersed in their own history and past so that they can then grow and learn from others.

I hope I'm getting this interpretation correct. I think this is a brilliant argument and I find it true in my own life. It is necessary for me to know who I am and where I come from and what my past history is in order for me to understand others. If I don't know who I am, how am I going to be able to relate and challenge those around me? Learning about yourself is important, and I know we are taught to put others first which is important as well, but before that can happen one must first look inside and figure out who that person is within themselves.

Ngugi

It only makes sense that people must learn history and gain knowledge about their own backgrounds before they can expand and understand different cultures. After reading “On the Abolition of the English Department” by Ngugi, Liyong, and Owuor-Anyumba I realized that some countries have needed to fight for this freedom. Why would Europeans try to teach Africans through an “English Department”? Isn’t it obvious that these students want to learn about their own literature and languages? Americans have such an ego centric view of everything. We think that our way is the only way and also the best way so why wouldn’t people want to be like us? Why wouldn’t these Africans want to learn about English literature?

Every human being has a right to learn and read about their past, about where they’ve come from and the strong history they are tied to. Peter Wasamba spoke on this a bit in his lecture. He talked about the importance to not interfere with other countries and try to force our (American) culture on them. Everybody works through situations different and it is important to connect with these other cultures, and even to help them when they are in need. But during this process we need to allow them to have freedom to handle things in the way their culture acts.

In the Ngugi article it states, “…education is a means of knowledge about ourselves. Therefore, after we have examined ourselves, we radiate outwards and discover peoples and worlds around us….things must be seen from the African [fill in country name here] perspective.” I think the world needs to start appreciate the colorful cultural differences that exist. Especially the United States, because we aren’t “better” or “right”, but rather we are view and comprehend things in a different way then other countries. And it is these differences that make our world unique.

Hughes

So Langston Hughes’ entire essay was about this young African American poet who wanted to be a “white poet”. In Hughes mind this is crazy and why would anyone want to be something they are not? I loved Hughes essay for many reasons. First, because his language was easy to understand and so I could read through it numerous times without getting utterly confused and being unsure as to what he was saying. Second, because it gave me that feeling of adrenaline, like “yeah I agree with you” and “yes that’s right.” This may sound odd considering it was a piece of writing mostly directed towards African Americans. But in addressing the need to accept and embrace our cultural background and who we truly are, Hughes also reveals many issues of the white world of thinking.

“And so the word white comes to be unconsciously a symbol of all virtues.”

This bothered me. Because I don’t want to be encouraging these ideas that because one is white this makes them better or happier or successful. It comes back to this never ending racial issue and I think Hughes is addressing this in his essay. He wants African Americans to be able to have the freedom to express themselves, based on who they are NOT on what the white majority is telling them to be. This idea of the world consisting of so many different people and from these differences we can learn and grow is present here.

“She does not want a true picture of herself from anybody. She wants the artist to flatter her…”

Hughes is speaking about a white woman in this passage. And I completely agreed with his point, but I believe the above statement can be true for all people. We don’t want to know what we really look like or how we really act. Make us look beautiful, tell us we are great, so that we can feel good about ourselves and feel as if we are these wonderful individuals who are making a difference in this world. This bothers me. A lot. Because what we all need is a mirror so that we can look deep inside it and see who we truly are. And honestly, for a lot of people this would be scary and earth shattering because what would be revealed in that reflection wouldn’t be wonderful, great, or beautiful.

Making connections.

Our class discussion on Tuesday opened up a whole different way of viewing male and female writing for me. Never before had I thought of their differences in this light. I don't really know if I agree with everything Cixous and other feminists writers propose, especially concerning the extreme connection between sexuality and writing. However, I've come to learn one very important thing this semester: Even if you don't agree with the entire idea, it's always good to listen and craft your own thoughts on the issue. So, I listened to the different views of these feminist writers and I've come away able to make a connection to what I learned and external texts I've been reading.

As noted in Abigail's blog, we've just finished reading the novel How Stella Got Her Groove Back by Terry McMillan. And after reading this story I felt no different; actually I felt like I had wasted a good chunk of my time. Although the book is very entertaining and an easy read, I just felt like something about the plot line was dull and unfinished. Nothing huge ever happened; there was never a moment of suspense or dramatic events. Instead, the entire book just kind of skipped along merrily in the exact order expected. After our class discussion on Tuesday, Abigail and I were fascinated at how much Terry McMillan's novel relates to this non-climatic structure in relation to women's sexual experience. There isn't a place or chapter or event in the book where one can assign climax of the story. No, the entire story is the experience, if that makes any sense.

It is through these connections that I've been able to make with the material we are covering in class with other outside texts that is challenging me and allowing me to sharpen these new ideas/skills I'm learning. Making these meaningful connections is forming a foundation for other things, new information and ideas, I learn to build upon.

feminist theory??

After reading Cixous and Woolf it starts to become redundant that women have been suppressed by males throughout the history of our society. This is something we know and so what is being done about it? I found Kolodny's essay, Dancing Through the Minefield, to be a cry for change, not only in men but also women. This change is in the way we read and think about literature.

"Since the grounds upon which we assign aesthetic value to texts are never infallible, unchangeable, or universal, we must re-examine not only our aesthetics but, as well, the inherent biases and assumptions informing the critical methods which (in part) shape our aesthetic responses” (2158).

It's time to "re-examine" the way we do things. I liked how Kolodny isn't man-hating in her essay. She isn't contrasting women's literature with men's literature. She is simply raising awareness and asking all readers to interpret women's writing in a new way. It's important to reach this common ground where men and women alike can work together to understand each other and the writing that each gender creates. For me this is what feminist theory should be all about...unifying with men to transform the ideas surrounding women's literature from the past, present, and well into the future. This change is necessary.

"Beauty will no longer be forbidden."

Ok so Virginia Woolf wrote about there being two parts of our minds: the man and the woman. I found this whole concept slightly ridiculous because I believe that we only have one mind and it is fully woman or fully man. We can be aware of the way the opposite sex functions, the way they write and think. But this doesn't mean we have this "male (or woman) mind" that can be turned on and off. When one writes they need to be aware of their audience and for me, if there is going to be men reading it, then one must take into consideration the way the male mind functions in order to reach those audience members. There should be a balance because male and female writing is very different, but that is what makes the world of literature so rich. Anyway...my point is that I found Helene Cixous's essay, The Laugh of the Medusa, to be completely opposite of Woolf's essay on this particular point. Cixous states that, "I write woman: woman must write woman. And man, man." She places a huge emphasis on woman writing themselves, using words and stories to express who they are and not to fear this form of expression but rather to embrace it and allow it to flow forward.

"Write! Writing is for you, you are for you; your body is yours, take it. I know why you haven't written...Because writing is at once too high, too great for you, it's reserved for the great -- that is, for 'great men'; and it's silly. Besides you've written a little, but in secret. And it wasn't good because it was in secret..."

Cixous words are full of passion. She is fighting for the woman, saying that it is time to move away from the past and look into the future and change. Her entire essay is her battling for the need for women to speak up and overcome this fear of language. This is good and all but I found a lot of her essay to be confusing and filled with sexual context. I wasn't sure what to make of it and was trying to figure out her boldness in the area of sexuality and body. The last half of her essay is filled with these types of connections.

Inspiration. That seems to be the feeling Cixous is going for here. And it works. My question is how would the women of that time have reacted to such strong words and opinions? Because obviously it isn't a shock to me, a 21st century woman, to hear her encouraging women to write openly. Women today write and it's accepted and even praised and honored. But how would they have seen these ideas? Would they have been shocked and embarrassed? Or would they have rallied up with Cixous and journeyed forward? Most likely there would have been a mix of both...but it's something I'm definitely going to look into further.

Pierre Bourdieu and the impact of class

After our class discussion today on Pierre Bourdieu I left with many questions and new ideas bouncing around in my mind.

The impact of class on reading makes sense to me. Obvioulsy those who are well educated will interpret a text differently and from a opposite starting point then those of the working class. However, I don't think it is for anyone to judge which way is right. Both are significant within their own context. I also think that the interpretations and connections that lower classes make with literature can be surprisingly insightful and accurate at times. I guess my only disagreement or argument on this issue is that those of the upperclass shouldn't dismiss the ideas and art forms of the lower class. But yet they aren't on the same level. When does something become art? When the upperclass deams it so? Because often there is a big difference between writings from working class and writing from the upperclass. Who makes the decision? Where is the cut off? Is there a distinct line or is the line blurred??

I don't even know how to go about answering these questions. But I guess my concern is for the working class. Because I don't believe these individuals should be written off simply because of their class status. So how can their interpretations and forms of writing be deamed either a work of art or not? I guess what I'm searching for are some kind of guidelines or scoring rubric to determine this...does one even exist?

It seems to be an endless cycle of questioning...

Virginia Woolf

So...is it necessary to have a balanced, fair voice in one’s writing that doesn’t discriminate against man or women? Should writers take on this “woman-manly or manly-womanly” stance within their essays, novels, and poetry? According to Virginia Woolf and her essay A Room of One’s Own, “some collaboration has to take place in the mind between the woman and the man before the act of creation can be accomplished.” And what do I think of this idea? I believe Woolf has a solid argument and that women have accomplished much since the sixteenth century and deserve this inclusive voice in a male dominated society.

Woolf’s essay is speaking about women author’s during the 16^th century but I believe it can hold true for our society today. Although America has come far since the women’s rights movement, unfair treatment of women still occurs more often then we would think. I’m so accustomed to the freedoms I have as a woman writer that I can’t imagine the suffering these women must have faced. To not be able to express oneself simply because of gender is a foreign idea to me. I can use my voice and no one is going to outwardly shut me down. I won’t be beaten or thrown into jail. Society would reject me. Although it is so hard for me to relate to Woolf’s essay I still found her thoughts intriguing and informative. Hearing about how women writers endured such mockery and ridicule makes me appreciate my freedom more.

This idea of making our brain into one man/woman whole is important. It allows the erasing of gender and the forming of something bigger. It gives power to every voice and allows man and woman to share opposing ideas and arguments openly. I can’t say that I’ve ever sat down at my computer to type a paper and actually thought about removing my specific personality based on gender. I don’t really know if I could do that because I feel like my woman characteristics and voice are too strong to be toned down. So maybe I’m reading into this essay wrong but it kind of made think and question and at the same time agree with Woolf but not completely…Overall though I did enjoy her writing style.

more rambling thoughts

Okay so I’m trying to grapple with what Pierre Bourdieu is saying in his essay “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste”. He is basically saying that our “tastes”, or our likes and interests, is determine by our upbringing, our education and our social origin. I agree with him but there are definite exceptions.

I find myself listening to music that pe0ple wouldn’t necessarily link with my personality. I love punk rock/screamo music (bands such as Underoath, The Almost, MxPx) because my older brother listened to it. It isn’t like this is the only style of music I enjoy but it definitely reflects my upbringing. I enjoy reading books such as the Scarlet Letter and Jane Eyre and even poetry by Emily Dickenson and Woodsworth and this reflects my education. So in a way I agree with Bourdieu. I think a lot of the time people who don’t like something or find something interesting is due to the fact that they don’t understand it or can’t figure it out. Bourdieu believes this as well: “A beholder who lacks the specific code feels lost in a chaos of sounds and rhythms, colors and lines, without rhyme or reason.” This makes perfect sense. If I’m reading an essay, for example for our literary criticism class, and I don’t understand the idea or even the language being used I often determine that I don’t like the writing. I simply say it isn’t good or I didn’t enjoy it. This judgment is based off of my frustration in not being able to comprehend the material. However, usually after class discussion I have a better grasped on the concepts and I actually find that I either agree with the author or I don’t agree but I can’t appreciate the essay anyway.

Why is that? Is it just because we feel stupid? Because we don’t want to ask for help or simply say that the material is way too hard for us? I think a lot of the time it does boil down to pride. I don’t even know if this was the direction that Bourdieu was going. But it makes sense and at the same time irritates me that we are so scared to make ourselves vulnerable to others.

a different perspective...

After reading a few other blogs concerning the reading of Ohmann's essay I find myself feeling challenged and appreciate these different perspectives. My initial reading of the text was filled with shock and disbelief at this idea of such a small group of people deciding the fate of the American population. How dare they choose what books would be bestsellers and what books would collect dust on the back shelves. However, after reading through some of my classmate's blogs I realize that Ohmann's essay is only one side of this scenario. In fact, we can't simply blame this small group of agents and publishers; we must also look at ourselves.

We as readers have the choice to read whatever book we desire. We live in a country where we have the free will to choose whatever novel we want from the bookstore or library shelf. But we are naturally drawn to those bestseller books and so often we never reach the books that aren't receiving national attention. However, we can move past these books, we can discover other wonderful stories that have gone unnoticed. It is our decision, our choice, and we can't place all the blame on others for this issue. We as individuals can ultimately decide what we are going to read.

What I'm trying to say is I appreciate the input and ideas and thoughts of others on this issue. It allowed me to change my perspective and a opinion a bit and gave me a sense of clarity on Ohmann's essay. I'm so quick to agree and not to sit back and really think about the issue at hand and challenge it. These other insights provided me with feedback that I could chew on. So thanks...

Bestsellers...

"The values and beliefs of a small group of people played a disproportionate role in deciding what novels would be widely read in the United States." Richard Ohmann, The Shape of a Canon: U.S. Fiction, 1960-1975

Wow. I definitely never thought about literature or novels in this way before. But it makes complete sense. The only books I ever really look at in a bookstore are the ones that are on the front shelves that say something like "TOP 20 BESTSELLERS". It's crazy but true and I never thought about how these books were being selected as the bestsellers. I never thought about all the politics and advertising that influenced this book selection. It upsets me because it's seems so unfair and unbalanced.

"...a small group of book buyers formed a screen through which novels
passed on their way to commercial success; a handful of agents and editors picked
the novels that would compete for the notice of those buyers; a tight
network of advertisers and reviewers...selected from these a few to be
recognized as compelling, important, 'talked-about'" (Ohmann, The Shape
of a Canon).

Shouldn't the American people, the actual readers and consumers of
these books, be making the ultimate decision? And why do we buy into
this "scam" where we just naturally are drawn to the bestseller label? I realize how many excellent books I've been missing simply because I don't move past these novels. Is there a better way to go about this? I don't know but I agree with Ohmann that it is worth challenging.

Here is a link to the New York Times Bestsellers list right now: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/index.html

storytelling

I thoroughly enjoyed Walter Benjamin’s article on storytelling and was intrigued with his arguments and main points. His thoughts on the replacement of storytelling and experience with novels and information are insightful. I found myself agreeing with much of his article and wondering if I’ve ever even experienced real storytelling in my life. I feel like I’ve grown up on the novel and so I most likely have missed out on this wonderful experience of storytelling.

I appreciated the idea of a storyteller being able to counsel others and bring his experience to those listening to him and create this new sensation for them. Benjamin writes “The storyteller takes what he tells from experience—his own or that reported by others. And he in turn makes it the experience of those who are listening to his tale. The novelist has isolated himself. The birthplace of the novel is the solitary individual, who is no longer able to express himself by giving examples of his most important concerns, is himself uncounseled, and cannot counsel others.” I think that being in the presence of other people and enjoying the story with them is essential. I related this to reading a novel for a class. Although the reading itself usually takes place on one’s own, the discussion during class, with other students, is extremely beneficial. I find that when I discuss different aspects of a story with other people or when we are able to laugh and cry at different situations within that book, that I learn and grow from the novel itself. There is something about being in “community” (for lack of better word) that allows for a unique reading. Benjamin seems to want to convey this message here and say that the art of storytelling once encompassed these characteristics but readers no longer are interested.

Storytelling once was a way of telling news or events that took place. However, we now rely solely on information. Benjamin sees this as a downfall in our society: “Every morning brings us the news of the globe, and yet we are poor in noteworthy stories. This is because no event any longer comes to us without already being shot through with explanation. In other words, by now almost nothing that happens benefits storytelling; almost everything benefits information. Actually, it is half the art of storytelling to keep a story free from explanation as one reproduces it.” So often I listen or watch the news without even really thinking about the information they are telling me. I see the events happening around the world or across the country and I kind of yawn and nod my head. For me I think this is where storytelling could really bring life to these new stories. When someone is able to give a personal account or tell about some real life experience it makes the information personable and allows listeners or readers to connect to it. I think this is what Benjamin is trying to get at: we long for stories with meaning, with personality, with some sort of in depth experience that allows us to grow. At least I long for that. And maybe we lost it along with this storytelling art that Benjamin is talking about.

Is storytelling still around? And is it effective? And if so where does this leave the novel? These are just a few questions I have after reading this article…

why can't i get over the author...

So I'm writing about the author again...but I can't help it! I feel like every essay we read discusses the aspect of author and the importance of it on literature. After reading Roland Barthes essay, From Work To Text, I was drawn again to the different definition given to the role of authorship. Roland writes,

"As for the Text, it reads without the inscription of the Father...it is read without the guarentee of its father, the resititution of the inter-text paradoxically abolishing any legacy. It is not that the Author may not 'come back' in the Text, in his text, but he then does so as a 'guest'...He becomes as it were, a paper-author: his life is no longer the origin of his fictions but a fiction contributing to his work.."



We've read about how the author shouldn't be the focus at all, how the author holds no bearing to the actual work of literature, but we've never read about the author in this way. The Text itself, according the Barthes, is without a source of any kind and the author isn't connected to it anymore; they are simply a 'guest'. I did a little background reading on some of Barthes thoughts and ideas and was intriqued when I read that he didn't view the author as a viable term or figure anymore. He instead focused more on the title of "scripter". He sees this figure as only possessing the "power...to combine pre-existing texts in new ways." All writing derives itself from previous texts and so in order to understand these new works of literature we need to study the old texts. It makes sense. I feel like writing does build off of other writing. I find myself agreeing with Barthes scripter idea but unable to let go of the author.



Why is that? Why are we so connected to this idea of an author? I guess I'm just so use to seeing that name printed largely on the front cover of my favorite books. What would life be like if those letters weren't there? It's funny to think about...and to be honest I've never considered this whole idea, of should there be an author or not, before this class.

rambling thoughts

For my advanced writing class we were assigned to read eight essays and then proceed to critique or analyze the content and style of these pieces. All the essays I read were based off of personal experiences and dealt deeply with emotions and allowed room for the reader to openly relate to the ideas. I guess my question is how do we connect the concepts and techniques we are learning in literary criticism, where we are basing most of our discussions off of academic essays, to writing that is established off of more emotional experiences? And is literary criticism even supposed to be used on this level? As I was writing the critiques I found myself thinking about many of the essays we read in our class. The issue of the author being less important then the reader struck me the most and I was left wondering if in these circumstances the author should be removed from the picture. I found that after reading the eight essays I was drawn to who the author was and felt like I personally knew them because of the door into their life that they opened for the reader. For some reason I found this distracting. I found meaning and was able to critique the essays on a basic structural feel but I wasn’t able to get past the fact that these essays were almost like reading another person’s diary. I couldn’t get over the fact that I was determining whether these experiences were valid or not, whether they spoke strongly or not. Maybe disconnecting the author from the piece of writing is necessary sometimes. I’m not sure. I don’t even know if any of my ramblings were coherent but I found myself connecting the essays I’ve read in our literary criticism class to the experience of reading these more personal essays. Is there a difference in the way we should critique theses different forms of writing? Should we focus less on the author in order to derive more understanding from the text itself?

I don’t feel like I’m making any sense. So I’m going to leave it at that.

what's in a name.

We return once again to questioning "what is an author?" and how this alters the meaning and interpretation of a literary text.

Michel Foucalt's ideas and views were extremely enlightening and I found easy to resonate with on a different level then some of the other texts addressing this same issue. He brings up the idea of the "death of an author" writing, "Where a work had the duty of creating immortality, it now attains the right to kill, to become the murderer of its author" (1624). We place so much emphasis and power on the name given with a text and we derive so much discussion and meaning from the background and history of that person. Why? Foucalt brings up a point, which I found brilliant and slightly humorous (because I never thought of it before), when he writes how far we should go with this authorship idea. He writes, "Assuming that we are dealing with an author, is everything he wrote and said, everything he left behind, to be included in his work?...a reminder of an appointment, an address, or a laundry bill, should this be included in his works? Why not?" (1624) I laughed when reading this because it sounded so silly and ridiculous, but I find that these questions are really trying to get at something. What is an author and why do we place such importance on the name rather than the text itself?

I find that I fall victim to this idea of categorizing all the work of one author together. For example, take two of my favorite authors, Jodi Picoult and Donald Miller. After reading "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller I immediately began looking for other books written by him. I assumed because I loved this one particular work of his that I would enjoy the rest of his books. The same goes for Jodi Picoult. I just recently read "Plain Truth" and liked it so much that I've started another novel by her. If I don't have a good book at the moment to read I'll look up an author's name that I've read before and enjoyed and hope to find a book they've written. And if I do, I don't think twice about reading the inside flap for details on the story; I just assume that it will be of the same quality and style of a previous book read by that author. Isn't it funny how we do that? I feel in a way I've missed out on some really good books because I've attributed bad characteristics towards them based on the author's name alone.

At the end of Foucault's essay he writes on this idea of circulating texts and works of literature without any status or value placed on it from a particular author. I liked his idea and the questions that arose from this, such as "What are the modes of existence of this discourse? Where does it come from; how is it circulated; who controls it"(1636). This eliminates the ever pressing question or "Who is the real author? Have we proof of his authenticity and originality" (1636). I guess the idea of focusing more on the text of a work of literature appeals greatly to me. I'd rather spend time discussing issues and themes existing within the text rather then placing immediate value on a work simply because some famous name is printed across the cover.

class reflection...

At the end of class today Professor Powers posed the question, "Do we have a responsibility to appreciate things we do not like?" I found this thought interesting and rather thought provoking. I can remember as a child my mom always making me take "no thank you" helpings for foods such as peas, carrots, and brussel sprouts. Even thought I didn't like it, and most of the time I complained about it, I now realize that my mom wanted me to appreciate or be grateful for all the food provided for me. And even though when I was a kid I always vowed to never, ever make my kids eat their vegetables, I can now honestly say that I'll probably use the same approach as my mom. Funny how that always seems to happen. On a more serious note, I think it depends upon the issue being address in order to decide if it is our "responsibility" to appreciate it. For example, I don't always like the essays I am assigned in my classes but I've reached the point where I can appreciate them as works of literature that have impacted a time or place or situation in history. I realize that they are significant enough for my professor to assign them to the class, and even if I wouldn't choose to read them on my own, I'm still able to find some value in them. This is easier to write than to actually put into action. Because there are so many times when I think to myself "why do I have to read this? I don't like it". And I'm almost positive that during those times I'm not thinking, "oh but that's okay because I appreciate it as a piece of writing that my professor deems important". So I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm a work in progress. And I'm not positive if it is always our responsibility to appreciate everything we don't like, but it is worth thinking about and discussing.

narratology and my thoughts...

To be honest, after reading most of the literary critics so far I've been unsure if I agreed with their statements and arguments. Tzvetan Todorov's essay was different. It made sense to me. His idea of "narratology" where we study the narrative itself and divide it into the study of syntax, theme, and rhetoric. Todorov is saying that the story is what is being narrated and the plot represents this logical sequence of events occurring. By studying plot, although he states that literature is not just "plot alone", we don't discover what the story means but what literature means. Narratology, at least how I understood it, is the interpretation of literature in order to understand literature as a whole, on a grand scale. It makes sense. Shouldn't different pieces of writing be able to construct themes that can transcend into other writing and be common in all literature? I think up to this point I can connect on with Todorov the best concerning literary criticism because he stated things clearly and he gave good, solid examples. His use of "Decameron" helped me to follow his steps in critiquing the plot.

Often when I read I get wrapped up in the story going on and I don't take the time to critic and analyze different aspects of it. I love reading and losing myself in the story unfolding on my lap. I guess what I'm trying to say is I understand the need for literary criticism but I don't want to let it steal away my pleasure of simply enjoying a piece of writing. Maybe this makes me seem naive or even insensible to some of the theorists we've been reading. But don't you just want to read for fun sometimes? Is this okay? I don't want to lose my love for reading because I feel that I must always be critiquing the work before me. I'm not saying I think that doing this is wrong; literary criticism is definitely a good thing in many ways. I'm just not quite sold on the fact that I want to always be in that mindset when reading. Does any of this make sense? I'm feel like I'm just rambling...

affective fallacy

So when I started reading Wimsatt and Beardsley's essay I was confused. I wasn't sure what this whole "affective fallacy" meant or where it came from. However, I did a little background research and found that it is a response to impressionistic criticism which basically states that the reader's response is the most important and is what gives the poem its value. Obviously Wimsatt and Beardsley don't agree with this concept since they wrote an entire essay against it. I think I can agree with both sides of the argument. First, I'm a sucker for feelings and relating to the poem personally. It something I think that comes from high school classrooms when the teacher asked "How does this make you feel? How does it speak to you?" This in a way goes back to the We Wear the Mask poem by Dunbar in that I like being able to connect with the lines of the poem, with the truth the poet may be speaking. I always find that I like a poem better if I'm able to understand its content in a way that allows me to connect with the poet's experience. I don't believe that I will be able to do this with all poetry or writing. There is so much that I can't relate to simply based on my background. However, I don't believe that makes it a bad piece of writing and I think this is where I start to agree more with the affective fallacy concept. It seems to me that by judging a text based on reader emotion misinterpretation can occur and lead to a biased critique. When analyzing a text I do believe one needs to be completely removed from the reader's emotional response and in tune to theory and detail and description and diction. It allows the critic to give an honest response to that work.

I'm still unsure of where I stand completely on this idea of intentional and affective fallacy. I find it all a little confusing and hard to grasp. Does anyone else feeling this way?? I would appreciate any feedback on the

We Wear the Mask

In class on Thursday we read the poem "We Wear the Mask" by Paul Laurence Dunbar. After reading it the first time I felt like I could really relate to what the poem was saying. Yes, I feel like so often our society hides behind masks, pretending like we are okay and we are happy. I know I do this so often. My friend will walk by and say "Hey how are you?" and even if I'm having the worst day of my life or if I'm sick, I still respond with a "Good". I don't want to spill my guts and appear emotional or "weak". Our society is the same way. It seems necessary to "hide" or "mask" who we are constantly. I was a little unsure if I was translating the meaning of "we" correctly because we didn't have any background on the poem. But I felt confident that it somehow related to our culture and our identity.

The meaning of the poem changed completely for me once we learned that Dunbar was African American and the son of slaves. Obviously this poem was meant to be about oppression of African Americans during the years of slavery. I can't relate to that pain and suffering considering I've never experienced it. Immediately the relation I had built between myself and the poem/poet ended. But that doesn't mean that the poem wasn't good and that the meaning of the poem can't be a universal thing. It just alters it a bit and the reader realizes that the poet could have had a specific "we" in mind when writing the poem.

I find I do this a lot when reading literature. I look to see how it can impact my life and bring meaning to what I've experienced or understand. I do this a lot when reading the bible and scripture. Whatever I read for that day somehow I work so that it can have a personal meaning or impact on me. I don't think this way of reading is necessarily good. I believe that as a reader I need to take the background and context of the poet/author and the book/poem into consideration when reading. This doesn't mean that the poem isn't relevant to my life it just means that I can't assume from the start that the poet is talking directly to me. Or should I? Is the point of poetry and writing to connect to the reader no matter who the poet or author intended the audience to be?

"The Intentional Fallacy"

So in my last post I wrote about Eliot's idea of depersonalization of poetry and how I wasn't sure I agreed with his views. For class we were assigned to read William K. Wimsatt Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley's essay "The Intentional Fallacy". This essay talks about the author's intention and though I found at times it sounded similar to Eliot's ideas, I agreed more with their thoughts towards poetry.

As English majors we all have spent class after class discussing the author's "meaning" in either a poem or a novel or a short essay. We tear it apart until we've come up with every possible symbol. At times this can be frustrating because after spending so much time attempting to understand what the author's intent was we lose the joy of the reading itself. In "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley believe that "in order to judge the poet's performance, we must know what he intended". I completely agree but sometimes it isn't a black and white issue. How are we suppose to know what the author intended? It isn't like every poem or every story is so easy to read. At times I finish reading a piece of writing and I'm lost, confused, and completely unsure of what I was suppose to understand from it. In Wimsatt and Beardsley's opinion if this is the case then the poet did not succeed: "If the poet succeeded in doing it, then the poem itself shows what he was trying to do. And if the poet did not succeed, then the poem is not adequate evidence, and the critic must go outside the poem--for evidence of an intention that did not become effective in the poem." My question is how do we go about "going outside the poem"? And is that even our job or should the poet step it up and try to "succeed" in his poetry?

I appreciated that Wimsatt and Beardsley allowed room for personal expression in poetry and art. After reading Eliot I wasn't sure if I was the only one who believed this was important. But they write "the meaning of a poem may certainly be a personal one, in the sense that a poem expresses a personality or state of a soul rather than a physical object like an apple." So there is hope for the writer who uses verse and words to express their feelings and release themselves.

I'm still left with so many questions regarding these ideas. Is personal expression good in writing? Should the reader have to go outside the poem to understand or is it the poet's job to write a poem that is good and rich with intent and meaning? As English majors do we always need to be trying to find the hidden meaning and purpose of a piece of literature or is it ok to just read for pure pleasure sometimes? Why do we feel the need to always be searching for more in a text rather then allowing the text to speak for itself?

Depersonalization??

T.S. Eliot's essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent, talks about the depersonalization of art or poetry. He writes, "The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality." Throughout his entire essay he talks of this need to express, but not "personality", rather "a particular medium which is only a medium and not a personality, in which impressions and experience combine in peculiar and unexpected ways." He continues by saying that "poetry isn't a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality." So is Eliot trying to say that in order to create good poetry, poetry that touches the soul and gives reader's a new emotional experience, there must be no personal insight or experience in the poem? I'm not sure if this is what Eliot is attempting to prove or argue but I find that if this is the case I disagree.

I always viewed poetry as a way to express oneself and maybe that makes me naive and limits my experience. But some of the best poems I've read have reflected an author's personal feelings or attitudes towards a subject matter. And because of this I felt the poem come alive and I was able to connect with the author's ideas and I was able to participate in their experience through their poetry. It's like reading an article about someone who hiked Mt. Everest. I know that this is something I will never do (at least I don't think so), but by reading that account of this particular person's trip or experience I'm able to share in that adventure with them even if I never actually reach the top of Mt. Everest myself. Does that make sense? I think that good poetry is personalized, is filled with the author's own ideas and emotions and feelings. And through these reader's are able to relate and learn and grow from another individual. Isn't that what makes a poem good? That the reader is changed after reading it. And that the poet was able to create this amazing flow of verse by expressing emotion from their own life?

Eliot writes that "the emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done." I agree with Eliot in the sense that a poet must surrender themselves wholly to their work in order to create a poem. However, he continues to throw in this idea of impersonality and that this surrendering allows the poet to escape from their own personality and emotions. Is that good? I can't help but question Eliot's ideas. I don't know if cutting off our personality from our work is a good thing. I feel like our personality is what makes our work unique, creative, and vibrant. I read through an article written by Allen Austin and I appreciated the way he ended his critique of Eliot. He writes, "One may agree with Eliot that the poet and the poem are integral, without accepting the Romantic theory that "the primary qualities of a good poem are...attributes of the mind and temper of its composer.""

T. S. Eliot's Theory of Personal Expression
Allen Austin
PMLA, Vol. 81, No. 3. (Jun., 1966), pp. 303-307.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8129%28196606%2981%3A3%3C303%3ATSETOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

The American Scholar

It is important to take into account the point Emerson is trying to make throughout his speech: That there is "one man". We aren't students, teachers, actors, writers, farmers. We are all of these. Within this the American scholar has a purpose and that is to see the world clearly and to understand his obligation to the "one man" concept and to broaden other's views by guiding them in knowledge.

Knowing this information I dived into studying Emerson's view of reading and the value he places on books. I found it insightful in many ways and agree with his view to an extent. Basically books can be used for the good but also can become a problem or be bad in differing circumstances. In Emerson's case he is saying that the book can be used to inspire and pass on knowledge from the past, which is good. But if books become a hindrance, if they keep the scholar from achieving his purpose and goals, if these books limit him, then books bad (he never actually says books are bad, but that's how I read it). At first I was apprehensive of his thoughts. Honestly, I love reading and I find books to open up so many windows of thought and imagination and creativity in my own world. But then I realized that Emerson would see this as good, he just wouldn't want me to not act on those thoughts and those new creative ideas. Emerson really emphasized the importance of taking action, of doing something. He wrote about how often the view of a scholarly person from outsiders is that they are lazy and simply sit around and think all day. We need to be intentional in doing something active, in taking the information we are learning and gaining as scholars and apply it to the world around us. My favorite line in Emerson's speech is

"The mind now thinks; now acts; and each fit reproduces the other. When the artist has exhausted his materials, when the fancy no longer paints, when thoughts are no longer apprehended, and books are a weariness, -- he has always the resource to live. Character is higher than intellect. Thinking is the function. Living is the functionary."

This passage made Emerson's entire speech powerful to me. How true! So often as a student I get wrapped up in my studies, in my writing and reading. But there are so many times during a semester when I'm mentally drained. I have nothing left to give, I feel stretched thin with little left to offer. But Emerson is saying that during those times of "weariness" we still have the choice to live, to go out and do something with our talents that may not involve the normal resources we use such as books, computers, paints, etc. But this character is higher than what we are learning, it comes first. Thinking improves upon these actions and allows us to give more effectively and efficiently, to offer more back to the world around us so that, as Emerson stated in the beginning of his speech, we can guide others into a better understanding of this world.

Shelley and Christian

I'm taking a women writers class this semester and this past week we were assigned reading from Barbara Christian. In her article, "The Highs and the Lows of Black Feminist Criticism" she addresses the idea of there being different levels of art or thought or language. She emphasizes how often we as readers and critics don't look for the low forms of art, such as cooking, gardening, quilting, and storytelling. Instead we get so wrapped up into this idea of "academic language" being the only true way to express oneself. Often these forms of expression and are that are classified as low can be the most beautiful and creative.

While reading Percy Bysshe Shelley's "A Defence of Poetry" I found a strong connection between him and Christian. He writes of poetry being divided between the "calculating faculty" and the "creative faculty". The first simply follows in the footsteps of other poets, creating seemingly similar pieces of art. I would categorize this group of poets into the "high world" that Christian forms in her essay. In the high world one can find discourse, theory, the canon, linguistics, and the exclusion of creative writing. This world is limited. This would is exclusive. It doesn't allow room for everyone to be a part of. However, the seconded faculty, the creative faculty, admits that the imagination is delightful and appreciated and can prove to be very insightful and thought provoking. We as readers long for this type of writing (I know I do). We want fresh, raw, intuitive poems and art forms. I would place this in Christian’s category of the "low world". This world includes stories, poems, plays, the "language of the folk", and dialogue. It's inclusive, it invites all artists to enter in, it allows for creativity in its simplest form as well as its most complex form. I find myself drawn to this idea.

During my reading of both texts I was aware of the very different style of writing used. In Shelley's essay he uses complex, intense ideas and word choice. I read through his essay slowly and took breaks in order to contemplate and understand what his main ideas and arguments were. In Christian's essay I was able to read it straight through and never once did I not follow her main purpose for the article. I found myself placing each of these essays in one of Christian's "worlds". But I couldn't figure out which world is better, which world is right. Can't we mix them? Can't it all just be one "happy" world or level? Because obviously Christian is going to be placed in the middle to low world and Shelley more likely in the higher world. But I learned and grew from both. And I view both as art and creative, just in very conflicting forms. I find myself unable to answer this question. And maybe there isn't a correct answer. It's just interesting to me that I'm so quickly drawn to the low world because I understand it better and I can appreciate it easier but I can appreciate and understand the high world as well, I just need more time and resources in order to do so.

I guess the conclusion I arrived at after reading through both of these essays is that there isn't a right or wrong level of writing. It depends upon where you are at as a reader and what you are looking for in that particular piece of writing. Any thoughts or ideas on this subject are greatly welcomed! :)

A Glass World

Hey everyone! This is my first blog of the semester. Some of what I write might not make much sense, but I'm just allow my rambling thoughts to have a place to escape. Stick with me and I hope that by the end of my entries some sort of idea or question will form.

After reading Emerson's work, The Poet, I find myself re-evaluating my thinking about the relationship between reading and authorship. Emerson really stresses the poet, or writer, as being the one who articulates the world around us. These writers provide us, the reader, with symbols and images that transpire into a better understanding of our universe. He writes,

"The poet...gives them[thoughts/symbols] a power which makes their old use forgotten, and puts eyes and a tongue into every dumb and inanimate object. He perceives the independence of the thought on the symbol, the stability of the thought, the accidency and fugacity of the symbol."

This image makes sense. The job or the goal of the writer is to create these new schools of thought and ideas. And in conclusion the reader perceives the world around them differently, be that good or bad. The rule of authorship is to "turn the world to glass" so that the reader can look through and be changed. An author seems to be the medium through which a reader can comprehend the world and nature. So we as readers need literature, need authorship, in order to grow and be challenged in our thinking. The author takes what is old or common to the reader and transforms it into something new. Something as simple and rather dull as "southern planting" can be brought to life and "sung" for the reader. The author has the power and ability to take anything and make it beautiful. That is their gift. I think Emerson's ideas on this are very insightful in that it redefines what a writer is; it gives writers a bigger role. So often people don't give enough credit to the talent and skill it takes to be a good writer. It's hard work, not an easy task to say the least. Writers are constantly pursuing beauty, pursuing truth, pursuing the write words, styles, and examples to present to their readers. I truly believe that Emerson was getting at this, that the relationship between the author and the reader is like that of a teacher and a student, a mother and a child. One is always seeking to bring truth and understanding to the other in order for them to grow and learn.