Final Thoughts...

After a semester of studying theory i can confidently admit that there is plenty that i now understand and even more that confuses me. From liberal humanism to postcolonialism, all of the ideas and theories had been mentioned to me once before, but never this in depth. Particularly i found the theorists behind each theory to be most interesting to learn about, because who and why would these people come up with these theories? It's most interesting to see the passion behind the ideas. The most interesting topics covered i found to be Marxism, Postmodernism, Deconstruction, and Feminism. I think its because they seemed to be the most straightforward theories. What still seems confusing to me is Poststructuralism and psychoanalysis. Overall i learned something new with every theory and along with some confusion, there was a constant interest, and need to then analyze the world around me.

Tonya Krouse on Feminism- Guest Lecture

Until this point i would have never considered myself to be a feminist. In my mind a 'feminist' would be referring to someone who is actively making changes in the world. After some discussion in class, and defining a feminist to be someone who believes that women should have equal rights, of course I agree with this completely so i would now consider myself to be a feminist. In my own life i view the term feminist to be a very strong and empowering characterization. Feminism in my mind is always putting women first, whether that be greater than or equal to anything regarding men. Thinking about it now, i seemed to think of feminism as a strictly man versus woman mindset. After reading more about the views and goals of feminism i understand there is more depth to it then that.

Guest Lecture, Ashley Sheldon on Lacan Response

I found it most interesting to hear from Ashley Sheldon in regards to the contrasting ideas between Fowles and Lacan on theorizing sexuality and identity. After reading the novel Mantissa it is apparent to me that the author, Fowles, is trying to create his theories on discovering ones identity through discovering ones sexuality. Whereas Lacan's theories prove the discovery of ones sexuality is to undo the discovery of ones identity. This is most interesting to me because as disturbing as the novel can be Fowles really gets his reader thinking as to what certain aspects of sexuality can recall of a persons character. Although this makes perfect sense to me after reading Mantissa, Ashley lectured a good argument on behalf of Lacan's theory and i can also somewhat understand his alternative views on the subject- "sexuality, which contemporary culture associates most closely with one's true self, has nothing at all to do with one's self at all". Lacan believes sexual satisfaction and identity to be seen as completely contradictory. The idea of discovering ones identity is based on a completly linguistic structure, where as the sexual has nothing to do with a linguistic structure, as Lacan sees it you are no longer even thinking.

Mantissa

As a whole i found reading the text of Mantissa to be very interesting especially after learning more about theory. At first i wasn't sure why this book would be used for class because of its risque text, but after some discussion of the book i am able to make the connections between the text and theories. Such connections i have found were based off of a feminist reading.
In a feminist reading of Mantissa the lead female character, Erato, is portrayed as less of a character than the lead male character, Miles Green, because of her gender role. At the beginning of the novel Erato stands for what she believes in, as does Miles, but once sex is involved Erato becomes less of a powerful character simply giving in to whatever will please Miles. This can be seen at the end of the book when Miles Green and Erato are discussing The Odessey and the character Penelope. Miles Green openly views Penelope to be a waste of a character, only created for the hopless romantic female readers.

Ken Rufo on Baudrillard

This weeks post was most interesting thanks to Ken Rufo and his lecture on Baudrillard. I had heard the name before but did not know much in regaurds to Baudrillard and his theories. From discussion in class and the online lecture i now have a better understanding of Baudrillard. I found it most interesting when Ken Rufo discussed comparisons and contrasts of Marx and Baudrillard's theories. For myself, when the theories are somehow connected it helps make the learning process a bit easier especially on such intense material.

Another part of the lecture i found most interesting was when Ken Rufo explained Baudrillard's interest in simulation in two basic themes. I found his first explanation of the theory easy to relate to, especially in todays media centered world. It is true for people of all ages that television and all media make the unreal seem real. The second part of his explanation was more confusing , but the idea is that theories function as a critical simulation making meanings appear as if they are real when they are simply producing more simulation. Simulation seems to be constant and all around us, and to me it seems in our culture there is no way to avoid it. So all we can do is aknowledge that it is there and try to live the best we can within the real.

"The Death of the Author"

After reading Rolan Barthes "Death of the Author" I found the overall topic of discussion to be really interesting, but specifially the parts in which he talked about Proust and Marllarme who were of the first writers to insist on letting the language speak, not the author. In no way were either men trying to dismiss the author or the author's thoughts, but instead reinforcing the importance of letting the language act instead of the author. Essentially the point made by a good majority of writing is to sway an audience to think a certain way, a good amount of writers have since tried to keep as neutral as possible on their writing subjects, but there is also a good amount that still are so much involved in their writing. The removal of the author is seen important to these men because these men see the author no more than the emptiness of the enunciation.

The major influence of the author, although at times refuted, can still be seen in todays world. It was difficult to find a post that specifically talked about this topic, but on the topic of author influence I came across this blog. Authorship is being discussed throughout this blog entry as a kind of peruasion particularly on young and impressionable minds with a focus on politics in periodicals. It is interesting to make the the disctinctions between what Proust and Marllarme were working towards in the literary world and the kind of literature that is being produced today.

What is love?

After finishing the documentary of Derrida I found the most interesting part to be when Derrida was asked to talk about "love". He immediatly refuses to do so and says he has nothing to say about "love" because that topic is too general. He explains he has an "empty head of love", and the reason why so many philosophers speak of it is because of all the confusion that comes from it. This is when Derrida explains his perspective on the subject. He cannot decide whether we love someone for who they are, or because of the certain characteristics that make up that someone. He says he is divided between "the who and the what". However, he then explains that there are narcissists, people who are in love with themselves. For most it is as you mature from child to adulthood that you slowly change your narcissitic ways and realize the importance of a good balance between the love and attention you give yourself and others. But when we have fallen in love with another person is it that person as a whole that we have fallen in love with or is it our narcissitic ways that make us love just certain aspects?

Derrida Documentary

After watching the Derrida Documentary film i feel not only do i have a better understanding of his theories, but also who he was as a person. It was interesting to match a face to the name. However, I would like to focus on the irony of the project in capturing the "true" Derrida. I believe the point of a biographical documentary is to inform an audience with as much meaning as possible on a particular subject, to help better the understanding of the audience on whatever that subject may be. Derrida's main theory is opposing this entire idea. He seems to believe that there can never be just one meaning to understanding anything, because meaning is unstable. I think the film directors do recognize this, but they still cannot help their patterned film making ways. To provide some acknowledgment to Derrida's ideas they allow some of the run time to show his disputes with the cameras and crew. Also by making the entire vision of the documentary intricate and busy they are providing some, maybe unconscious, insight to the theories of Derrida.

Ideas About Language and The Sign...

This past week I was introduced to several key ideas from Saussure about language and the sign, once again throwing myself into a state of major theoretical confusion, however, I have had some time to process. His idea that "the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" particularly caught my attention. I have come to believe what he is trying to say is that the signifier is what we say and hear, where as the signified is what we see, and the relationship between the two is completely random. This means to each individual when hearing or saying a particular word they will relate that word to their own personal experiences, in turn making the relationship between the signifier and signified arbitrary. This helps me to understand what is post structuralism because it is bascially saying there are no real truths to anything. Although we believe there is meaning to everything in the eyes of a post structuralist this is simply false hope.

Christopher Craig on Marxism

It was a great learning experience having Christopher Craig guest lecture this week. His thoughts on ideology helped me to better relate the topics in class to current day happenings. Although i have studied the ideas of Marxism before this class, each time I come across information about the topic I can still pick out new pieces of information to process. I especially agreed with the beginning of the lecture that talked about the copy of Marx’s Communist Manifesto that was found as decor for some trendy clothing store. I've seen other examples of this and i just don't get it. As said in the lecture, the innitial drawing point to the Manifesto is because of its aesthetically pleasing appearance, however the deeper meaning ties the ideals of the Manifesto to the ideals of the trendy clothing store which innitially sounds like an oxymoron. Its almost as if the store is convincing you that maybe you don't know what you're ideals are, but by purchasing our line of clothing you'll stand for something that looks important enough. Which is not necessarily true.

Also i found the lecture to be most interesting towards the end when he mentioned that as readers we are not considering how repressive the text is due to the power of the dominant class. Once that repression becomes apparent it is easier to see through the ruling class ideology and grasp our own ideals.

Marxist Criticism vs. Liberal Humanism

If liberal humanism means to look at a text without any bias and without any deeper meaning, then in my opinion this view of literature differs greatly from that of Marxist Criticism. Within Marxist Criticism literature is seen as a product result of history and culture with economic, political, and social circumstances, and after some class discussion I have found that each point of the "ten tenets of liberal humanism" has a contrasting idea to what is recognized as the general view of a Marxist Critic.

The idea within the third tenet is a good example of this. The idea here is that literature must be studied in isolation, and all that is needed is the text that is in front of you, no prior experiences necessary. A Marxist Critic would say that the text has come to be from experiences of history and culture, so those past experiences are necessary to have in order to fully understand a text.

I believe it is necessary to have some past experiences in order to fully understand a text. No matter how hard we may try to put personal bias aside we each have had individual experiences which lead us to follow a text in our own personal way.

An Introduction...

Let me start off by introducing myself, lizzie_spring, as an English Communications major at a liberal arts college located in the lovely city of Boston. As a first time blogger I look forward to new found information and the wide variety of comments that await.

This semester in particular I will be studying more literature to further my knowledge as to what it means to be a literary critic. With that it must be mentioned that I will also be focusing in on "theory" and its impact on literary critics and their analysis of literature.

The different ways in which literature is studied and how those ways came to be are my initial thoughts on "theory". But after registering for a semester long class on the subject I know it can't possibly be that simple. I look forward to learning more specifically about the many different perspectives of theory inclusive of Marxism, structuralism, and feminist criticism. More to follow...