In Langston Hughes’s “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain” discusses the misinterpretation of African Americans in the arts. Accordingly, African Americans have been perceived a certain way, and therefore, have images that remain stagnant in the culture of American Arts. Langston Hughes writes, “He is never taught to see that beauty. He is taught rather not to see it, or if he does, to be ashamed of it when it is not according to Caucasian patterns.” In this quote Hughes is referring to the creation of the arts. So often have African Americans been shunned from the exploration of creativity—mostly due to the inequalities still present from slavery.
Mandingo, a 1970s film, clearly illustrates Hughes’s theory behind the detrimental African American image. Mandingo is a slave, sold into the hands of an unfair white owner. However, Mandingo’s sole responsibility was to sexually satisfy the white female owner. this corresponds to the negative stereotype that all African Americans are overtly and overly sexual—when, in reality, sexual endeavors were forced upon the disadvantaged slaves. In this trailer, we can see that the African American female slave is objectified and perused for a sexual favor by a white man. Yet, she seems whole heartedly willing—which, as Hughes’s would clarify, is a misrepresentation.
Therefore, I move to say that Hughes’s observation is not only found in the Negro artist, but also in the artist’s Negro subject. It is through art where our fundamental understanding of something comes from. Therefore, in theory, we see Mandigo and we automatically assume that most slaves must have participated this way—since art easily creates an over generalization problem. Ultimately, I think Hughes claims that through our art and the discriminations felt by most Negro artists, it is important to stray from the acceptable norm. Mostly, because if we take movies like Mandigo as truth, then the entire race is defined by a falsity. In the end, as Hughes puts it, art must be “sincere” and not done for the monetary outcome.
Our presentation was for Feminist theory. For our presentation I compiled the slideshow and gathered the media for the semiotic analysis. During the discussion, I focused on Foucault and his theories behind subversions to restrictive sexual culture. I explained that in Foucault’s theory, both church and science restrict the development of sexual nature—and, therefore, a deviant culture is created, like, prostitution.
In addition to talking about Foucault’s theory, I created a classroom activity where our classmates were asked to view six or so examples of popular culture and apply a feminist theory to them. I chose Madonna’s “Open Your Heart,” Prodigy’s “Smack my Bitch Up,” and a couple of religious based advertisements. These videos opened up quite a discussion, as many of my peers viewed these clips and images differently; however, most of the interpretations were made with a strong foundation of feminist theory.
I chose Madonna’s video because it showcased the “closeted sexuality of children” as discussed by Foucault. Also, the way that Madonna is portrayed in the video showcased the “study of sexuality” that Foucault discussed. The Prodigy video was intended to display Judith Butler’s performative gender roles. In the video, there is a first person perspective detailing a night out on the town. Despite the lascivious and masculine nature of the activities performed by the narrator, the audience, at the end, is made aware that the first person narrator is a female. I chose this because it truly and clearly demonstrated the assumed gender roles that the audience is comfortable with until the end.
Overall, our presentation went well and the discussion I wanted to create was successful.
Foucault described and re-illustrated Bentham’s Panopticon, by saying that the idea of the Panopticon creates “identities.” According to Foucault’s interpretation of the Panopticon, citizens of society create their roles based on a primal need to satisfy those roles in society.
Even though there are not many current examples of the Panopticon in today’s society, there are a couple examples of the Panopticon prison; however, the theory behind Foucault’s observation is most importantly discussed in the creation of “Big Brother.” According to Foucault, Big Brother replaces the idea of the guards in the tower in the Bentham model. In Foucault’s theory we are shaped by the presence of the “moral” and “judging” un-seen-eye.
The real and most prevalent version of the Panopticon is the reality t.v. show. On most reality t.v. shows there is an understanding that there will be a camera monitoring the actions made. And like Foucault described, each person on the show has their role.
On MTV the show “The Real World” best displays the roles in a consistently surveillance environment. Most of the time there are a set of typical roles: the macho guy, the wimp, the overly emotional girl, the moral one, the homosexual one, and the overtly sexual. This is like the scenario he described with the leper colonies. The only difference is, well aside from the fact that the cast of the “Real World” won’t have leprosy, that the power play is between sexual relationships and, therefore, is not about survival.
Thomas More, a very religious and deviant Englishman, wrote and published his text Utopia in 1516. In More’s text, the narrator describes a paradise where society is both classless and “equal.” This text was taken as fiction, and yet, it has been said that this text influenced Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. In More’s novel, there is a basic physical labor value for the citizens of Utopia; no lower/middle/upper class struggles; religion was determinable through personal views—yet, religion was necessary.
In Utopia, the narrator describes going on a long sea-voyage, upon which he landed on an island that was completely different than the country of his origin—which was England. On this island, the narrator noted that the citizens of this island all lived in similar housing types, and all wore the same demur clothing. He could not ascertain who was of upper-class and who was not. In Marxist terminology: the proletariat or the Bourgeoisie. Each person who lived in Utopia had to produce and work for society. Most, in not all of the work, was physical—and there were only a handful of people at the upper echelons who “supervised.” Citizens of Utopia could and were available to move around the city if there should be a need for their labor in another sector of the island.
When it came to class, valuables such as, gold and diamonds, were used as tools and shackles for prisoners. This eliminated the availability for one to assert themselves as part of an upper-class. However, this addition of this section may have been a direct result of More’s dissatisfaction with the English royalty. It has been recorded that More wore a hair shirt every as a way of flagellation. The royalty of England had overwhelmed the hierarchical image. And, in that respect, Marx’s view of a classless society is greatly similar. Marx refuted the presence of a definable “upper” class, creating an irrefutable hierarchy. Instead, labor would determine one’s standing; however, everyone was important.
Religion was the one major difference between More’s text and Marx’s manifesto. In Marx’s text, religion is a distraction, a cover for the “unhappiness” that is inevitable in people. More, a strict catholic, believed religion to be an important pillar in oneself. It was for standing up for his religious beliefs that lead to his death as an act of treason. In Marx’s text, there is an inherent distance put between society and religion. He states, “man creates religion, religion does not create man.” Throughout the better part of the history of the world, religion created the man. Religion controlled man and his productive labor, relgion was the basis for everything. And, I think that Marx puts a barrier between religion and society, because certain restraints are then lifted. Man is forced to create his own logic and increase his mental labor, as opposed to following the word of illusion.
Ultimately, Marx and More have many political views that are common. Both believed that class destructed the homogenization of society; however, they both differed on the value of religion.
Lacan details the being and the having properties of having a phallus. Lacan furthered the study of the mental emphasis we put on having a phallus—a study that was begun by Sigmund Freud. According to Freud, it was the shock of the mother not having a phallus that created incredible stress in the you boy. And, it was the lack of having a phallus that created much envy and animosity in women. Ultimately, the main psychological struggle in life is based in either fear of losing the phallus, or envy of never having one at all. Unlike Lacan, Freud infers that once the boy or girl recognizes the presence (or lack thereof) of the phallus, then ensues a mental conflict within the child.
With the arising complications of the phallus, Freud details the Oedipal and Elektra complexes. These mental conflicts are based on the mother-son relationship illustrated in Oedipus Rex. Of course, in the text, Oedipus is completely unaware of the fact that the queen he has married is his mother and the king he has killed was his father. Nevertheless, the story creates a tale of which the son is confronted and tested by another man for the heart of the desired woman. When growing up, especially during the phallus stage, the father becomes the threat to the bond created by the boy and the mother. To combat that, the boy considers, as Oedipus did, to off the father. But in fear that the boy may not succeed he will not act on his impulse to kick the father out of the family picture. Instead, the boy fears the backlash of his actions—castration by the father—and deals with the conflict and enters latency.
The phallus plays a huge role in the psychology of the human—whether it be with envy or fear of castration. And since the phallus plays on the mind in such a way, it ends up being the central focus of our thoughts, as Lacan describes.
The phallus plays a huge role in the psychology of the human—whether it be with envy or fear of castration. And since the phallus plays on the mind in such a way, it ends up being the central focus of our thoughts, as Lacan describes.
With that said, South Park plays on our concentration on the phallus in almost every show. In one show in particular, “Eek! It’s a Penis,” the conflicts surrounding the phallus is truly showcased. In this episode, Mr. Garrison, post-transgender surgery, struggles with her decision of becoming with a woman. She realizes the power that the phallus has in society and decides to have a penis grown in a laboratory for a reverse sex change surgery. This is a cartoon version of Lacan’s having and being concept for the phallus. Since the phallus is seen as the power symbol, women can be seen as being the phallus as opposed to having it. In this sense, Mr. Garrison struggles with identifying and differentiating the having and the being; since, for Lacan, having the phallus isn’t everything—having the phallus is more of a mental characteristic rather than a physical one.
Freud, Sigmund. Fetishism.Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2001.
Lacan, Jacques. Significance of the Phallus. Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2001.
Marx’s Communist Manifesto details a society where societal well being prevails over the work week and production. In the Marxist society there are only two groups of people—the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The Bourgeoisie is the “upper class,” and the Proletariat is the “working class.” The difference between the Marxist society and our current society is the recognition or desire for a middle class. In American society there the acceptance of a “middle class,” even though the existence of the middle class is not exactly distinct. In the Marxist society, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat differ mostly in the way they participate in labor. In the Communist system, the value of the worker is based on physical and mental labor. And ultimately, as Marx illustrates, the happier the worker the better production will be.
Communism, as described by Marx, is only applicable in industrial nations, where there would be a need for both physical and mental labor. Yet, the mental and physical labor would depend on the social class of the worker. In theory, the Bourgeoisie would use more mental labor and the Proletariat would use more physical labor. In this basic distinction is where the class separation would still remain—despite the efforts to create a classless society. And, in addition to this “invisible class distinction” there will be a dispute over wages. Marx claims that wages should depend on need. However, it’s an inherent need of the human psyche is for higher gain that makes Marxism difficult to apply to society. Disregarding, of course, the vacation time Marx describes—where he explains that a well rested worker is a more productive worker, even if they have to swear that they will be available for the company twenty-four hours a day. Maybe in the end, Communism isn’t really a party. Marx, Karl. A Communist Manifesto. Norton Anthology. 2001.
Roland Barthes’ “Death of the Author,” suggests that for a genuine criticism of a specific work, the reader must separate the work from its origin. Since the work then is completely separated from the time, place, and mind-set of the writer, the work then becomes a fluid piece—a piece that is not limited by time and space. Therefore, Barthes suggests, that to be an effective writer is to distance oneself from the assumed notions or correlations based on a collective consciousness. And then it is assumed then that the reader will not take into consideration the underlying social patters/stigmas that may have influences the piece. If the work does its job correctly, then it should be able to stand alone.
I agree with the idea that a work of art should not rely on a “collective consciousness” or collective understanding. Yet, at the same time, I am a fan of New Historicism, which directly refutes Barthes’ argument. In New Historicism, the reader can use research to investigate what may have provoked the author’s direction in the piece. According to Barthes’, the piece is not completed until it is experienced by the reader. Without the reader, there is no real reason to write. It is with the reader that the real sub-text and meaning are reveal through the reading—and the destination of the piece cannot be controlled by the writer, because it lies with the reader.
The most important concept in Barthes’ “Death of the Author” is multi-dimensional space. Even though it is almost impossible to create a completely original piece, writers have to be able to manipulate the elements to create their own take on a specific plot. If the writer is unable to acknowledge the “age old” aspects of a specific story, then they fall prey to a misinterpretation from the reader. The text has to be multi-dimensional in the respect that there has to be more to the story than just the time/context. Barthes explains that this multi-dimensional text must be able to use its words to explain its meaning, and not rely on what the reader can imply into the text. By doing this, the author would have created a solid Barthenian piece (yes, that is a made up word).
Another way Barthes suggests to “kill off the author” is to create characters that are completely ambiguous. By having characters that are, as they were in Greek tragedies, completely free of an exact meaning, then the reader can become an integral part of the work. If a writer should push their agenda by having the character reveal the intent of the text, then the writer is committing a criminal act against the reader. Barthes infers that characters in a text should be free of messy archetypes, which would engage the reader with the analytic aspect of literature.
In short, according to Barthes, literature (or any art for that matter) should not have all of the answers laid out for the reader. Reading a text should be an active process where the author does not inflect into the reader what the purpose of the text is. Since, it is with the reader that the meaning of the text resides.
According to Lacan, an infant cannot create an identity for themselves at birth. The child’s image resides in the mother, since the child has not seen itself. In addition to this, the child’s only concern is the need for food and comfort. Therefore, the caregiver becomes the ideal “self” for the child. What is essential for development of the child’s identity is the need for eventual separation. Separation, as defined by Lacan, is the creation of the self by distancing oneself from the caregiver. Since birth, the child creates a bond with the caregiver—and will continue to depend on the caregiver if separation is not achieved.
Lacan goes on to state that there are three basic principles of the mind: the real, the imaginary, and the symbolic. The symbolic is the formation of the word “I” and the creation of the self. The real is the creation of the self-sufficient self, where there is no need for the caregiver, because the self can fulfill the needs. The imaginary is experienced during what Lacan describes is the Mirror Stage. During infancy, when a child comes into contact with a mirror they create a misrecognized image of itself. The subconscious creates the “I” identity with the image in the mirror. This, as Lacan describes, is a false understanding of the self. And, although the ego is satisfied with the image of the self, the overall consciousness cannot create a relationship with the imaginary image of the self. As a society, we insist that children should play with toys that have mirrors in them so that they can begin to recognize themselves. Yet, as Lacan explains, the recognition of the self is not reliant on the image but rather the subconscious ability to fulfill the needs of the id.
The man to the left is not only mourning his youth but also his decisions. She, a young girl of sixteen, doesn’t love the man in black. She is also not of nobility and is, instead, marrying into it. The house they are waiting in is not theirs but his mother’s—her mother in law’s. He is awaiting his mother’s decision of what royal position he will be anointed. She doesn’t care what position he gets, just as long as the money is stable and he is gone. The child she is carrying is unwanted by him but beloved by her. She had always wanted a child, but being that she is not of high class she, until now, hadn’t found a right suitor.
According to Saussure, in his “Course in General Linguistics,” words and letters are signs. In our community, words signify the image of the object. The word tree automatically conjures up a picture of a tree in everyone’s mind.However, the word to image connection is completely arbitrary. What this means is, the word tree is completely subjective to culture. We have developed the word Tree, yet in other cultures a different word would signify the same image. Take Spanish for example, arbol is Spanish for tree. Yet, like in English it signifies the a tree that is not a palm tree or cactus. Nevertheless, if said to someone, an image of a tree would emerge in their mind.
The major issue with the signifier and the signified is the fact that a particular word may not induce the same image in everyone’s mind. Since the word to image concept is arbitrarily based, we are effected by our surroundings and associations. Cat, for example, may create different images or thoughts in everyone’s mind. I may think of my cat, whereas someone may think of their own, or jungle cat, or some crazy cat that attacked them when they were a child. Perhaps, even the word cat may not even create an image in the mind of the listener. This is where language is dependant of the social aspect of life. Someone who has never seen a cat may not have a tangible image in their mind—and would instead depend on the other adjectives the writer or speaker uses to create the image in their mind.
According to Shklovsky, the technique of art is to make the familiar “unfamiliar.” But what does that mean? Shklovsky says that in a life that has become “habitualized.” We, as a societal whole, are constantly doing the same tasks over and over again—all the while having the same fears and worries etc. So, how does an artist make the everyday task new? Shklovsky would say that the artist would have to describe or portray the “familiar object” in an unheard way. He would go on to say that writers like Tolstoy have mastered this art in his extremely long novels.
Yet, the most important part to remember—and quite possibly the only way to achieve defamiliarization—is that the object itself is irrelevant. What is important is the way the writer evokes emotion or thought from the presence of that object in the work. As Shklovsky states, Tolstoy had mastered—with the help of his lengthy descriptions—new ways to describe even the mundane. Shklovsky uses Tolstoy’s description of the theater to demonstrate Tolstoy’s unique use of defamiliarization.
The middle of the stage consisted of flat boards; by the sides stood painted pictures representing trees, and at the back a linen cloth was stretched down to the floorboards. Maidens in red bodices and white skirts sat on the middle of the stage. One, very fat, in a white silk dress, sat apart on a narrow bench to which a green pasteboard box was glued from behind. They were all singing something. When they had finished, the maiden in white approached the prompter's box. A man in silk with tight-fitting pants on his fat legs approached her with a plume and began to sing and spread his arms in dismay. The man in the tight pants finished his song alone; then the girl sang. After that both remained silent as the music resounded; and the man, obviously waiting to begin singing his part with her again, began to run his fingers over the hand of the girl in the white dress. They finished their song together, and everyone in the theater began to clap and shout. But the men and women on stage, who represented lovers, started to bow, smiling and raising their hands.
Everyone has seen a theater, and it is very difficult to evoke any type of particular emotion when describing a theater. However, Tolstoy uses such vivid detail to paint his image that it is almost impossible to not see what he’s talking about. Instead of saying, the in the theater stood two people and they sang, he uses elaborate language. Ultimately, he defamiliarizes a very familiar scene—something Shklovsky desired to see more of in literature. It begs the question, however, what would Shklovsky think of Proust? In my opinion, I think he would appreciate Proust’s extreme detail and eventual defamiliarization of everything—even butter cookies.
Work Cited
Shklovsk, Viktor. "Art as Technique." web. 22 Feb. 2011
This clip is from the 1970s Francis Ford Coppola film, Patton. George C. Scott plays the unforgettable WWII General, George Patton. This speech is modeled after an actual speech Patton delivered in June of 1944 in an unrecorded place in England. For the movie, the screen writers and Coppola cleaned up the expletives that were used in the original speech, due to the unknown protest and potential misinterpretation in the context of the film.
According to the Aristotelian Rhetorical speech model, Patton’s speech can be considered to be categorized under the “deliberate” type of speech. This speech, in the film, was meant to excite and persuade the listeners into taking action during World War Two. Patton was considered to be of strong military background and an inspirational speaker for the men who had been drafted into the war.
Patton begins his speech with a short syllogism—“… no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” The next short syllogism is, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” And the final short syllogism is, “the Nazis are the enemy.” All of these syllogisms lead to the enthymeme of: the Nazis are the enemy and it is our job as Americans to, not only participate, but to win the battle against the Nazis. Or what can be stated another way as: Americans are winners, Nazis are un-American; therefore, Nazis could only lose, never win.
In addition to the very persuasive enthymeme, Patton also uses many different language techniques to be as convincing as possible. First and the most used was pathos-laced language. The most often used emotion used throughout the speech is anger. He uses the idea that losing in this war is an intolerable outcome, and that if it were to happen it would never be accepted, “…Americans have never lost and will never lose a war because the very thought is hateful to Americans.” He continues to say that due to our natural ability and hunger for victory he “pities the bastards,” because we are going into battle with the desire to “spill their blood” and “shoot them in the belly.” And the most infamous line filled with the most emotion is, “We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.” These words are very emotionally powerful, and were used in this instance to stimulate the soldiers in war.
In the end, the use of these powerful words and commanding enthymeme are influenced heavily by Patton’s use of the two of the three important qualities of an effective Aristotelian speaker. First was his employment of eunoia—acting the part. At the time of WWII Patton was an older gentleman, and had been recognized for his impeccable leadership skills. Therefore, in the film we first see Patton dressed in army fatigues giving directions—“Ten-hut. Be Seated.” Being that he is a General in the U.S. Army, if he had come onto the stage saying, “hello folks” the soldiers wouldn’t have taken him seriously.
In addition to Eunoia, he also used Arête language. Patton’s language eluded that his intentions were to better the world. He used several phrases to elude to the fact that he was of good character and the opposition was not. However, one sentence in particular encapsulates his entire view of the war. It follows immediately after the question of what will happen if a soldier finds himself unsure if he can fight or not. His answer is, “The Nazis are the enemy…When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that was a moment before your best friend’s face, you’ll know what to do.” Some would view that war is an unnecessary brutality in the world; however, Patton refutes this by saying that the Nazis will kill, and that it is our job to end the violence. It is not a matter of whether it’s wrong, but rather, in this instance, if the victory will better the world.
Ultimately, Patton’s speech in the film is filled with very emotional, or pathos, language. It was meant to persuade the men in the military to go into war wholeheartedly, knowing that their sacrifices will have a positive effect. The speech was, in the end, very influential with the use of the very basic Aristotelian models of rhetoric and that of a ethical rhetorical speaker.
Works Cited
Farago, Ladislas. "Patton Script - Transcript from the Screenplay And/or George C. Scott
Movie." Drew's Script-O-Rama: Free Movie Scripts and Screenplays, Baby! Web. 111
Feb. 2011.
Leitch, Vincent B. et al., ed. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: Norton,
2001. Print.
Province, Charles M. "The Famous Patton Speech." Patton Society Homepage. Web. 10 Feb.
Of course, Plato would have a cave in which prisoners of sorts would be held against their will and shown only shadows. I say of course, because, in his philosophy, everything was in fact a mere imitation. A replication, a shadow. And to have seen the object in its true form was something we, as puny humans, simply could not do. His philosophical story/question, from what I gather, is this, can we really use words to describe something that is in fact intangible? And if we use these words to imitate the imitated, can those words be trusted as truth?
Being a narrative writer, and a novice poet, I was immediately and selfishly offended. How could he question the use of a word; a word that was so carefully chosen by the writer? In short, his quick dismissal and scrutiny of these creative words was really irking me. But why? Why was I so hung up on some centuries old philosophy? Then, I thought, was there really some truth to this Cave business? Are we really just the audience in a higher order’s puppet show? All these questions flooded my mind, cutting off the circulation to the vocabulary parts of my brain. Why were we choosing certain words? Was there something to this idea that words are really meaningless? Or rather, that words are misleading. I thought back to all of the Shakespeare I’ve read; and the beautiful poetry the Bronte sisters published; and the stunning novels about war and coming of age. I’m sure that Plato wouldn’t have had a very profound love for these texts, as I do. But was owning and claiming the Writer title synonymous with the Liar title?
I’m still unsure about the truth of words. I can’t wrap my mind around the concept of words being nothing more than arbitrary sounds and letters stigmatized with definitions and connotations. And that these “definitions” are used to convey misconceptions, or inaccurate descriptions of something so indescribable. Perhaps more reading of Plato’s Republic will clarify or resolve this conflict I’m having.
I had heard the word Hermeneutics before, but I never really knew what it meant. Whenever the word came up in conversation with my intellectual superiors, Herman Munster’s face flashed in my mind. And when it was introduced on the first day, one thought came to mind—I was going to be thoroughly horse whipped. But alas, I’m starting to really understand what the whole business of Hermeneutics is—and in fact, it has nothing to do with the Munsters at all.
When first grappling with the idea that Hermeneutics was just the study and interpretation of a work based on what and how ‘something’ is portrayed, I was more confused than ever. What did it all mean, literally? I was, to put it lightly, scared. Great, I thought, this is what we’re starting off with. I would need a whole semester to analyze all the possible answers for the one question that so condescendingly hung over my head—why? In fiction there are innumerable symbols and hidden messages cleverly hidden beneath the words, stuck somewhere in limbo between the grains of the paper and the dots of black ink. And it was now, as I understand, my job to find all of those messages beneath the sand and, without any hesitation answer the why. But first, to uncover the why, I must first discover and understand the how.
Hermeneutics, as I comprehend, is using the how (i.e. how a conversation is had, how an element is portrayed, and so on), to get to the why. Why did the author write it that particular way? And in my reading of this subject I ran across Bible Hermeneutics. In short, the interpretation of the Bible. I wouldn’t know where to begin in exploring every symbolic detail in the Bible, but it did capture my curiosity. As I did a little research on the appropriately called Biblical exegesis, I found that Hermeneutics is considered to be a ‘philosophy’ of sorts. And even though it has been a socially accepted form of interpretation for sacred works, it cannot be misconstrued for truth.
So, in the end, I found that like Herman Munster, Hermeneutics could simply just be an important character. And even though theories are only theories, I realized that Hermeneutics can be considered the ‘umbrella’ to which all other theories flock under.
This is my third year at CSUN, and I’ve always been a Creative Writing major. I write mostly narrative fiction. No, I’m not into the current writing fad, so don’t look to me for the next series starring wizards or lycanthropes. But seriously, I love writing about people. I try to make the situations my characters are in as tangible as possible. It’s all about feeling, and well, I’m going to make my reader ‘feel’ it. I wonder if there is a theory about that.
I would love to pen a book someday, and it be the most ‘ingenious’ published work by my generation. I’m not sure that my dream is completely not accomplishable—I mean, if Snooki couldwrite a book, I could too. I’ve learned it’s all in the timing.
I’m not sure I understand all that theory has to offer; however, all I know is that I really like uncovering all of the historical or social significance of the symbols used in a particular text. For example, I once took Beloved, by Toni Morrison, and tracked down every ‘symbol’, if you will, and found that each had a particular meaning. I found that the rivers correlated to a myth created by a tribe in Sierra Leon; Sethe and Amy’s heroic journey across the Ohio River, can be considered a metaphoric Middle Passage. And, that the tree on Sethe’s back is part of a poisonous genus, symbolically poisoning her from the inside out. I love making symbolic connections.
On that note, I love reading. If I could, I would read every moment of every day. But I can’t, and that is one depressing understanding I have to accept. I’ll read just about anything. I put the qualifier ‘just’, because there is one genre I can’t get into—harlequin romance novels. Other than the repetition of words to describe the human anatomy, harlequins simply don’t provide any literal substance. There are no hidden meanings or symbols to uncover. And, complicated plots are nonexistent, and only over simplified plots are present to fill in the space between trysts. So, there you have it, my only literary Kryptonite.
I guess in the whole scheme of all that is theory, I can’t help but be a little skeptical. Perhaps I need to study the subject more.Yet, as I read the Classical theories, I find that all they really wanted was a boring society. Imagining a life without narratives or poetry is, is just a life I couldn’t live. To conduct my life as if I were in a philosophy book, as Plato would’ve liked, is not ‘right’.
In the end, I’m really looking forward to reading and understanding, to the best of my abilities, all of the major literary theories. And by the size of the book, I have quite a bit of reading to do. Ultimately, by the end of this semester, I hope to really hone my analyzing abilities and become an even better reader and writer.
