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! :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Amanda,
I find it interesting and ironic that you have chosen to bring our reading from Women Writers into our discussion of Literary Theory, and more specifically into our discussion of what defines the poet or author. When reading through Emerson as well as Shelley, I was also reminded of Christian's article but had a very different response than you. Especially with Emerson's writing, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with him because I felt that the form of his discourse did not match the content he was trying to explain. Emerson seems to be arguing that the Poet is true and identifiable in each of us, and yet the way he explains the True Poet suggests a human being with a large amount of education and intellect. The same is true for Shelley. Both of these men discuss the idea that poetry goes beyond human form and that people are only vessels to carry forth poetry to others. However, these "vessels" seem to be an incredibly specific and well-rounded sort of individual, not one you would generally find in the "low" world of literature and art. I think it is very interesting that we saw the articles so differently related to Christian's article...just wanted to share :)
Amanda,
I found it very easy to connect with your post about the “high and low worlds” of writing because I find that I experience the same conflict when reading two different types of discourse. I tend to immediately separate “high language” from “low language” based on my ability to understand a text. You pose some good questions, and I would agree with your conclusion; there can be two separate “worlds” of writing levels, but who is to say which is right, or wrong, or if either of the worlds are right or wrong? I found it very interesting that you said that when people come to a conclusion on this issue, “it depends upon where [they] are at as a reader.” Again, this brings us back to the main questions of what actually is a reader, and what constitutes reading? And so if the answer to the issue at hand lies in the opinions of the reader, then how are we ever supposed to know?! Sometimes frustrating, but thanks for raising the issue, good thoughts! :)
Post a Comment