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…