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.