Directions for blogging and what to post on your reading comments on the blog
At first, at least, this is how we’ll use the blog:
- I will do a basic blog post titled “Reading Responses for February 1.”
- Each of us will then POST (not comment) in response.
- Each of us is responsible for a different reading and responding to it in the class blog (Aristotle: Chuck; Fish: Kathleen;
- The deadline for posting at least an initial post is Friday at midnight
- Here are some things that you should almost definitely do in each comment:
- Identify yourself by name (use an alias if you want)
- State the author’s last name in the comment title, followed by short title
- State thesis or main point fairly close up front
- Summarize reasoning, evidence, various objectives, etc. (whatever seems noteworthy)
- State “what’s cool” about the reading (try to find something; reach! you can do it; have faith; play the believing game)
- Extend the conversation offered by the author into the subject matter that we’re exploring as a class or that you think we could/should explore (take a chance if you need to)
- Here are some things that you might do in your comment:
- Point out key points and connections with other texts
- Post possible discussion questions for the class to explore (you can even begin to answer…or not)
- Explain what is unique about the reading, and explain also how reading ties in/overlaps with overall ideas from course
- Make requests/suggestions for class presenters (in the first week, the presenter is me)
- Point out interesting citations used by author—i.e., some texts that are cited by author and that might be worth looking at further.
Genesea Carter
ReplyDeleteFrye's “The Archetypes of Literature”
Thesis (as I see it):
“So while no one expects literature itself to behave like a science, there is no reason why criticism, as a systematic and organized study, should not be, at least partly, a science” (1446).
Noteworthy Summaries:
Literary criticism found in journals and scholarly monographs hold the characteristics of a scientific means of criticism. These texts are scientific in nature: listing of evidence, reference to scholars to build ethos, careful, methodical editing. However, students of literature recognize that literature is not just the study of literature; history and philosophy become equally important (1446).
The primary function of criticism is commentary. But just commentating is devoid of the scientific process of literary criticism. Literary criticism is a nebulous region of vagaries, reflection, and research where there is no Truth or definitive answer as “criticism … prefers a waste space to an empty one” (1446).
As well, “the principles by which one can distinguish a significant from a meaningless statement in criticism are not clearly defined” (1446). Therefore, we need to do away with meaningless statements, and we need to develop a way to talk about literature that is systematic with a “scientific” structure. Literary “chit-chat” and commentaries that are value-based not on literary experience have no place in criticism (1446).
What's Cool:
What I really like is this connection to literary criticism as a science. Oftentimes (or usually) English (and the Humanities) gets blamed/accused of being too objective. This accusation is generally given by a person or group who favors the exactitude of the sciences. However, similarly to the study of science, we in the Humanities develop hypothesis (the claim) and complete our own research (analysis and archival work). Maybe we’re blamed for being too objective because our work doesn’t seem crucial—there aren’t the same stakes in English as in cancer research. Thus, I was drawn to Frye’s call for a structured system of literary criticism, separated from the “chit-chat” and commentaries often given instead. Perhaps Frye recognized we were lacking ethos, and this is his attempt to give us credibility.
Extending the Convo:
To return to our conversation about the fairy tale genre and the conventions of that genre, I would say we did a somewhat good job identifying the key aspects of the genre. I think to really teach our students how to successfully transition between genres, they need to understand the “science” (the systematic elements) of each genre. And this we know for those of us who teach genre-based curriculum.
I think we could most certainly discuss whether or not English/Humanities can be viewed as “scientific.” Are our subject matters and the treatment of those subjects truly subjective? Or can we extend Frye’s call for a systematic system to other areas of our field? Can we truly move beyond the chit-chat? I think, at least, these are interesting questions to discuss, and I’m not sure I have an answer.
Interesting on the "science" approach. I think that a "genre studies" approach to texts and the circulation of texts makes one's inquiry more sociological, but I'm a little hesitant to call it more "scientific" -- "systematic" yes.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny because historically Frye's work is seen as the right approach at the right time (1957-ish), because formalism (as in New Criticism) was exhausted...there was nothing left to do with that approach, no work for English professors left. (Frank Lentricchia's *After the New Criticism* is good on this.) I wonder if we were in an analogous moment forty years later (1987). Frye's impact, too, took about 20 years to catch on.
I also like this idea you pulled out, Genesea, about going beyond chit-chat. Does a genre approach's systematization help us do that. The question is, WHY is is it better? Is "systematization" and "science" necessarily better? Obviously not, but still why. (That's not a rhetorical question.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Ives
ReplyDeleteEssays by Roland Barthes
Central Arguments:
Striptease: The Parisian striptease is seductive not because of its sexual appeal but because it has sanitized sexuality by wrapping its rawness and vulnerability in a chain of cultural signifiers- the exotic persona, the music hall, the bourgeois profession, thereby making sex just another mass marketed simulacrum.
The Structuralist Activity: Structuralism is the act of taking apart an observed object, event, phenomenon, etc. and putting it back together in a work of art. During the process the thing being recreated as a simulacrum is endowed with new meaning connected to culture and the human experience. The simulacra are classified by and differ from each other according to the smallest (imaginary?) units of which they are made.
The Death of the Author: The writer of a text is not the ultimate Author of the text, meaning that he or she is not the sole authority over the text, nor is any critic claiming to know what the author meant. The text has an excess of meaning informed by the culture that the writer may not have been aware of, and is open for multiple interpretations.
From Work to Text: "The Text is radically symbolic: a work conceived, perceived and received in its integrally symbolic nature is a text," (879), resists any single meaning, has no Author with ultimate authority but is instead a space for social exchange, and is bound to pleasure and jouissance.
What's cool about this collection of essays to me is how well they relate to the conversation we had last Monday. One question we asked in response to the fairy tales was "How culture-specific are genres?" These articles indicate that genres are completely interconnected with culture. It seems like Barthes sees "the Text," as human thought imposed upon "reality," and views text and culture as one and the same. Genres such as the novel, the essay, the abstract painting, and the striptease, organize the signifiers that make up the culture, in order to show that culture in a new light. So genres are both shaped by and comment on a culture. For instance, the striptease organizes familiar cultural signifiers into a dance in order to comment on the typical French view of sexuality, consumerism, and probably a number of other cultural phenomena, and is specific to French culture. I wonder if Barthes would consider the American striptease to be a different genre than the French striptease.
Another good connection to our class discussion comes when, in "The Structuralist Activity," Barthes describes the function of structuralist units this way: "the American automobiles (in Butor's Mobile) must be constantly regarded in the same way, yet they must differ each time by both their make and color" (873). This immediately brought to mind Genesea's metaphor, "Genres relate to other genres like makes of cars relate to models of cars." In the context of this article it seems like Barthes is drawing a similar metaphor, basically "Genres relate to individual works within that genre like makes of cars relate to models of cars."