February 2009 Archives

"mimetic argument--the work gives an accurate picture of reality..." -Keesey 205

"As drama, for instance, dropped the use of meter and adopted 'natural' speech and carefully detailed settings and costumes to portray contemporary bourgeois characters, each development was hailed as making drama more 'realistic'. Yet Chekhov, for one, looked on plays that employed all these devices as 'unrealistic' in their presentation of well-made plots and of characters who could concentrate their attention on a single theme or follow the thread of a complex conversation." --Keesey 206

I picked these quotes, because I thought they were pretty interesting. Even though they tried to change drama in an effort to make it more "real" and "lifelike" their attempts were became a sort of clique. When I read about Chekhov and how he introduced the "theatre of the absurd" I understood that this was just as much mimetic because it was pushing the standards of realism. If you think about it, the norm and the real genre's may be over used and unrealistic after it becomes a sort of clique.

When I read it, I thought of soap operas. I will admit that every summer I get sucked into the soap opera "The Young and the Restless" and they try to make themes real and relatable but by sort of OVER using these realistic stories, such as blackmail, addition to gambling, surprise pregnancies, and lost lookalike sisters is just a little too much. It loses the ability to actually act as realism.

I believe this is the point Chekhov was trying to make when he made the claim that the real drama was "unrealistic." What do you think?? Also I guess when I read this I thought a lot about reader-response because isn't it the reader that decides whether the story is real and a form of mimetic??

Struggles and Accomplishments
Week by week, I fly up and down the roller coaster tracks of Literary Criticism...luckily I have a harness to hold me down so I don't fly off on the sharp curves and upside down flips. I think this is the best way to describe my experiences so far this semester. I have some short moments of enlightenment, but most of the time my stomach is dropping and my eyes are slammed shut in utter fear! LUCKILY the end of roller coasters are the BEST because the adrenaline catches up and make you feel AMAZING!! Sooo on that note, I am praying that I will soon get off this crazy roller coaster ride and have my ULTIMATE moment of enlightenment. Here's to HOPE!!

1. Coverage: contains all the agenda items I have completed so far this semester
What Makes Literature Literary?
On Earth of Eternity
blah, synecdoche, blah, blah
Shakespeare and Twain Aren't Amputating Anyone!
Phenomena...huh?
Speak to Me
Reflectionsss
Schema-WHAT?
Sounds Familiar!
Creepy Fish-dude
the norm
SOOOO many Factors!!!
delicate relations
Structure
Babble, Babble, and then some more Babble!
there are NO small roles!
Aphor-what?
Replacements
We're following the leader, leader, leader...
"however defined"
cultured
under my skin!
barn vs. kitchen

2. Depth: the blogs I felt were my best and most interesting
Austin, Keesey Chapter One
On Earth of Eternity: this essay helped me understand the format of a literary criticism essay

Hirsch, Keesey Chapter One
Speak to Me: Hirsch helped me understand that we must understand the text before it speaks to us

Gilman, "The Yellow Wallpaper"
Reflectionsss: my insight into the reflections and shadows in the short story

Keesey, Intro to Chapter 2
Structure:I found a connection between class and Keesey's essay

Keesey, Intro to Chapter 3
"however defined": this blog and reading challenged my understanding of reader-response

3. Blog Carnival: a comparison between Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and Melville's "Benito Cereno"
Colonialism Carnival: started by Erica we got into a heated discussion about similarities and differences in the two works

4. Interaction: blogs that helped other students and discussion
Ellen Eisporn
T.S. Eliot

Derek Tickle
Eagleton 2/5

Jenna Miller
Gilman, "The Yellow Wallpaper"

Erica Gearhart
Hirsch

Katie Vann
Watson

5. Discussion: interaction with my peers that helped support and challenge my blogs
Austin
On Earth of Eternity: my fellow students related to learning about the format of the literary criticism essay

Keesey
Sounds Familiar: classmate enforce my claims and take it a step further

Watson
the norm: my peers agree that norms are not to be trusted!

Keesey
Structure: Dr. Jerz and students try to help me understand structuralism better while helping answer their own questions

Brooks
there are NO small roles: this blog had a lot of reactions from writers and really sparked student's interest in the little things

Keesey
"however defined": one of my newest blogs but still was getting great feedback and helping me understand better

6. Timeliness: blogs that were posted early and led to discussions
Hirsch
Speak to Me

Keesey Intro, Chap 1
Sounds Familiar

Keesey Intro, Chap 2
Structure

Keesey, Intro, Chap 3
"however defined"

7. Xenoblogging: things I do to help others with blogging
Comment Primo-
Bethany Bouchard- Eagleton

Corey Struss- Hirsch

Ellen Einsporn- McDonald

Jenna Miller- Keesey

Derek Tickle- Kent

Mara Barreiro- Brooks

8. Wildcard: the one I want YOU to see!
Gilman, "The Yellow Wallpaper"
Reflectionsss

Listen. I debated a lot in my mind which blog I wanted you to see. There are a lot of blogs that would better reflect my growth in this class and my understanding of literary criticism, but I can't get over the fact that only ONE person commented on this blog. I was pretty proud of this blog when I wrote it and very proud of my observation while reading Gilman's story. So I want you to see it! I also secretly want all my classmates to tell me I showed them something new, but that just wishful thinking. Thank goodness one person responded and thought I was insightful otherwise I would have cried over my blog-filled computer screen. But seriously!! Please read this one, because I think it reflects the reader I have become and as I learned through many of the essays we've read so far, understanding the text is half the battle!

Carnaval time!! Are there any clowns? I don't know, but here goes nothing!

In Heart of Darkness, I found the use of black and white interesting. Usually in Literature we find that white is the equivalent of good and purity and black symbolizes evil and corruption. This device has been used frequently throughout the ages, but in Conrad's novella he reverses the roles of the symbolic colors. Black symbolizes goodness, while write is seen as a negative, evil symbol.

In the story we see this mostly through the skin color and ethnicity of the character. We see purity and goodness in the Africans, and see corruption and madness in the white colonialism.

Conrad then takes the idea further when he refers to the darkness in all mankind. It goes deeper than just the skin color but looks at the souls of the characters. This is an important theme throughout the story and really speaks to the colonial issues in the novella.

Along with Conrad, I believe these ideas can be seen in "Benito Cereno" as well. Although it may not be as evident as it is in "Heart of Darkness" I believe the play with the skin color and the ideas of corruption are very important. The Africans are actually stronger and are trying to overthrow the corrupt whites which goes along with the contrasting symbols. I think this is a very interesting aspect of both stories.

We can connect this to the historical events happening in foreign countries who experienced corruption when they were being colonized by the 1st world countries such as America, France, Spain, and England.

"Opposing against one another male and female realms of meaning and activity--the barn and the kitchen--...

I know this isn't exactly about the essay, but I really enjoy learning stuff in these essays. I have read Glaspell's "A Jury of Her Peers" about 103383920 times and never thought about the barn vs the kitchen. The men go out to the barn and the women stay in the kitchen. Wow. Seriously, how did I miss that!?

All right, now I did find the article interesting, because it talks about how the female characters are the readers and the men are not a huge part of it. However, I can't help but think author intent, since both Glaspell and Gilman are women. I can't help it!!! Combo time!

"I believe that the final irony of "Benito Cereno" is the extent to which it borrows and extends the rhetorical strategy of targeting the reader, 'getting under the skin,' in order to make a powerful antislavery argument." O'Connell 193

This quote really interested me, because I did feel like the message was under our skin and as O'Connell says, "note the necessity of a second reading to 'get it'' (186). It may not be evident the first time reading through the novella, but after reading over the story we may see deeper messages that got under our skin. It's more than meets the eye!

I really enjoyed this article, and how it went from accusing Melville from being pretty racist to showing the use of his reader-response proved he was making an antislavery argument. I also liked the way that this article was set up, I think it helped me understand the idea of a reader-response, but I will want to make sure. It is pretty much our opinions. That's what it seemed like in this essay. Of course we need to have evidence to backup our claims, but by golly I think I've got it!

"...the ideal reader, just as the critic, is nothing more than a cultured reader--the ideal reader is structurally impossible..." summary of Iser p142

I'd have to say out of all the schools of criticism so far, this one is the funniest to read. When I say funny, I feel it is necessary for me to explain that while I read it, I just laugh because it's so hilarious the speculations they make as they attempt to explain why the school of thought it the BEST!

I still couldn't tell you the answer to the big question after reading, yet another essay on Reader-Response, but I can tell you that I am a little confused to what I am suppose to do as I write an essay myself. Is it my response as the reader? Or am I suppose to think objectively of other readers as I write the response? Like do we research people's contemporary reaction to the stories? Someone please help me out.

"...They agree on one main point: since the 'poem' exists only when the reader (however defined) encounters the text, literary criticism must focus on that encounter." Keesey 138

So I was kind of disappointed after reading this article. Keesey constantly asked questions that were running through my head, "How can we talk critically about the poem-audience relationship?," "Which of several responses is the best one?" and many more. Then I would get all excited and read on to never learn the answer!!! I have always understood in this class that there is no "for certain" but for some reason this article continued to tease me as he said stuff like, "You are probably wondering...", well yes, but no one answered my question. Sure he gave plenty of possible answers but not a definite response to the questions.

So I thought it was only fitting that I picked this quote at the end of the essay that sums up the lack of answers. In the parenthesis we are faced with the truth, "however defined," there is no exact rhyme or reason to how we define the reader, because we are all different. As Keesey says, "...More accurately, there are as many Hamlets as there are readings, for our responses change from year to year, or even from day to day" (133). As far as the reader goes, we can not pin point one person because they all react to a work in different ways. I accept this, but does Keesey have to be such a tease?

"Rudely painted or chalked, as in a sailor freak, along the forward side of a sort of pedestal below canvas, was the sentence 'Seguid vuestro jefe,' (follow your leader)"...Melville 491

I picked this quote and the sentence 'follow your leader' because it was so tragically poetic in the story "Benito Cereno." In the short story, Melville uses suspicion and denial as a technique to lead the readers on throughout the story. When I read this description and the quote on the boat, I knew it would be an important part of the story and wanted to read on to find out what it was all about, and why Delano was so suspicious about everything going on around him.

Melville threw me for a loop plenty of times and I was sure that Benito was the one in charge of what ever was going to happen (I suspected pirating), but was found wrong. Later I realized that there were multiple clues of the slaves revolting like the young slave boy hitting the white boy over the head and other slaves taking down one of the sailors, without any punishment.

But in this quote I was interested in the end when Babo was executed and Benito followed his leader poetically to his own death. I also connected the idea of their death to the skeleton that was hanging above the quote as we later learn in the story. And really I think I could have looked over these details if I hadn't found this quote interesting.

My only question is, why is the sentence written in Spanish? Was it just a device to catch the readers attention, and didn't the slave write it?

"You could replace father and son, pit and sun, with entirely different elements--mother and daughter, bird and mole--and still have the same story. As long as the structure of relations between the units is preserved, it does not matter which items you select." -Eagleton p 83

I'm sorry, I just can NOT agree with this. If you completely change words, you totally change the story! I understand that they are saying the structure doesn't change, but how can they say that the story isn't important enough to look at? If you couldn't tell, I don't really like structuralism. I understand that it is not as objective as the other schools of criticism, but I don't agree that it is the best way to analyze literature. Maybe I should be looking at each of the schools of thought separately, because if I think about criticism in general, I can not grasp the point of ONLY analyzing the structure of any written literature.

I don't believe that the author writes literature which structuralism as the only important aspect of the story. I'm almost positive an author would not appreciate us changing words here and there because they aren't important to the structure, therefore ruining the stories plot. Seriously, let's go through Eagleton's analysis and change a few words around. I bet he'd love that!

Phew...thanks for hearing me out.

While I was reading Kent's article, I stumbled across the word aphorism and had to find out what it was all about.

The aphorism should not be confused to epigrams and is defined as: a terse statement on a serious subject. An example of this is from King Lear when he says "How sharper than a serpent's tooth/It is to have a thankless child." There were also multiple examples from the Bible.

"in a good poem there is no waste motion and there are no superfluous parts..." summary from Brooks p. 85

I really liked this idea of every part of poetry being important. I often wonder if authors write every single line with a purpose. Honestly the thought it just incredible! As far as poetry and short stories go, I feel this is a more believable idea, that the author uses each sentence and every word as a way to convey what they are trying to "say."

I also liked Brooks's style in this essay, because he uses metaphors and similes to describe why they are important to literary context. This makes it more interesting, seeing the technique within the essay. In the quote I picked, he compares poetry and the structural analysis to the importance of every role in a drama. Just like a drama, all aspects of the poem are important to the overall understanding and analysis of the written work.

"The repetition, hyperbole, and babble observed by these critics may suggest that the very forms of language employed by Keats need close scrutiny." -Kent p 114

I won't lie, this quote may not be that exciting, but I really liked the use of babble. It may not seem important, but to me it made the article a little like fun. Yes I said it, babble made it seem a little less serious. Not as scary. I mean really when babble became a literary devise I became THRILLED!!!

Okay, but on a more serious note, from the formalist's point of view these are the reasons that Keats's poem was worth looking at. In my prospective, I think that formalism is important but I feel like it's not the ONLY reason "Ode on a Grecian Urn" needs close scrutiny. Maybe Kent wasn't saying that formalism is the only way to look at it, but I felt that's what he was insinuating. And honestly, I think that is sometimes the easy way out. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but formalism doesn't seem as objective as other schools of criticism.

So that's all I really have to say. Plus BABBLE...I just like it.

"...for the goal of formal analysis is to show how the various elements in the poem fit together, how the parts cohere to produce the whole, and how our understanding of the whole conditions our understanding of the parts." -Keesey

Although Keesey was talking about the formalist style of criticism, I found a connection between this quote with our class discussion this past Thursday. Dr. Jerz went through a critical essay and analyzed the approach the author took. In this same way, we are asked to look at the pieces of literature we read every day. If we can see the individual elements of the literature and the coherence of those elements, we may understand the literature as a whole.

I'm not sure that makes sense, but according to the formalist's beliefs, if I can pick out the structural importance of the piece and how all those elements work together, I will figure out the literature I'm reading.

Does that make any sense, or am I just looking too much into all of this stuff? Please let me know what you think.

"The poetry of The Tempest alerts us to the delicate relation between literature and ideology." -McDonald p.108

I picked this quote, because I think McDonald had a very good point when he said, "...our own critical practice is moving farther and farther away from the text..." (108). The the quote I wanted to focus on points out the balance of literature and ideology. Within the poetry of Shakespeare, we are able to find a certain balance, thanks to his writing and the political and historical value of the work. He brings aesthetics and politics into his work which for some is very difficult and in my opinion is genius! I know that if a piece of literature (if we define it that way) is strictly about politics, I find it VERY difficult to get through. However, by creating a balance in the literary piece I am able to enjoy the literature and the politics even more. It's all in my mind set, I learn dry information much better if it is shown or written in an interesting way.

"To locate The Tempest in the literary field does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of a particular political reading of the play; rather, it simply requires that such a reading be grounded in a historically specific negotiation between the text and the normal political attitude of the theater-audience." -Yachnin p. 38

Yachnin writes a lot about how during different productions of The Tempest, the historical and political views may be seen in a different way unlike that which Shakespeare intended. When Shakespeare originally wrote The Tempest in 1611, when it was also performed, the political message was viewed differently than it was in 1674, 1878, and in 1988. All renditions produced different ideas, and in this manner we may see that Shakespeare's work is famous because it relates throughout the years to our lives. However while criticizing a work, Yachnin makes the point SEVERAL times that he is analyzing the work based on the intention of Shakespeare when he originally produced the play. I found this interesting, would it be accurate to analyze the play based on a different production date? Or are we always asked to look at the authors intention as he would have written the play?

"The poem itself is not the norm, after all, and in itself it cannot reveal what the norm is."-Watson p. 32

I liked this quote because it is completely honest. In my high school psychology class my teacher took a poll. He had everyone in the classroom who wore contacts or glasses raise their hands. The majority of the class had their arms raised in the air. The whole point to this little experiment was to prove that the norm is often undefinable. The norm in my class's case differed from what was culturally normal. Most people don't consider bad eyesight a norm. Kind of interesting to think about...let it all sink in. Now think about this idea in the context of literature. In the same way, literature can not have a norm as shown through Watson's study.

You taught me language, and my profit on’t
Is I know how to curse. The red plague rid you
For learning me your language! (I.ii.366-368)
--Caliban speaking to Prospero and Miranda

So I picked these lines, because they were an important part of Caliban's character and his anger of humans taking over his land. In the youtube version I watch, the 1960's TV version, was full of men in leotards, men with bare legs, and a fishy looking character Caliban. In this rendition Caliban comes out of the ground all animal-like and throughout the production, he acts strangely. According to what I have learned, Caliban does not favor the humans taking over his wild land and changing the way he needs to act. They are colonizing his land and taking over. These lines show that he is going to use what the humans taught him in a negative way as a sort of pay back...not so scary coming from the creepy fish-dude, but you get the gist.

"Every utterance is an attempt to express something--an idea, a feeling, a set of facts--and is successful to the extent that it effectively communicates what it set out to communicate." -Keesey p. 14

While reading chapter one on "Author as Context," I felt a sense of dejavu! Most of what was talked about throughout the chapter was similar to what we discussed in class on Thursday night. Keesey points out that authors are evasive and may not even know their own intentions, or understand their feeling towards the writing during different times of their lives.

In the chapter, I liked this quote and idea the most, because it justifies how we may criticism literature. We may look at the works and analyze whether or not the author effectively communicates their idea. However, it is all relative because we already decided that the author is evasive and the analysis of literature does not have a definite answer. But hey, that's what makes it all FUN!!!

I know that this blog is suppose to be devoted to literary terms that I didn't understand or wanted to look at, but while reading Eagleton's "Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Reception Theory" chapter, the word schemata was too mind boggling to resist!

According to wikipedia schema or schemata (pl.) in psychology and cognitive science, is a mental structure that represents some aspect of the world. This learning theory views organized knowledge as an elaborate network of abstract mental structures which represent one's understanding of the world.

The explanation goes on to explain that schemata are effecitive tools for understanding the world. Most everyday situations do not require effortful thought--automatic thought is all this is required.

phew-I feel much better!

"By moonlight--the moon shines in all night when there is a moon--I wouldn't know it was the same paper. At night in any kind of light, in twilight, candlelight, lamplight, and worst of all by moonlight, it becomes bars! The outside pattern I mean, and the woman behind it is as plain as can be." (Gilman 536)

Throughout Gilman's short story "The Yellow Wallpaper," she repeats observations of the moonlight many different times. The first time she said it, I found it odd and after she continued to repeat descriptions of the moonlight and the wallpaper at night, I knew it was important. In Gilman's style, it was obvious that she used repetition to show importance and this was my favorite use of repetition.

In this quote and in the moonlight, the narrator sees the room in a different light. A light that reflects off of many things and effects her perspective of the room and wallpaper. As we all learned as children afraid of shadows, the moonlight reflects things in spooky abstract ways. As the narrator mentions, the windows of the nursery are barred and at night the moonlight reflects the bars onto the walls, along with a shadow of herself. This depiction was outstanding and still has me thinking.

Sadly her depression drove her to see these reflections in a different light that haunted and taunted her, yet encouraged her madness in her quest to free the woman behind bars, herself.

"The critic is right to think that the text should speak to us. The point which needs to be grasped clearly by the critic is that a text cannot be made to speak to us until what it says has been understood." - Hirsch p18

Although I found many things interesting in this theory, this quote and idea stuck with me the whole time. While looking at literature, many people overlook what the text is about in an urge to find out what the text means to us individually. However, Hirsch makes that point that without understanding what the text is actually saying, we cannot understand how the piece really speaks to us.

For instance, if I read Langston Hughes's poetry without understanding the Harlem Renaissance and the importance of his voice as a writer, I wouldn't truly be understanding the text. Therefore the way the text would speak to me would be invalid and moot. Without the greater understanding and in my opinion respect for literature we wouldn't be able to analyze literature soundly, because the text would just be words we interpret in our own individual way.

"...to grasp any phenomena wholly and purely is to grasp what is essential and unchanging about it." -Eagleton's attempt to explain Phenomenology

I have to admit, I was debating whether to challenge myself or to settle for what I understood. Honestly, I'm still not sure what made me decide to take on these theories and philosophies of criticism. Considering I had learned most of the English history in past classes, I decided to throw myself back into the pool of confusion in an attempt to stay afloat.

After looking at the information and the notes I took (multiple times), I feel I have an understanding of "concrete and solid grounds,'Back to the things themselves!' But I'm not sure if I understand the school of criticism that follows in the philosophical footsteps. Correct me if I am wrong: the phenomenological criticism is unaffected by any outside forces. So you are just reading the text and analyzing the exact words, not looking at the culture or personal background of the author? Is that it?

Please help if you understood. And why is this a phenomena? Haa, you would think a phenomena would be more abstract and unstructured...is it just me?