March 2009 Archives

I was looking up words and came across metacritique, but stumbled across metafiction in the process!! I found it interesting, I hope you do too!

metafiction is an experimental movement which incorporates into the narrative the process by which the author creates the work and the way that the reader responds to it.

It is primarily found in modernist and postmodernist literature, but can also be seen in Don Quixote and Canterbury Tales. A more recent account would be Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five.

For more information check out this link to wikipedia.

"The question naturally arises why we should bother ourselves about unstable meanings. What do we gain from proving that an author is ambivalent, and he did not know he meant it when he said it? It seems that on the one hand we are taking a share of the credit away from him, but on the other hand we are also giving him credit for an act of living communication." -Wright p.399

Wright's essay was coming to a close when she prompted these questions and I thought it was very significant to our understanding of the new psychoanalysis of literature and how it affects the ideas of poststructuralism.

It was certainly a well explained essay, maybe too direct at times as she said stuff like, "I would now like to look at..." and "I will again give a brief outline", which kind of dumbed it down.

However, I felt this quote on page 399 was important in studying the new psychoanalysis study of literature. Wright suggests that within this theory we aren't treating the author as an egoist but we are enlightening the subject matter to the reader. I have always believed that authors couldn't possibly be aware of every single technique or connection they made throughout a story or novel, and that is sort of what the psychoanalysis theory is saying. They are NOT finding new meanings within the literature, they are just finding a hidden meaning.

I also thought it was important that she says, "Nevertheless, we should remember that it is the creative activity of the artist that has produced the text from which we can generate such a wealth of meanings." She gives credit to the author and I feel that is very important. Because without the author we cannot generate the hidden meanings from the text(obviously).

I think this essay opened my eyes up to poststructuralism. I think it's definitely leading me in the right direction.

"The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality has its center elsewhere.The center is not the center. The concept of centered structure--although it represents coherence itself, the condition of the epiteme as philosophy or science--is contradictorily coherent." -Derrida p. 354

Is it possible that my AHHH HAAAA moment just fell into the black hole that is the center, which is not the center? I will be honest. I am struggling a lot with poststructural criticism. I think it's a little too abstract for me to grasp. After the introduction I thought I might be able to understand in general what poststructuralism was focusing on, but simply lost my train of thought as soon as I stumbled across this essay. Not only does Derrida propose statements that are purely philosophical but I never really had a chance to jump on board her article.

I believe that in ever article there is a time to hop on the train of thought and go for the ride, but in this article I feel like 1) I either got on the wrong train or 2) the train passed its stop. I'm going to have to mark this entire article and idea of poststructuralism as my literary criticism muddy point of the semester. If any of you understood and can find it in your hearts to explain this to me, I would be forever grateful! What is it all about!?

"Deconstructive criticism, is poststructural in at least three senses: it comes after structuralism; it deconstructs the central concepts of "structure"; and at the same time it continues many of the key ideas of structuralism, among them the ideas that humans are signifying creatures, that human culture is a system of sign systems, and that the source and pattern for these systems is language."-Keesey Intro. to Chapter Six

All right, I'm going to come out and say it. Keesey took FOREVER to get to the point!! I mean seriously!!! By the last two pages he finally started to talk about poststructuralism! Anyways, once Keesey started to discuss the fusion of both deconstructive criticism and structuralism, I felt like I started to grasp the idea.

This is the quote that I felt was most helpful to my "understanding" of poststructuralism and how it stems from both the idea of structuralism and deconstructive criticism. Obviously poststructuralism involves and comes from structuralism, but does it really involve the bigger picture of structuralism?? I guess I never thought of the human culture as the important part of structuralism. Then again, critics are trying to move away from structuralism for some reason or another. I actually felt that the deconstructive criticism made more sense than the use of structuralism. What do you think??

"plunged into a confused melee of socialism..."

Melee (there are 2 accent marks I can't add above the first and second e's): a confused hand-to-hand fight or struggle among several people or confusion; turmoil; jumble

My only question is, if the definition is confusion, why add confused as an adjective to describe confusion? If you know what I mean... kind of hard to ask a question about a definition. I just think Eagleton likes complication. Yay for us!

"Literature is not content, as with New Criticism, to offer cloistered alternative to material history: it now reaches out and colonizes that history, rewriting it in its own image, viewing famines, revolutions, soccer matches and sherry trifle as yet more undecidable 'text'...the New Critical retreat into the literary text can be reproduced at the same time as criticism reaches out a revenging hang over the world and strikes it empty of meaning." Eagleton 126-27

I really liked these quotes because they go into the undecidable 'text' and also discusses the empty meaning that is the basis of post-structuralism. I too had trouble understanding this essay, I think that Eagleton's writing style beats around the bush a lot and doesn't really hit the point. Understandable for the topic of literary criticism-that it would be hard to explain in simple terms.

However, I think I have grasped the main ideas of Post-Structuralism. The "retreat into the literary text" can have multiple meanings. That is why there are empty meanings in words found in the context, because they may be studied and analyzed different ways. After every critical reading, we may find different things to study and in my opinion that is one of the reasons literature is a retreat. I believe that if a book or poem is worth while, we will learn and analyze different things every time we read them. Is that what Post-Structuralism is looking at?

"One form of that alliance between the authority of the detective and conservative notions of social order can be seen in Poe's mystery fiction...the relations between Poe's work and southern conservatism, suggests a fascinating and revealing contrast between his attitude to law and order and Melville's. (The contrast is at its clearest when "Benito Cereno" is set against Poe's work--though "Bartleby" might be another radical mystery story whose radicalism is revealed in opposition to Poe--with as problematic a "crime" as in "Benito Cereno" and as well-meaning a detective.)" Swann p. 317

Through reading this application essay by Swann, I think I have a better understanding of intertextual readings. Throughout the essay Swann uses examples of other literature that may have had influence on Melville's approach to a mystery and detective story. There were a few areas of information that I felt took away from his argument. When he used the phrase "I am not suggesting any direct influence--" I felt his argument was weaker (Swann 319). He also used "seems" throughout the essay where I think he could have eliminated that. (ex. Swann 318 "Poe seems to feel no need...", why not make it Poe felt no need?? I thought it was obvious that critical essays were somewhat opinion and persuasive.)

As I read statements like that I kept thinking of Bravo's "Project Runway" and one of the hosts Tim Gunn saying, "All right, MAKE IT WORK!". I believe that if you are going to have evidence in a critical essay such as this you should make it work and have it strengthen your essay. I guess it really annoyed me that he used statements that did not persuade readers further in his arguement.

"The Tempest is almost a comic parody of a revenge tragedy, in which there is repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation instead of revenge." -Frye p. 301

When I read this sentence, I was pretty sure I understood the meaning of a parody, but I looked it up just in case I was confusing it with a paradox.

PARODY in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.

So I assume that all parodies are meant to be comic. Not sure why Frye decided to add comic to the term, but there it is.

"What, then, is reality, as the play presents it? That is more difficult, and Prospero seems to agree with T.S. Eliot that whatever reality is, humankind cannot bear very much of it. But just as "reality" for Antonio turns out to be illusion, so perhaps what is illusion on the much higher level of Ferdinand and Miranda might turn out to be closer to reality." Frye p. 302

I really liked this passage and it's continued explanation. The paragraph goes on to distinguish the reality of nature that escapes us but is shown through theatrical illusions. Through the process of the play the "illusion moves into reality in a paradoxical way" and that's where I started losing Frye's point (302). What I grasped from this quote and his continual explanation is that illusions in The Tempest may be closer to reality and the reality is an illusion in the story.

The example Frye uses to explain the temporary illusion or dramatic illusion is, "what the wedding masque symbolizes in the play: the masque is presented to Ferdinand and Miranda, but the whole play is being presented to us, and we must be sure that we omit no aspect of it" (302).

And although I write this all down, I'm not sure I understand what it all means. If you can, please point me in the right direction. This is definitely not my ahhhh haaa moment. MUDDY POINT!

"Feminist criticism is moral because it sees that one of the central problems of Western literature is that in much of it women are not human beings, seats of consciousness." -Donovan p.230

As far as Feminist criticism goes, I have two questions. Do these critics ever look at women who depict women as strong and brave?? Do they EVER look at the positive literature? I believe that I have feminist ideals, but at the same time, I always feel like they are so depressed and glass half empty. They should celebrate the positive aspects of feminism. I agree with Erica and after reading this article I'm getting tired of their downer attitudes. I mean, lets tear about all these great old fashioned movies and novels because the women is depicted the way women were during that time. I'm not saying it was right, but honestly they were trying to depict a "real" life women from that time.

" In different works and in different fictional modes the distribution of emphasis varies; and in some works one of these interests may be far more important than the others. When a work concerns itself seriously with more than one of these interests, it must bring its various impulses into harmony if it is to be organically unified." -Paris 217

In this theory article, I found myself wondering how we are all suppose to make the "right" choice and will there ever be an time in literary criticism where we will need the "right" answers. If we are asked to pick one of the many interests, and call it the most important standing out from the others, what makes us right? Because literature is so objective, aren't there many different "more important" points? It really depends on the readers-response! Either I am making connections or I am completely WRONG! hahah However, I feel like I am beginning to understand and accept that they are really all connected and it's difficult to write under just one school of thought.

SO I guess my finally question is why can't we look at the literature as a whole? Is it too big to look at the multiple emphasis?

"We soon become aware that every poet has his own distinctive structure of imagery, which usually emerges even in his earliest work, and which does not and cannot essentially change." -Frye 283

If every single poet or writer has their own style that is so distinct while they right, we must not focus on their writing style but on their context. The difference is very small but it makes a huge difference while looking at intertextual criticism because we cannot look at the individual style for criticism but their context can certainly be criticized based on the past and similar contextual styles of writing. Am I getting close??

From Frye's essay I think I have a better understanding of intertexual criticism, but I'm never positive that I have completely grasped the idea. Like Keesey said in his introduction, all art is rediscovered and in a way reused. Although I understand the idea, I think this may be one of the most difficult criticism to do.

"...for poetry, being an art, must go on rediscovering, re-creating, and recombining the conventions of that art if it is to exist at all. And poetry must continue to do so even when critical theory takes little notice of the fact and even when its readers come less and less to share similar assumptions and similar training." -Keesey 269

I have always liked the idea that poetry and literature recycle themselves. In this quote from Keesey, he talks about art rediscovering, re-creating, and recombining to form fresh and new literature. Modern poetry and literature still uses the past authors styles and techniques even if they aren't aware of the intertextual uses of the past.

As Keesey discusses, all the arts are similar in this way. In my History of Western Arts classes this year I have learned that artists are influenced by the past even if they are creating new artistic genres. For example, impressionism could be found in artwork done during the years before, but was officially found by artists such as Monet, Renoir, and Degas. Although this isn't completely connected to literature, it is always important to me to relate what I'm learning to other areas of life to grasp the ideas further. I hope this can help others as well.

I felt that the Seton Hill Theatre's adaptation of "Life is a Dream" was pretty close to the play. Although I know there are differences here and there, I really felt they focused on the main themes and got the lessons and meaning across to the crowd. When literature is performed and/or made into a movie the written work takes on a new form as we watch the characters reactions and emotions in person, which we can only imagine while reading.

I've always enjoyed novels more than the plays, but when I see an adaptation of literature I absolutely love seeing what the director decides to use and eliminate. I have always respected the changes between the two arts.

Initially the most exciting aspect of Azar Nafisi's lecture was the fact that she had FAITH in the arts!!! I am absolutely thrilled that someone respects and pushes the arts to new limits!!! It's like the Avenue Q song, "What Do You Do With a BA in English?" everyone puts our major down. When I tell people I am an English Major I always have follow up questions such as "Are you going to be a teacher?" "Oh, Are you going to be a writer?" Why is our major looked down upon so often!! I have tools that will take me places!? I have an imagination and creative thinking, organization, and have learned so much in these past three years. So why does it have to be such a negative subject to study?? Dr. Nafisi respected the arts and like so many other artists, believed that the arts keep the culture and the world growing!

As far as the connection to criticism, I believe that through literary criticism and the study of literature and any art on a critical level still entails the imagination that Nafisi is talking about. Every week I write my case study, I have to creatively twist and alter the way I look at the text in front of me. That's why I think Azar Nafisi's lecture was important and insightful. And I thank her for supporting the arts and not putting us on the back burner!

In my blog entry for Keesey Chapter 4, I talk about Chekhov and his Theatre of the Absurd. So I felt it was only fair that I explain what it's all about. I mean, honestly the name helps a good bit. It's pretty absurd.

The definition of the Theatre of the Absurd have some characteristics coincide in many of the plays: broad comedy, often similar to Vaudeville, mixed with horrific or tragic images; characters caught in hopeless situations forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions; dialogue full of clichés, wordplay, and nonsense; plots that are cyclical or absurdly expansive; either a parody or dismissal of realism and the concept of the "well-made play".

If you saw the SHU Theatre production of The Bald Soprano, you have a better understanding of this genre. Here is the wikipedia link for more info!!!

"In The Tempest and La vida es sueno, plotting and its cure are simultaneously issues of narrative order and of political reconstruction. Prospero and Basilio are artist-princes who believe in their abilities to plot or control the course of public life; the working-through of their schemes releases the state from the blocked energies of the past and unveils the prospect of a new politics that will not reiterate old errors and injustices."-Rupp para. 7

I'm completely there with Angela, I absolutely cannot get into the political readings. Let me just say, BLAH!!! It took me a long time to get through the text and to understand it, because I'm not really into the jargon and the political stuff.

However this quote caught my attention while I was reading. Further along in the article, quotes from Machiavelli reiterates the fear of politics and therefore history repeating themselves. In this quote Rupp discusses Prospero and Basillio's beliefs that they may get away from past "errors and injustices". Throughout history, I believe this is an important aspect of leaders. We do not want to repeat the past because and because of that we want artistic willing leaders to take us to new places and to get away from repetition.

"Judgment implies knowledge, especially knowledge of right and wrong, which in turns implies a hierarchy of values and powers within which the determination of right and wrong is made."-Sears para. 5

Okaaay. So this is seriously a packed quote!! If you can judge something, you have knowledge of right and wrong. And this means that that it is a determinate of what right and wrong is? In the case of free will, we have the choice and the knowledge to chose between right and wrong. Therefore we must use judgment in what we chose to do.

In the battle of right or wrong through, it's all objective. We see this in Segismundo's struggle to understand the difference between free will and freedom. After reading this quote, the importance of right and wrong seems to be the underlying significance in the play and in the struggle to understand that free will gives you the option to make a good or poor choice. It is not the equivalent of freedom.

"While some male authors also use such imagery for implicitly or explicitly confessional projects, women seem forced to live more intimately with the metaphors they have created to solve the "problem" of their fall."

I found this quote interesting, because MEN also use techniques similar to women. Women are victims, I agree, but the point I wanted to focus more on through this quote is that men couldn't use this exact psychological writing technique because they weren't culturally treated the way women were.

I think it unimportant to add a detail such as this in their critical essay because it doesn't reflect on their thesis or their point. Women were treated as victims and were trapped so it was seen in their literature, but men cannot convey this same style in their writing because they don't know it.

Think this makes sense...so why did Gilbert and Gubar add sentiments just like this quote into their essay??