Ok, so I did think that these two readings were much easier than Bakhtin, but I must agree with Keva on this one when I say I think I understood Bakhtin a bit more than the two of these. Although these two were easier reading, I feel like I was thinking to hard into them and trying to find the deeper meaning like I was with the other reading. I feel like this was not the case, that the meanings on these two were simple and this assignment had taken way longer than expected because I was thinking this way.
I think that Williams did make a lot of great points, once I actually understood some of them. It’s just very hard to put them down into words without confusing it all, but here goes. I thought it was interesting when Williams was talking about Literature as a concept. I feel like I do agree with him in a lot of his points here. On page 1568 he says ” The naivety of the concept, in this familiar form, can be shown in two ways: theoretically and historically. It is true that one popular version of the concept has been developed in ways that appear to protect it, and in practice do often protect it, against any such arguments.” I think what he means by this is that a popular theory, whether it is theoretically or historically formed, could develop ways to protect the theory through the practice of it. It is like it is untouchable and so believable if it is practiced by many people at a certain time. I think if you really think about it, this “theory” could be held true for out time because we do believe that certain theories tend to have more significance and more meaning if they are practiced more. Also, they may hold more truth and also may be safer or the “better” one to use if it is used more often.
I think that I may have understood Rhizome a bit more than Williams. He also had some very interesting points, right from the very first page. He says: “A book has neither object nor subject, it is made from various formed materials, and very different dates and speeds. To attribute the book to a subject is to overlook this working of matters, and the exteriority of their relations”. I think what he means here is that a book could have many different meanings. If we overlook or “miss” those meanings, or even think that the book only has one meaning, then we could quite possibly have a lack of understanding the text all together.At book is comprised of many different things, all made at different times. It is reasonable to think that a book would have more meaning behind it if you think about where it has come from and the relations it has to that person. Because sections of the book are written in many different times of a a persons life, each section could have different meanings according to what was happening in that person’s life at the time it was being written. I think what he basically trying to say here is that you have to look at a book as a whole, including it’s outside influences in order to understand it’s various points.
After reading these two readings, along with Baktin, I believe that I do have a better understanding of the “literature concept”. Although I did very much hate reading Baktin, I feel I have a better grasp on his materials, then I do with the other two. Either way, I feel like all of the reading had significance and they have made the subjects a bit more clear.
February 3, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Hi Cara,
You made many great points in your post, all of which I haven’t the time to discuss but appreciate none-the-less.
I will say this, I think you nailed your Williams argument. Indeed, the middle class theory is self-contained. Theory, as a matter of taste rather than literary value, is a surefire way to control exclusive access and keep the lower classes out. This type of literary theory insulates itself from the questions which could break its very structure.
To take it one step further, a paradox exists between oppression of the lower classes, which Williams says is the source of imagination and creativity, and middle class appreciation of that very same creativity. Marxist criticism breaks down the elitist barriers allowing a broad inclusion of literature spanning all classes. In this way literature continually raises questions of what came before, clearing the path to further study.
It is on this point that I depart from your assessment. I don’t agree that we rely too heavily on one particular theory today without room for question. Consider this: Growth through questioning and reinventing is what has brought about change in literary form as evidenced by how we are no longer bound to the written word. Literature has evolved with technology to include PA speeches, internet images, and other new forms to be “read.” Creativity is no longer enslaved by flowery language and uncontroversial subject matter. It lives, breathes and is moving in a direction that we can’t even fathom. Graphic novels and hyper texts are just the beginning of the experiment. Personally, I find the movement and flow fascinating. That we are limited only by our imaginations means there can be no end in sight.
See you in class!
Kim