Does anyone know how to set the date on this thing? I just realized that all of my posts are dated a day ahead of when I actually posted them. For example, I just posted one today which is 3-29, but it says that it was posted 3-30. It’s the same for all of these which makes it look like I was a day late when posting every single one of these posts. This was not the case!! I was always on time and I don’t know how to fix this!! Ok, I’m done venting, can anyone help? Thanks!!
-Cara
Relating a theorist to our English Department Symposium was not easy. I attended Hollis Seamon’s section in which students read pieces of their short stories or micros that they had created for the class. I also am a student of this Writing Fiction class and I also read a portion of one of my stories. I was looking through all of the theorists that we have studies so far and I realized that I had no clue on how to relate anything they had said to students reading pieces of their stories. I found a few things that I thought might work so I’m just going to wing it so here goes. I was looking back through my notes and I remember reading Jameson’s individual/aesthetic part of his piece. I actually had forgotten what exactly “aesthetic” had meant, so of course I had to “Google” it. Wikipedia says that aesthetic is “a branch of philosophy called value theory or axiology, which is the study of sensoryor sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. Aesthetics is closely associated with the philosophy of art.” I read a little bit further and found that there was something called The Aesthetic movement. The Aesthetic movement “is a loosely defined movement in art and literature in later nineteenth-century Britain. Generally speaking, it represents the same tendencies that Symbolism or Decadence stood for in France, and may be considered the British branch of the same movement. It belongs to the anti-Victorian reaction and had post-Romantic roots. It took place in the late Victorian period from around 1868 to 1901, and is generally considered to have ended with the trial of Oscar Wilde. I thought that this was extremely interesting and I thought that I could try to relate this movement to Jameson, as well as the readers at the symposium.
I read a bit more on this and I found that the artists and writers of the Aesthetic movement “tended to hold that the Arts should provide refined sensuous pleasure, rather than convey moral or sentimental messages.” Thinking about this statement, I realized that the students today were doing the same thing. Yes, they were reading stories that were mandatory to complete the class, but they all volunteered to read them aloud to others. In a sense, they were all getting some type of pleasure from sharing them with other people, I know because I did this. Reading a story that you yourself have written and having images and thoughts that were once in your mind conveyed to others is an amazing feeling. Of course you are nervous once you get up in front of a room full of people, but it is the aftermath that is truly worth while. Just seeing the looks of satisfaction on people’s faces and knowing that you shared a piece of yourself with them is the real pleasure. Wikipedia also said that “the main characteristics of the movement were: suggestion rather than statement, sensuality, massive use of symbols, and synaesthetic effects—that is, correspondence between words, colors and music.” I realized that this is exactly what the students had done. They had used so many different techniques and each of their stories were different from the others. They all have used different symbols in their stories ranging from an apple to a smile. The flow of the stories almost seemed musical, and certainly full of colorful images and descriptions. All of these stories were created in order to get the pleasure of reading them, which is exactly what The Aesthetic Movement was all about.
On page 1964 Jameson says “The great modernisms were, as we have said, predicted on the invention of a personal, private style, as unmistakable as your fingerprint, as incomparable as your own body. But this means that the modernist aesthetic is in some ways organically linked to the conception of a unique self and private identity, a unique personality and individuality, which can be expected to generate its own unique vision of the world and to forge its own unique, unmistakable style.” I figured that this statement can also be related to the students that read today. If you think about it, all of the students today were obviously individuals and it was prominent in the stories that they had read. No two stories were a like and each had their own unique sense of self that was portrayed throughout them. They all have unique personalities and their own personal styles that showed through their readings. From a homeless woman sitting on a bus to a crazed man slaughtering innocent victims, each of these students clearly showed their own identity through their story. It is their imaginations and their different techniques of each story that makes them individuals. Whether their stories were factual or not, each of them did have an “unmistakable style” that could clearly be seen.
Now that I’ve explained the “easy part” (in a sense) of this theory, it’s time for the “so what?” Honestly, I really have no idea about this part. I guess what it really all comes down to is the fact that each of these students were brave enough to read these pieces. In doing this, thoughts and emotions that were held inside their minds were aloud to break free, in a sense, as they were shared with others. I personally think that this is one of the key points in literature. What is the point of writing something, whether it is something small and “insignificant” or a something that some would call a masterpiece if it is not shared with others? It is the sharing and conveying of writings that truly makes them valuable. By valuable I do not mean in a money sense. What I mean is valuable in a sense that this information that is shared could possibly change or even corrupt the views and thoughts of others. It could possibly go either way, but no matter what, when you read something, it will definitely make you think about it; even it is for a brief moment after. I think that this is what theory is really all about. Sharing different views with others and then picking them apart brings people closer together. Not to sound like a flower child or anything, but I do believe that English, as well as writings of any kind can do this. It is truly the individualism and originality of each of the reading that were performed today that bonds these students. It doesn’t matter how different each of their stories were. It is the recognition of their individuality that connects them to Jameson’s theory. They all had a common purpose to be there today, which was to share and hopefully aloud others to reflect on their works. After all, this is truly what literature is all about.
Back to the old drawing board! I thought that Foucault’s piece was very interesting. When I first started reading it, I was a bit confused. I had to read it twice to actually understand some of things that were said in here. After doing this, I realized that this was not the hard to comprehend. Maybe this was because it was a slightly more interesting and attention grabbing subject? Either way, I’m happy that I at least understood a few things here.
On page 1648 Foucault says: “…but more important was the multiplication of discourses concerning sex in the field of exercise of power itself: an institutional incitement to speak about it, and to do so more and more; a determination on the part of the agencies of power to hear it spoken about, and to cause it to speak through explicit articulation and endlessly accumulated detail.” There is a lot to digest in these few sentences above. What I think Foucault is trying to say here is that sex and anything spoken about it is mostly about power. Even controlling when it is spoken about, who speaks about it and actually who performs it is an act of power. Who has more power over who depends on the subject that is being debated and who has the upper hand on controlling it.
Foucault says on page 1653 that “it had long been asserted that a country had to be populated if it hoped to be rich and powerful; but this was the first time that a society had affirmed, in a constant way, that its future and its fortune were tied not only to the number and the uprightness of it citizens, to their marriage rules and family organizations, but to the manner in which each individual made use of his sex.” Again, this all goes back to “power” and who holds it. This made me think of society today. I think that sex holds a lot of power today. If you think about it, everything is about sex nowadays. Our society tends to be a bit more promiscuous that is was “back then.” It seems like it is not the person who holds the power of sex, it is sex that holds the power itself. Yes, people do make their own decisions on what to do with their lives, but I believe that sex is defiantly one of the factors that leads people to choose certain decisions in their lives.
I really liked his ending sentence. Foucault says that “never have there existed more canters of power; never more attention manifested and verbalized; never more circular contacts and linkages; never more sites where the intensity of pleasures and the persistency of power catch hold, only to spread elsewhere” (1666). I thought that this was a very strong sentence to end with. I liked how he basically summed up everything that he had just said and it makes more sense to me if you read it like this. I think that he is right. Sex=power, especially today. Along with money, it is basically the “controller” of our world today. I think it is everyone’s personal choice on if they let it control their lives, or if they control them themselves.
I have to say that I really enjoyed reading this novel. I think that I like this one the best so far. I really like that fact that David changed so much. I thought it was nearly impossible for such a sex crazed man to actually have feelings about something or someone that did not involve him gaining something from it. I think we started to see that he actually cared about someone other than himself when Lucy told him she was raped. He was actually more upset over it than she was. I personally would think that the victim would be more upset, but I think that David was because he realized that it is his daughter that was raped, not some prostitute that he “visits.” I think that because it was his daughter that was raped, he felt like he need revenge, which is why he turned his ways around.
There’s no surprise that Lucy was pregnant. I kind of figured it out from the last section that we read. Plus, Lucy and David also had a chat about pregnancy and women giving birth on page 63. David basically describes it as a gift, which is true. I think that Lucy deciding to keep it surprised David so much because it was a product of rape. I don’t think that Lucy sees it this way. I think that she too sees it as a gift, a life and this is why she decides to keep it instead of aborting it. I think that David, although he does not understand this at first, understands this later on when they start to develop a relationship.
One thing that I found kind of odd was the fact that Lucy herself did not want revenge for her rape. I think that because she is a lesbian, in a way, she “expects” this from a male. I think that this is why she doesn’t even care what Pollux, the man who raped her, does. Even when he’s sort of creeping around her and playing “peeping Tom,” I think that she just doesn’t care because he is a male.
Although I do think that David has changed in some ways, I do believe that a lot of the “old David” is still present. We can see this when he goes to stay with Melanie’s family. He wants her younger sister!! Come on now!! How low can this guy get? I just don’t get him!! Even after he returns, I still think that, although he cares about Lucy and kind of starts to act like a father, he still is the same person inside.
I am a bit confused about the ending though. Is Lucy going to actually allow Petrus to marry her? I wasn’t exactly sure about that part. I kind of wish that there was a book two or something to this novel. I am curious to know what will happen to theses characters. My guess would be that David, no matter how much he wants to change, will not change. As for the relationship between him and Lucy, I’m not exactly sure? What can you say to your sex-crazed father that hasn’t been around for almost your whole life? Can there really be a relationship here? I just don’t know?
I am actually surprised by these next few chapters that we have read. I really thought that David Laurie could never be a father. He just doesn’t seem like the type to have a child. I know anyone can just be a father, but it does take something special to be a “daddy,” and with his past with just what we have read so far, I’m not exactly sure how he will do with this situation.
As for relating Disgrace to other theorists, I did have a tough time in doing this. I think it might be because I’m am not looking at the book in a “theorist” way. I think I’m just reading it for it’s face value. Anyway, I tried. On page 63 it says:
“One wants to leave something behind. Or at least a man wants to leave something behind. It’s easier for a woman.”
“Why is it easier for a woman?”
“Easier, I mean, to produce something with a life of its own.”
I thought about these few sentences for a while. They kind of remind me of Rubin’s piece. I think that Rubin’s piece is the most powerful one that we have read so far. I think that this is the one that hit me the most. Also, the whole “women as gifts things” would go well with this section. I just don’t get why women are so oppressed if they are valuable to our world. In these few sentences, it makes it seem like women are more important than men, just for the simple fact that they are able to give life to another. Yes, men help in this process, but it is the women who actually carry the child and produce it in the end.
Going back to Rubin’s kinship thing, I think it might relate to this. What I think she means is that kinship is basically roles and structures that one’s culture has. If women are so important because they are the ones who produce children, then why are they so oppressed and basically have such a low social status? Women are the target for oppression, so why are they valued so why does it seem like they are valued so much? Obviously you cannot make a child without both sexes, but like I said before, the women must carry so ultimately they are giving it life. It is ironic because they are the ones who make the males that actually oppress women.
Also on page 1672 of Rubin’s piece she talks about the whole “women as gifts thing.” Speaking of a woman as a gift, in a way, allows her to have more power. Gifts are usually something wanted or desired, something valued. So, my question is then why if they are “gifts, “ something valued, then why are they so oppressed. It just does not make sense to me. Maybe I’ll bring it up in class to clarify it a bit more.
I have to say that I did enjoy reading Coetzee’s piece so far. I thought that there were a lot of interesting things said here. It’s certainly a change from what we’ve been reading, so I’m open to it.
I liked a lot of the stories that this man told. I thought that were very interesting. One thing that I liked was on page 2 when he says “Affection may not be love, but it is at least its cousin.” I thought about this quote for a while, and to me, it does make sense. You can have affection toward people, it doesn’t even have to be sexual and you can still like a person. With love, there is so much more. You have affection, on top of so many other things. I liked that he referred to affection as a “cousin” because cousins are westerly the closest relatives to you, but they are still in the family.
I thought the whole referring to “sex” or “lust” as making love was a bit odd. Professor Lurie does this a lot in just the few short pages we’ve read. It’s funny because I think that it fits our society today. So many people refer to sex as making love, but how can it be if you are not in love? We have to admit that we do live in a very promiscuous world today, compared to say the early 1900s, or maybe its just that people are not ashamed to admit it today. Referring to “lust” as making love just doesn’t make sense to me, I just don’t see the connection between love and lust, to me, they are two totally different things. Maybe I’m just old fashion, but I think you need to be in love to make love. You don’t have to be in anything to make lust.
So far, I’m not really liking this Professor Lurie character, but we will see what happens further into the novel. I just hope his attitude changes a bit!!
Reading Fanon’s piece really made me think. Race issues are not usually something I like to talk about. I feel like it is just a very touchy subject, but I do think that it is important. I feel like reading what other think about race issues could help me develop my feelings on race issues. Obviously, we all know that we are not all equal. It’s really not right, but we all know it’s true, whether we like to admit it or not. I just think that it is always interesting to see what others think about the subject in order to get the wider picture or view on the whole thing.
I did enjoy reading this piece, but like others, I was a bit confused on how Fanon wanted to compare African Americans to Jews. On page 115, Fanon writes “all the same, the Jew can be unknown in his Jewishness. He is not wholly what he is. One hopes, he waits. His actions, his behavior are the final determinant.” Fanon then goes on to talk about how Jews are harassed and “hunted down” and horrible things such as that, but then says that it is like little “family quarrels. When I first read that I was like “what?” How can you compare that type of thing to a little family quarrel? I didn’t fully get it until I read on. What I think he means here is that every race, religion, basically anything fights, but within each race or religion, there are fights as well, not only fights about them from other perspectives, but also quarrels within them.
Fanon then goes on to talk a lot about African Americans and how they are effected by their race. One thing that I thought was interesting was on page 117. Fanon writes “the black physician can never be sure how close he is to disgrace.” On first thought, I thought “well, can anyone really?” With any race, we all can never be too sure? But what does Fanon really mean here? I think that with any race, it is hard to always be right, because no one is ever fully right about a subject especially on a topic such as touchy as this one. The question is really what is considered disgrace and what is not? Figuring out that draws the line on what is right or wrong without putting a title on anything. When a title is placed on something, such as race, it automatically opens a new discussion of right and wrong. Why does anyone have to be right or wrong? Is it a sense of pride or power? Or is it just simply human nature that there has to be a stronger or more dominant group? I never really got that, why can’t we all just be equal? We are all basically the same anyway, so when we “disgrace,” shouldn’t it all be the same anyway? Instead of figuring out the level of “disgrace” by the color of our skin? I hope this made some type of sense here. It sounded so much better in my head.
After reading this piece, I do feel bad for Fanon for what he went through, but everyday, people are still going through the same things. It just doesn’t make sense that skin color or culture can really make us as humans that different. I personally don’t think that peace will ever be reached, just for the simple fact of arrogance. If we all just put aside our own ideas, our own upbringings on the subject for a moment, we would realize that we all not all that different, but still I think that our upbringings and our own personal views are the very thing that allows us to create a barrier between cultures. The cycle is really never ending.
It’s always fun to evaluate yourself half way through a semester. You never really know how much you’ve really grown unless you do. Since the beginning of this semester in Lit. Crit. Theory, I do think that I have grown a lot in many different ways. I started to write this so many times as we had our spring break, but I just don’t think that I was ready. I thought a lot about it and of course, like everything else, I have to wait until the last minute to write about it. I think for this assignment, I did the right thing, waiting until the last minute, just for the simple fact that I had an entire week to think about it.
I’m sure many others will agree with me when I say the reading for the class isn’t exactly easy. When we first started reading out of our dear friend Mr. Norton, I honestly thought about dropping the class. I knew this was impossible because as an English major, this is required. I also heard many horror stories of students failing because of the readings and the work load and I honestly thought that I would never make it past the first week. One thing that I’ve learned from life, as well as this class is “what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger.” I personally think that my reading skills have grown immensely since the beginning of the semester. Whenever I open a book for the reading assignments, the words on the page actually make some sense to me, although I do not believe that I have completely mastered the art of this class. Our first few theorists were honestly a complete blur to me. That is until they kept coming up in different assignments later on in the class. I think this is when I really got it and why we read them in the first place. Theorists such as Deleuze and Guattari and Bakhtin made no sense at all to me. Even when we were through talking about them, I still only had little knowledge of what they were truly about. Now, after reading many other, including Watchmen, I feel that I have a better understanding of them, not only because their theories were repeated throughout many other readings, but because they actually make some sense to me.
My reading is not the only thing that has evolved since the beginning of the semester. I feel that my writing has as well. When we first started, I would just pick out a few things about the reading, write them down in my post and then wait for them to be discussed in class to actually understand them. I honestly thought it was impossible to decipher them since I didn’t even think half of them were even in English. Now, I give the theorists a lot more thought before writing my post. I still do write down things that are confusing and blurry for me, but now, I also pick out things that I at least think I understand, and basically hope I’m right. Sometimes, after class, I realize that I am right and I did have the right idea, or ideas that others had as well. Other times, I am completely wrong with what I had thought. I think that being right or wrong doesn’t really matter. I think that trying is key. In the beginning, I though that I’d never be able to write a post of this stuff. Now, I ready for the challenge and looking back on my posts, I think that I’ve grown a lot. I now have more posts that say “I think what this means is…” instead of “I didn’t get this…” I feel that because it is mandatory that we write blogs, it makes us think about the readings a bit more, which helps us develop our writing skills a bit more.
I’ll start out by saying my conversation does need a bit more work. I’ve always been pretty shy in the classroom setting, at least when it comes to speaking about things such as these theorists. It is not that I do not want to speak about them, it is just that I feel like my idea is completely wrong, or just doesn’t make sense. I’ve realized that so many times after a class that I was right on an idea or two, but I never speak about it, or I do, but I speak very little on it. I think that conversation is the part that needs the most work thus far. Another thing is that, I feel that other ideas that are brought up in class are far better than mine and I’m basically like “well, I thought I had it” and I realize that I was completely wrong. I think that I really need to just get over my fear of being wrong on these things and just say what I think, like in group work. I think working group work is key to this class. I think it gives me, as well as other students a chance to really figure out what all of these theorists are trying to say. It gives us time to take time out from the class, and just say what we think and if it’s wrong, it’s ok because at least you’re not embarrassed by having the entire class hear it. One thing that I’ve realized is that more of my ideas develop in group work. I think in a small group, communication is much easier and our ideas build off of one another, which allows us to have a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
I think that evaluating yourself in anything really is key to being successful. I feel that you’ll never really know how you are doing in something if you do not stop and actually think about it. With this class, even though I do think that it is quite the challenge, I think that it is not impossible. The readings may be tough and writing about them might be even harder, but I think that it is all about the learning process and what we take from the problem solving skills that we have learned. I think that challenges are always fun, no matter what they are. I think that it is the end of the challenge that really makes you realize how much you have learned and what you will take with you, which is what I think the whole point of the class really is.
