Words of encouragement:

YOU CAN DO IT!!


Aaahhh the wisdom of being a senior.

For the final...

I know, you don't want to think about the final. It's okay. I understand.

But I'm still going to give you this "assignment."

For the final, please post your own theory about literature (reading it, writing it, studying it, whatever) that answers the "why," "what," and "how" questions. This doesn't have to be anything immense... just your ideas on it.

To start with: does the author really die with the creation of a text? Does the reader complete the text? Is Shakespeare really all that great? What do you think of the canon? Mini-canons? Alternative canons? And how does any/all of what we've talked about relate to US as individuals who study English and literature? (These are not actually questions you need to answer - just things to ponder to get your thoughts moving if you need a mental push.)

Please bring these posts (or at least the ideas) with you to the final exam on Monday so that you have some ideas to work with for the discussion (which YOU lead!).

P.S. I'm happy to drive some folks to Ann Page's... I can fit four plus me. Just let me know! :)

Shakespeare's Wit in Caliban

The quality of Caliban that I noted throughout the play is the idea that he is perceived as a monster who lacks intelligence and dignity, yet he may be one of the few characters who possesses conscience and fear. During act 4, scene 1 as Caliban, Trinculo, and Stephano are going towards the tent and their judgment is compromised by greed for the clothes, Caliban is the only one who tries to warn them to see beyond that.
He states,

“ Good lord, give me favour still.
Be patient, for the prize I’ll bring thee to
Shall hoodwink this mischance. Therefore speak softly-
All’s hushed as midnight yet” (200-205).

He continues to warn them of their foolishness, and this truly exhibits his intellect and awareness of his surroundings. He is considered the monster, but he is the one who knows how to maneuver in this situation. If we were to look at it from this perspective we could see how Shakespeare’s wit and thought process could be shown through Caliban’s words and actions.

Caliban as Shakespeare

Alright. So.

I had a hard time finding lines said by Caliban that could be interpreted as Shakespeare's own voice, because I don't know much about Shakespeare's opinions or views of the world.

I finally decided upon Caliban's plot to take Prospero's books and kill him. (3.2.87-103)

Although he is completely drunk, Caliban shows that he is a) observant and b) capable of manipulating and leading those who think otherwise (Stephano & Trinculo)

In these lines, Caliban explains that they should sneak up on Prospero during his nap and steal his books (he is useless without them). This demonstrates that Caliban is extremely observant - it reflects Shakespeare's own observation and depiction of the human race through his plays. In addition to this, it seems that Caliban is much more knowledgable about the island and how to go about defeating Prospero. In many, if not all of Shakespeare's plays, one gets a feeling that he knows much more than the audience and the characters do.

To be further discussed!!

Caliban

Act 2, Scene 2, Line 155

CALIBAN: I'll show thee the best springsl I'll pluck thee berries;
I'll fish for thee, and get thee wood enough.
A plague upon the tyrant that I serve!
I'll bear him no more sticks but follow thee,
Thou wondrous man.

TRINCULO: A most ridiculous monster - to make a wonder of a poor drunkard.

CALIBAN: I prithee, let me bring thee where crabs grow,
And I with my long nails will dig thee pignuts,
Show thee a jay's nest, and instruct thee how
To snare the nimble marmoset. I'll bring thee
To clust'ring filberts, and sometimes I'll get thee
Young scamels from the rock. Wilt thou go with me?


I'm not entirely sure I picked a completely legitimate passage...but this definitely shows the importance of nature in the play, especially when it comes to Caliban. He's a product of nature as well as being a living representation of it. I also felt that he spoke particularly beautifully and eloquently in this passage while using words pertaining to nature and its importance. He references Prospero as well in a negative light, calling him "the tyrant that I serve" (that's about Prospero, right?). These lines remind me of the conversation we had in class the other day about the importance of the knowledge Caliban possesses as opposed to the books and words Prospero values but does not necessarily understand. It's also impressive that he speaks so eloquently when drunk!

Talk about taking the good lines...

I can certainly see how Caliban reflects Shakespeare rather than Prospero, however it is very difficult now to find a good example that hasn't been shown already by Abby or Megan. So instead, my post is going to pose a question that can be discussed here or in class. Caliban's last line, in my book is listed as lines 351-354 in Act 5 Scene 1. Prospero's line to Caliban was "Go, sirrah, to my cell./Take with you your companions. As you look/To have my pardon, trim it handsomely." to which Caliban answers:

Ay, that I will, and I'l be wise hereafter
And seek for grace. What a thrice-double ass
Was I to take this drunkard for a god,
And worship this dull fool!

I know we (or at least I remember mentioning) that what seems to be Shakespeare's point is that while some people (i.e. Prospero) get their power and eloquence from books, others (i.e. Caliban) know how to speak naturally and as eloquently too. However this quote makes it sound that Caliban (a.k.a. Shakespeare) DOES have respect for those who speak "by the book" I guess you could say. In this way, Shakespeare/Caliban realizes that not all people who claim to speak well actually can, as we see with the drunkards Stephano and Trinculo. Do other people see this as I do?

Caliban Displaying Shakespeare's Voice...?

I have a feeling that this is going to end up being a long post...I can't really get around it.

This first part is for Abby. Here is another passage that I found, in which Caliban seems to be the hero and Prospero is portrayed as the villain (however, this passage does not necessarily indicate that Caliban voice is actually representative of Shakespeare's voice):

Act 3, Scene 2
Lines 46-62 in my edition of the text
Several of Caliban's lines here certainly incriminate Prospero from seemingly seizing the island from right under his nose. For example:

"As I told thee before, I am subject
to a tyrant, a sorcerer, that by his cunning hath
cheated me of the island." (46-48)

"I say by sorcery he got this isle;
From me he got it. If thy Greatness will,
Revenge it on him, for I know thou dar'st,
But this thing dare not." (59-62).

However, now that I have finished reading the play, I am not entirely convinced that Caliban is speaking for Shakespeare throughout the text. First of all, Caliban's last action in the play is tidying up Prospero's cell before his master's departure. Prospero is the one returning home. Prospero is an old man (similar to Shakespeare at this point) who reflects on his age at several points during the play. Prospero also has a significant name (sounds a lot like "prosperous" to me), and he gives up his magic during Act 5 with an lengthy speech, in which he frees Ariel from his spiritual bondage to Prospero. I connect this scene to Shakespeare giving up his reigns, so to speak. Shakespeare is giving up art/writing, which can easily be related to magic and spirtual experiences.

Also, if we take the Epilogue as a verse that was actually written by Shakespeare, Prospero is asking for applause for Shakespeare. He is also asking the audience to forgive Shakespeare for "bewitching" their minds with his art (his plays). He's making a strong statement on art's ability to invade the mind (not always in a positive way).

I'm sure I will be able to discuss this a bit more thoroughly in class tomorrow...

Spirt or Nature or Both?

Interlocking Ripples from the Pebble Throwers

As I wrote in my previous entry, I am a firm believer in the triangle of discourse that is created between the reader, the writer, and the text. My image of the canon is one that includes all three of these subjects. The pebble thrower is the author, launching his texts (the pebbles) into the water (aka out into the public as published works), and the ripples that are created are the responses from readers out in the water (the great wide world). The responses from the readers can interlock like the ripples seen in this photograph because responses to texts can often be similar within a given culture, and sometimes even across cultural lines.

I think it's very interesting that many of us have chosen images that deal with water. Is it because the canon brings about visualizations that deal with fluidity, movement, and transformation?

The Canon as Tide Pools

Or maybe the canon is the ocean, and the books are the tide pools? Let's think of the endless metaphors that can be made for the canon/books with tide pools. Some are shallow, others are deep. They all contain something a little different than the others, and are able to exist independently or be connected by a small channel between rocks. When the tide comes in, however, the life of the individual tide pool coexists with the entire ocean.

I also hinted the other day that, seeing as the moon controls the timing and heights of the tides, it could be symbolic of the readers. During certain times of each lunar cycle, the tide pools might be bigger, smaller, or indistinguishable from the waves crashing into the intertidal zone. I think this could possibly represent the importance, intertextuality, and overall popularity of a book at any given time being at the mercy of the reader.

The Canon...A Jetty

The canon to me I guess is somewhat like a Jetty. It is man made to create some sort of pathway or to keep things on one side or the other. It is a solid structure where the larger rocks are in the center while the smaller ones surround it. To me the larger rocks are the “classics” that are the core of the canon/ Jetty, while the smaller rocks are the newer books, added on more recently. Although a jetty is a solid structure it does still have the ability to be warn away by that thrashing of the waves. I guess in the world of literature the waves could be equated to the critics.
If the person in charge of land preservation chooses they can bring in new rocks to either strengthen the structure or expand. In that, they may need to remove rocks that have been deteriorated. We see in the canon that new literature is brought in and often something else needs to be removed. Much like the Jetty the cycle goes on and on.

The Canon & The Personal Canon...an image

The books on the very top are those belonging in THE CANON...staring down their spines at the easy-to-reach books, which represent one's personal canon - read more often, loved and worn. That's not to say books in the Canon aren't worthy of love...

How Do We Read?

"Mechanically, we read letter by letter. Recognizing the words and giving them meaning is a natural (yet often unappreciated) method to reading. Once each individual definition construes itself into a comprehensible sentence, we ask again what it means. Reading is a process of sorting and understanding, observing and analyzing. Everything we read is a code to be cracked and we are breaking and entering into the treasure locked up behind symbols we call the alphabet."

So I know that most people on the card wrote about "How Do I Read" and not "How Do We Read" but I felt that it was harder to actually generalize for everyone, so I tried it. Personally, I read to be inspired (ah, my favorite word!) because as a writer, I am looking for ideas to write about all the time. Because nothing is really an original thought or idea, I have to read and observe all sources around me for inspiration. I noticed that most of the students in class wrote about reading as a woman, which did interest me. Honestly, I don't know how much my gender plays in my reading, unless it's just my own experiences I can bring to the table when confronted with women or female figures in the texts I read. If I had to say one thing about "How Do I Read" I would probably say that I read with the same passion that both of my parents read with.

A Look at the Canon

I finally chose this particular collage by Valerie Mankoff called "Shane's Reverie." What I was looking for was a good image that showed transparency and texture, which I feel that this particular one does. As we see, there are many layers and different parts to the piece as a whole. There are blends of photographs, paints, texts, and other contributions. Though different from each other, together it creates a larger picture that one can appreciate. One might enjoy the colors more, and someone else might enjoy the use of the pictures more, but all observers are still looking at the same collage. Same with the canon, one can look at it from a distance and find some texts they may prefer more than others, while someone else can get a completely different reaction.

!!!

explanation to follow . . .

Okay, so I felt like I didn't explain my image in class today very well, but here is a pretty good picture that I think illustrates what I was trying to say. There is the canon in the beginning and as time continues and there are more works to choose from, the canon can branch off of itself, constantly weaving in with other texts and branching off of those, etc., etc., etc. I see the canon as fluid and everchanging, always morphing, but keeping the same quality throughout.

canonical ideas

I suppose if I had to explain the way I view the canon as an image or metaphor, I'd describe it as a spider's web. The web in its entirety would be the complete canon with all its different qualifications (different periods to different cultures), and each individual strand or section would make up the various smaller canons, such as the Colby-Sawyer canon or the American canon.

Continuing with the web theme, one may also get "stuck" in it (the idea of the canon), especially if that person is a student of Harold Bloom! (just an example...)

Alan Purves "Telling Our Story about Teaching Literature"

A bit late, but it's the 100th post!

One of the first things that stuck out to me in Alan Purves essay “Telling Our Story about Teaching Literature” was his list of terms with notes as to what he personally believed. He states that “that dubious breed called researchers or experts toss around terms like ‘reader response’ (a good thing), ‘New Criticism’ (a bad thing), ‘multiculturalism’ (good), ‘canon’ (bad), ‘social construction of’ (good), and ‘teacher-centered’ (bad).” (211) I personally agree with the terms that Purves considers “bad” as far as the terms used in relation to literature, but a lot of that is because of what we are expected to go beyond constraints that New Criticism, canons, and teacher-centered styles of teaching provide. I believe that what we need to teach our kids is to go beyond what we hand them as literature.

Purves argues that “all media should be at the heart of our literature classes.” (215) This is important in the classroom because many students learn through different styles and by presenting other forms of literature, there’s a wider net cast to catch students. People forget that films, comics, plays, and other visuals are considered literature because of it’s original form in a script or within panels of illustrations.

The last thought that Purves presents to us is the thought that “if we remain as antagonistic to the media as people like Neil Postman would have us be, we will lose our true end of helping students be disciplined reflective and refractive human beings. That practice will be lost for all but a very small number indeed. I think this would be a great loss, for it seems to me that we would then be giving in to the forces of materialism, instant gratification, and narcissism—surrendering to the culture of the mall and the huckster.” (218) This idea is intriguing as a future educator where my students will reflect me as a teacher. If they cannot interpret texts by texts alone, then my image is impacted. Education is a living being that mutates and shifts over time, and so teachers need to be willing to evolve and adjust their curriculum to the students in ways they can learn.

Nesting bubbles? Multi-oversouls?

So, I don't know what to call it... but it's my theory of the canon.

I believe that there are many concurrent canons at any given time, and that these canons shift (by age of reader, by location, by occupation, by region, by language, and so forth) and overlap. I believe that outside of, for instance, the Writing about Literature bubble there is a slightly bigger bubble - the CSC canon bubble. Outside of that, the New London bubble. Then the NH bubble, the NE bubble, the USA bubble, the world bubble, the universe bubble (okay, maybe not the last one...), if you catch my meaning. And every person within any of the smallest bubbles (i.e., the Writing about Lit bubble) is also a part of each bubble that is slightly bigger outside of that, and each person who is in the smallest level of bubble is just as equally in touch with the larger bubbles if they want to be. Some people probably have no desire to leave their tiniest bubbles, while other people may have no desire to be anywhere but the largest bubble... but my point is that they all exist simultaneously.

In addition, when a work stays in one level of bubble for long enough it moves on to the next biggest level of bubble, and may continue to do so until it reaches the biggest bubble, which is the THE canon.

Make any sense? I hope so.

Roving sentient bubbles? Haha.

A Visual Representation of the Canon...Sort of!

All right, so...I'm not sure if this is the best metaphor in the world, but I'm going to share it any way.

Abby's comment about the flying saucer and how canonical literature seems to permeate out from a local area to a wider and wider audience, until it becomes meaningful to an audience that stretches across various races, cultures, countries, both genders, etc. The image that I would like to relate to the canon is that of a hand full of individuals standing on the shore of a huge lake throwing pebbles into the water. The ripples that these pebble-throwers create represent the layers that exist in terms of audiences. However, the ripples created from the pebble-throwers overlap from time to time, effecting the same audiences and groups of individuals. Oh, and these pebble-throwers are eternal beings (well, some are). These pebble-throwers are at work until a piece of literature is removed from the canon. Then, that pebble-thrower begins to evaporate into thin air until he/she is completely gone and the text has been virtually forgotten.

Yup. That is not a very great representation haha. Just goes to show that the canon is an abstract beast that is really difficult to nail down. I'm going to try and explain this better tomorrow in class. :)

-Megan R.

janice radway - introduction to A Feeling For Books

What books have you read, that seriously impacted your perspective of the world, but might be considered as middle or low brow literature?


What is it about these specific works, that maintains your loyalty to them?

Harold Bloom: Elegiac Conclusion

I believe that Harold Bloom is at his obstinately pompous best in this essay, sometimes its difficult to make it through one paragraph just to get to his next. He speaks of literature today vs. the canonical literature of yesterday. He does mention some good points: the fact that literature has too many things to compete against in today's world, his worry about literary studies having a future, and the loss of some worthwhile texts being taught in school because of a lack of audience.

However, it is his obstinacy in maintaining that the only truly great works were written by Milton, Chaucer, Dante and yes, of course, Shakespeare. Ok, got it, they did do some great work but others that came after them have done some remarkable pieces as well. It isn't fair to discount someone's work for the singular reason that their last name isn't Dante. As for the lenses that we spoke of last class, Bloom doesn't even consider the issue worthwhile.

"The idea that you benefit the insulted and injured [race, class, gender, etc.] by reading some of their own origins rather than reading Shakespeare is one of the oddest illusions ever promoted by or in our schools." pg. 229

So, can it be one or the other? Does it have to be? By gaining pieces of modern literature are we forced to give up some of the traditional canonical works? Are we as readers ultimately gaining or losing? I don't believe its really a question in our class any longer but should works by the "insulted and injured" be included? And for what reason? Do they have something to share that the "dead white guys" didn't?

The Politics of Knowledge - Edward W. Said

In Edward W. Said's essay "The Politics of Knowledge," he discusses imperialism and global and modern culture. He references Yeats as a non-Western writer and activist, which I was surprised by because I guess when I think of Western writers I always assumed that meant the US and Western Europe...

Anyway, the essay focuses on the "dead white European males," and is in part a response to another paper Said wrote, which was attacked. The attacker (or critic) was a female African American history professor who called attention to the presence of white Western males and the lack of "African American, Arab, and Indian writers." Said addresses this, saying his paper focuses on European imperialism, but that he did address the response and effect of imperialism all over the globe.

Said also addresses identity and cultural differences, stating that different cultures produce different ways of thinking among people. Said then moves from the theoretical approach and touches briefly on the relationship between the United States and Iraq - his basic argument is that theory and actuality are interconnected, and cultures and thought overlap.

This leads me back to our class discussion last Thursday - do we need African Lit, Women in Lit, Native American Lit? Or do we then need to have Men in Lit, Urban Lit, Rural Lit? How many subcategories can we break down, or should we just have general Literature classes where the professors choose what they wish to teach? Does that extinguish the need for a canon, or even just the existence of one? Does every culture that produces literature deserve to have a special class, genre, or study dedicated specifically and solitarily on JUST literature from within that group or race? ...Or is that going too far? I haven't completely made up my mind on the issue...thoughts?

Edward W. Said - "The Politics of Knowledge"

Said on effectively bringing attention to works by living, non-white/male authors:

"What I am talking about therefore is the opposite of separatism, and aslo the reverse of exclusicism. It is only through the scrutiny of these works as literature, as style, as pleasure and illumination, that they can be brought in, so to speak, and kept in. Other wise they will be regarded only as informative ethnographic specimens, suitable for the limited attention of experts and area specialists," (196).

Throughout his essay, Said addresses the issue of fairly acknowledging nationalism and the literature that results from it while still maintaining a "worldy" stance.

Based on the quote above, my question to the class is:
Do you think it's possible for us to evaluate non-western/dead male literature from a neutral standpoint?

(What I mean is, have we made such a huge deal out of including and acknowledging other nation's literature that we have labeled it as african, chinese, portugese, (etc) literature? Why not take off the prefixes and labels and just call it LITERATURE?)


I can clarify my question in class tomorrow, because I think it is a really important idea to consider -but right now my brain is currently mush due to Tylenol Cold medicine.

Alan Purves " Telling Our Story About Teaching Literature"

In reading Alan Purves essay, Telling Our Story about Teaching Literature, I could not help finding myself agreeing greatly with his views. In his essay he discusses his theory on teaching literature to students and the proper way to go about it. He begins by asserting that many educators find themselves assigning reading with the intent that students will truly love the text and find they are completely engrossed in it. He states that becoming absorbed in a text is not something that can be taught, but rather a miracle that happens by chance. We need to educate in a way that looks at all aspects of literature and only then we can only hope that students take in the text.

He explains “ The kind of readers and viewers we hope to create are those who will work at the text or film and take pleasure in the intellectual play of working with it, and then will take this experience with them and play with other texts or images, getting pleasure not simply from the experiences of reading and viewing but from the thinking and talking that go with school” (212).

The idea of literature is portrayed in this essay as a game where students are reared to look at it in a specific way. He claims that many educators feel that learning literature should not be fun, but disciplined. He finds this to be the exact opposite. He knows that students all learn differently and need to be exposed to numerous types of literature. Whether it is a film, comic strip, or a book, students need to be taught to look at it from all angles to make it truly worth while.

Purves says, “ We strive to help students toward that larger and older perspective, to come to a particular understanding of themselves and their past, to enter that broader world that is defined as literate” (215).

I know that I want to be an educator and through practice I have found that I want my students to use different lenses to look at the world. Sometimes the most effective ways of teaching are unconventional and you need to teach your students to look past the lines on a page. They need to see what the literature is worth, and what it can do for them.

Hating Harold Bloom? Not as much as usual...

Usually, I cannot stand reading a single word from Bloom because he is such an egotistical, pompous ass, but for some reason (maybe it's the cynical mood that I'm in) the essay entitled, "Elegiac Confusion," had some pretty solid points. Granted, I was still infuriated at him for his disregard of the "hegemonic lenses" that we discussed in class on Thursday. However, I think that his point about the disolution of English as a course of study in higher education is actually sensible and made me agree wit him for perhaps the first time in my life.

"English and related departments have always been unable to define themselves and unwise enough to swallow up everything that seems available for ingestion" (227).

"The morality of scholarship, as currently practiced, is to encourage everyone to replace difficult pleasures by pleasures universally accessible precisely because they are easier (Ex. Creating shields and swords in class, instead of reading Julius Caesar)" (227).

"...Only a few handfuls of students now enter Yale with an authentic passion for reading. You cannot teach someone to love great poetry it they come to you without such love..." (226).

Bloom argues that not enough scholars are entering college with a passion for reading because "cultural studies" is taking over the English classroom (along with cheesy art projects as described above). Students are beginning to study song lyrics, advertisements, and comics, instead of delving into the depths of classical literature. I can see the problem here. The study of literature for aspects such as form, style, and character development are disappearing and disintegrating. By only looking at literature through cultural lenses (race, class, gender, etc.), English courses cannot be self-sustainable. The realm of study moves from the internal to the external. English's transformation into "cultural studies" is actually a transformation from a humanities-based discipline to a social science-based discipline. I can see Bloom's argument here.

Do I think that is the only reason that English is dying? No, of course not. I also feel that it is important to examine literature through various anthropological lenses, BUT...not all the time. Personally, when I read, two of these lenses barely register for me at all (race and class). Gender is sort of there, chilling in the back of my mind, but really, I read for many of Bloom's reasons (ick...I hate to admit it). I often find myself becoming impressed over figurative language, stream of consciousness, and well-constructed images of abstract ideas. These are texts that I consider canonical. However, texts that can be read through hegemonic lenses can also have these qualities that compel me as well. Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston, is a prime example. Clearly, some lenses apply here, but she's utilized beautiful and unique language in her text novel as well. What would Bloom have to say about her? God only knows. I'm willing to bet Hurston is not a part of his canon.

So...my question...finally:

Do you think that English will ultimately meet its demise and turn into a discipline labeled "Cultural Studies?" Do you think English is dying because our culture has taught us to examine texts through the various lenses we would use to analyze a comic strip, song lyrics, a film, or an advertisement? Is there a happy medium between anthropological lenses and analysis of texts based on form and style, and how can it be established?