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.