From Keesey, Ch 6 (Introduction) -- Jerz EL312 (Literary Criticism):
"In this view we humans are essentially structuring or signifying animals, and our entire culture--the foods we eat, the clothes we wear, the sounds we utter--is a system of sign systems, a layering of codes." (344)
I have to present this week on Derrida's work... So I jumped right in and tried to read that essay first. Um...that didn't work out so well. So I thought Keesey's essay would help me generate a background that would get me through Derrida's work, and I guess I was partially right in the fact that Keesey DID introduce Derrida and some of his thoughts.
Everything else is just a little fuzzy.
Basically, all the other critical readings we've learned are meaningless without language. There's a time and a place for certain kinds of structures, and "codes" that help us to determine where to use them. Sort of how you know it's inappropriate to wear your Cat In The Hat striped hat to a funeral (that isn't Dr. Suess's), you know it's inappropriate to use the F-word in academic papers.
To be more specific, you might, in fact, have a colorful metaphor to give to the bubbles that rose to the top of the test tube in your science experiment, but including that metaphor in your report might have your peers calling you "bubbles" behind your back. So you know to keep your metaphors and hands to yourself unless you're in poetry/pottery class.
EVEN MORE SPECIFIC: it's okay to use a certain kind of language when one is trying to get across a point in more ways than one. Example, James McBride's The Color of Water serves as both an autobiography of McBride, a biography of his mother, and a tale of racial discrimination that affects everyone--not just McBride and his mother.
That might not be exactly what Keesey's saying in chapter 6's intro, but if I think about it in that fashion, I think I'll be better equipped to take on Jacques Derrida...
Posted by ValerieMasciarelli at March 26, 2007 12:31 PM | TrackBack
I peed a little when I watched that Ebaum's video. As for Keesey, I can understand the concept about the multiple ways to express a point to another, and Postmodernism seems to take the most subtle approach possible to convey a message. Mostly, the answers one looks for, is not always the answer that is going to either be the most realistic or straight-forward. Not providing an answer is really a method that breaks away from previous traditions, and noticing that will make life a bit easier for you. I really hope that your presentation goes well, and if you need more help, I would read Postmortem for a Postmodernist again: it will be helpful. Also, check out Murfin and Ray, because they are helpful too.
Posted by: Jay Pugh at March 28, 2007 10:00 AMThe striped hat and the f word were perfect metaphors for explaining appropriateness of metapohors, Val. You are so funny and creative, can't wait to see your presentation. As for postructuralism, you cleared it up for me, because I was hung up on the idea that it had to be about the origin rather than when to and where to use the signs that originated from the origin (how's that for being ridiculously incoherent and long-winded?) :)
Posted by: Erin at March 28, 2007 1:25 PMHi i like pasta
Posted by: gote at April 7, 2008 6:15 PM