I DO NOT LIKE IT SAM I AM!
From Keesey's Contexts for Criticism:
"They have then sought, or simply assumed, an 'unproblematic' language, a transparent medium that would contain or express this truth, a 'philosophical discourse' that would rise above the ambiguities of ordinary language and the obscuring rhetoricity of poetry" (346).
When I read this, I thought of Greta's blog "Intertextualism: Practice It, Focus It, Adapt It." In it she argues that intertextuality makes sense to her because it stayed within the literary. When I read both Eagleton's and Keesey's entries about post-structuralism I couldn't help but think that this is philosphophy, not literature. Why would we ignore language? Language is what literature revolves around. In the solar system that is the subject of English, language is the sun. WIthout it, life would not be sustainable. One of the things that makes literature what it is is the ambiguities. How fun would Hamlet be if we truly knew whether or not he is insane? To take away this makes literature...*gasp*....boring. Literature is not philosophy and I do not expect philosophy to be literature although they may overlap sometimes. To make literature philosophy is to miss the point (in my opinion).
If you haven't caught on, I've discovered through what I like to call our "Green Eggs and Ham" approach (trying out different styles to see if we like them) that I like criticism styles that focus on the language. I like formalism. It makes sense to look at the way the words are put on a page because the author put them that way for a reason. I love psychoanalysis (although I do realize that this does involve the outside influence of psychology) because the writer's written characterization is what makes our analysis possible. I also think that reader-response criticism is great because the author can munipulate the reader's emotions to react in a certain way by using different words and phrases.
Back to my main point in picking this quote: To take away the ambiguity is to take away literature's value. And, in addition, to say that we should depend on philosophy and not language, is a definate contradiction for philosophy depends on language. How can one remove the ambiguities of language without encountering these same ambiguities within the explanation of why language isn't enough (being that to explain a concept, language is used)?
Do you agree with me? Explain why I'm right or wrong because I'd really like to hear what you have to say. I think that we could really get a good (and maybe heated) discussion going here.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
james lohr on I DO NOT LIKE IT SAM I AM!: I have to agree with Greta on
Greta Carroll on I DO NOT LIKE IT SAM I AM!: Angela, I’m not sure whether y
Angela, I’m not sure whether you like poststructuralism or not. You commented that, “When I read both Eagleton’s and Keesey's entries about post-structuralism I couldn't help but think that this is philosphophy, not literature. Why would we ignore language?” And then you commented that you really like schools that focus on language like formalism. However, I view poststructuralism as focusing heavily on language. As Eagleton discussed last week, all words are defined by other words, which are defined by other words, in a never ending circle. This means that there is some ambiguity as to definitions, since all words rely on other words to define them. Isn’t this a focus on language at the most basic level, that of the meaning of language? Poststructuralism lauds the power of ambiguity and I definitely agree that ambiguity is a powerful thing. So what do you think of poststructuralism; you said you liked formalism, psychoanalysis, and reader-response, what about poststructuralism?
I have to agree with Greta on this one, i too see post structuralism as relying heavily on language. As you stated above Angela, language is the sun of our little universe, I would also agree that ambiguity is essential. Ambiguity is the water and air of literatures planet. Without it, the words can't breath, and the ideas cant grow. I found that post structuralism, at least for myself, seems to be the most fun kind of ham that i have tried so far. It consists of using your imagination in conjunction with the authors imagination in order to try and find all of the possible viewing options. I wrote my paper on Blade Runner, and compared a powerful persons view (the oppressor), with the view of the blue collar person (the oppressed). Both of these views carry substance with them when watching the movie, or even reading the book, but which one is right? It is because of ambiguity that we as readers can have these discussions concerning the possible meanings of those books we read.
Now that I have heard Ellen's presentation, I have to agree with you two. I just didn't understand post-structuralism so I resorted to attacking it. It was a frustrated defense mechanism. Thanks guys (and Ellen) for setting me straight.