Final Thoughts

Hello again. I just wanted to take the time to say thank you for reading my blog this semester. It was a great challenge to come up with material every week but I think we did a pretty good job.

My final post will be my exam essay. I figured I would post it because it mirrors my thoughts on theory and is a good wrap up. Enjoy kids! Thanks for a great class!!!


Grad Student Deconstructs Take-Out Menu is a remarkably satirical piece of work that pokes fun at critical theory in a way that supports in infamous death of theory after 9/11. The article is an incessant deconstruction of theory and its multifaceted layers.

The article begins by poking fun at the arbitrary nature of language by placing everything in ‘quotes.’ This references structuralism and the work so Saussure and Claude Levi-Strauss. By placing words it quotes, Rosenblatt points out the absurd or ‘absurd’ nature of bricolage and Saussurian concepts of signification and binary opposition; what does absurd even really mean?

Then Rosenblatt teases apart the every present battle of power and authorship. Does the reader have power or does the author have power? One will never really ‘know.’ This argument brings into play Foucault’s Death of the Author. Concepts like authorship/readership and power are one of the key elements of theory that turn people off from critical theory. The post theory mindset actually believes some of these theorists think too much.

The mere fact that Rosenblatt is deconstructing a menu points out the universality of critical theory and its applicability outside that pearlescent ivory tower. This article portrays the belief that in order to understand theory, one much apply it outside of the classroom. Anything can be deconstructed or critically analyzed; however, what merits a good analysis is up for debate.

The infamous academy and cannon of literature believe that only ‘great’ literature is capable of such intellectual pursuits. However, this cannon is the power structure that excluded women and homosexual writers for years. Does this not discredit the power of the illusive literary authorities? I believe it does. Deconstructing a take-out menu is the candle-snuffing attempt of contemporary theorists like Rosenblatt.

Rosenblatt concluded the article with another recurring theme in critical theory, the search of the real. What is real anyway? Who exactly is to decide what real is? This article points out that there are many ‘realities’ in this world. “What is a take-out menu not, anyway? Everything, of course. What is a take-out menu? Nothing, of course.” I believe this parallels so many arguments about theory. What is theory not, anyway? Everything, of course. What is theory? Nothing, of course. Theory is an. uphill battle to understand complexity after complexity where nothing is everything and reality and ‘the real’ are just varying degrees of interpretation.

Although this article satirizes elements of critical theory, it validates many aspects of critical theory and deconstruction. The article points out the maddening nature of deconstruction and its plaguing open-endedness. However, deconstructing things like a take-out menu really expose institutionalized notions of power and race that many of us mindlessly ignore. Therefore, theory is valuable. However, theory is dead...

Throw Ur V's Up!

Hey yall, Check out this EC blogger. She has a flair for feminism!

Violent Femmmmmmmmmmmes

Hmmm…… Feminism…I know I am a woman. I know I should say I am a feminist. However, the F word scares me a weeeeee bit. It is such a shame that there is such a negative connotation associated with the term feminism. I mean, I must say that a few years ago I though a feminist was a man hating, granola crunching, I Birkenstocks wearing, hairy lesbian. I know it’s horrible, no need to tell me. However, spent a lot of time realizing that feminism wasn’t so bad.

I truly believe that there are many degrees of feminism. I began exploring feminism when I started speaking out against pornography like Dworkin and MacKinnon. I know some believe it is just harmless representation and a good laugh. Personally, I think it activates things like sexual aggression, rape, and discrimination, but that’s just me…. Some women I know don’t happen to think so.

It seams as though women of my generation have slipped into this postmodern blend of feminism where they believe that we really have the power to dress like complete sluts on Halloween. Isn’t that what men really want? Is dressing up on “whore-o-ween” really liberating because we choose to do so? Do we really choose to do so? I think my “slutterfly” costume last year is a prime example.

However, feminism has turned into this “Sex and the City” type thing. If a woman thinks reading Cosmo liberates her from sexism and hegemony well, she is lying to herself. A magazine should not tell me how to “please my man” or dress for my flat ass.

I must say that my definition of feminism has changed a lot growing up with three sisters, exposing myself to feminist texts, and learning about feminist criticism. I think women still need to fight for sexual liberation and freedom from this postmodern wave of feminism.

ps. Tonya thank you very much for your post this week! I really enjoyed reading it!

Man-t-t-t-tisssa

Although I am still working through Mantissa, I must say that I find it very confusing, entertaining, and fruit salad of critical theory. I mean maybe I am just stupid, but when people mention theories from months ago, I am lost and am not sure I could even define Liberal Humanism without referencing notes or having to reread a chapter or two of Barry. My brain is complete mush by now; I have blinders on and the only thing I see is my senior seminar paper staring me in the face; well, I see the 40+ pages I have to collectively write before the end of November. Oh Joy!!Okay, it is a known fact that Mantissa is an allegory of the creative process and within the novel there are many references to critical theory. However, the part I grapple with most is authorship.

Although Foucault, Bathes, and many others believe the author is dead, he is very much alive in Mantissa. I am having a hard time separating the idea of the author being dead when he is staring straight back at in Mantissa. I mean really, there he is, living, breathing, and fornicating on practically every page.

Mantissa calls into question authorship and inspiration in many ways. Derrida, Barthes, and Foucault believe that the author is completely separate from his/her text. However, I feel as though Mantissa offers a different perspective. The premise of the novel is to release Miles from his writers block through divine inspiration. However, I find it quite clever Erato’s play on authorship starting on page 170.

Erato begins to tell Miles about a book she wrote under a pseudonym. The book was entitled “Men, Will They Ever Grow Up?” However, the book’s real title is revealed as Homer’s Odyssey. Now we all know that Erato did not write the novel, since Erato is a muse (a fictional character in this book and probably a fictional thing in real life) we know that she had nothing to do with it.

Erato said, “Darling, you mustn’t feel jealous just because my one clumsy little attempt at writing has become a kind of a fluke best-seller” After Erato speaks, Miles continues to rant on about how the Odyssey could only have been written by a man because of its genius.
Now, I am not going to go through a quote about two pages of dialogue, you all can go read pages 170-174. However, I think that this passage is not only sexist, it is exemplary of the author function. Does it really matter who wrote the Odyssey?

Barthes said, “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to finish it with a final
signified, to close the writing.” Miles implication that the author does matter really strays away from theory.

Maybe I have Mantissa all wrong. I know it incorporates all of these theories; however, I feel like the absurdity of this novel discredits theory and makes it post-theory. If the author is dead, why is Miles/Fowles such a prominent figure in this novel?

I think this is all I have for now. I know there are a million and one other theories present in Mantissa... I can't wait to read other thoughts and deconstructions!

Any comments?

Crazy Lady in the Wall

Well, you see…. I took me a while to think of a topic for my paper. I have always been interested in feminism because I don’t think I understand it. However, I really feel as though I should understand it because a women. So, I am writing my paper on feminist criticism and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper.

I read Gilman’s short story in high school and was very interested in the piece. Those of you that read Yellow Wallpaper may remember how remarkably deranged it was. However, I think this piece is so interesting.

For those if you that don’t know the story I will provide a brief synopsis. Yellow Wallpaper is about a woman driven to madness. The story consists of a few journal entries in which a new mother presents signs of postpartum depression; symptoms of which her physician husband, John, dismiss. While on vacation the main character is ordered, by her husband, to remain in a room adorned with yellow wallpaper until she overcomes her “minor” depression.

While locked in the room the narrator becomes obsessed with the wallpaper and believes that it comes to life in the night. Finally, the woman believes that a female figure is trying to escape the wall paper and she must help this woman out of the paper. The story concludes with the narrator stripping the wallpaper like a crazed and psychotic woman. Her husband finds her and passes out from shock. The final image of the story is of the narrator exclaiming, “I’ve got out at last,” while walking in circles around the room.

Interesting? I happen to think so. If any of you have not read this story you can find it online. It’s a quick read!

Now, in my paper I will attempt to relate this story to feminist theory and criticism. Many of the articles I found for my annotated bibliography explained what feminism/feminist criticism is. I think these articles helped a great deal however, I think I am going to have a difficult time writing a paper I am proud of.

Some of my ideas include, but are not limited to, relating this paper to the idea of male power, domesticity, and obviously power and powerlessness. Her husband is a prime example of this power and the external hegemony. Women at this time were not supposed to be depressed and if they were they were forced not to show it. Therefore, the male patriarchy forced this woman to go mad. Also, I can relate this piece to psychoanalysis to expose the main characters struggle with her female identity (represented by the woman in the wall).

Another interesting theme in this story is the use of language. The narrator was allowed to express herself in writing and never verbally because she was silenced. Does this mean that woman’s writing represents the oppressed and does this make writing a feminine trait? Finally, I would love to relate this story to language and Saussure… I liked his stuff a lot; I will figure what I want to do with this later…

Naturally I question my topic. I am sure after I read everyone else’s ideas I will want to change my topic, but that’s to be expected. I am very fickle when it comes to choosing a topic because I want it to be REALLLLY good.

Any suggestions, comments, or concerns???

I think I may have to change my topic..... SOmething irks me about having the same topic as someone else.... Back to the drawing board.... maybe

Keanu, Ken, and Baudrillard

Okay, so this is where I have a hard time blogging. I really enjoyed Ken’s post. Once again it was very clear and east to read, which is a nice change of pace from our theory readings. I must say that I don’t really have anything to say. I am all tapped out. It is hard coming up with clever and through provoking things every week. My brain is tired. However, I will try and tease out some things in Ken’s post that I found interesting and note worthy.

Ken refers to Baudrillard’s comments on labor and Marxism. Capitalism really doesn’t care about who produces, it is all about consumption and neutralizing the ‘use-value.’ I think this is a very bold and true statement. Even if Marxism tried to focus on the producer, the man behind the machine, it inevitably wouldn’t matter because I don’t think any form of anti-capitalism could ever be achieved. Do I really care about the person who made my shiny new phone, skinny jeans, or makeup? No, all that matters is my dollah billz. Maybe I have this all wrong, maybe I will never understand Marxism… I don’t think I ever really want to, but the relationship between consumer and producer will always be relevant because of our society.

After getting through Baudrillard and Marxism, I really understood the whole cow/hay example and thought it was a perfect example to use. This brings me to concur with the idea that society could never exist without signification. Let’s face it, we would all go MAD!

Finally, I really like the ideas behind simulacrum and simulation. I mean how ridiculous can theory really get? I have already accepted so many of these crazy ideas as “truths,” or at least taken them into consideration, and now they want to spring this on me???!!!! Oh boy.

Okay, so let’s be serious here. I know that the search for reality is key to critical theory; I get that part. However, I think all of these people really discredit the realities that we face every day. What would Baudrillard say about 9-11? What would any of these people say if they were still alive?

I understand the Disney and Epcot synthesis however, how can there ever be a copy of something without an original. In order for a “copy” to be made there must be an original to be copied. I believe in originals! I believe in the real!!! I am not going to give away the real. I have been through too many “REAL” experiences to just say goodbye to it. Perhaps this is where I get lost, any suggestions?

Also, Keanu is such a great actor. He is so versatile and really should be up for this year’s life time achievement award. Sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm.

Bang-Bang! THUD! The Author is DEAD!!!!

I think I am finally starting to understand this whole theory thing. Although this weeks Barry reading was dry, I really enjoyed Barthes’ “The Death of the Author.” I actually felt as though I understood some of what someone was talking about…for once.

The author is dead and I finally killed him. Wow, who would have thought I would agree with this statement. I think it was a month ago when I refused to kill him off. However, I understand it now. Barthes said, “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to finish it with a final

signified, to close the writing.” I never thought of this perspective. I mean really, what does the author really have to do with anything if he/she is just a product of the times? After all Barthes said, “[a] book itself is only a tissue of signs.”

After my extensive walk through the blog-o-sphere, I discovered Bitch PH.D. Now, I must say that I am not one for reading every rant in the blog world; however, I did find what Ms. Bitch had to say appealing.

Dr. Bitch began talking about pseudonyms in the blogging community. She said, “Pseudonyms prevent texts from being impersonal, from pretending to objectivity; they draw attention to the author’s role in a way that a straight byline does not. At the same time, though, pseudonyms make a text more fully public: by hiding the author’s identity, the author becomes potentially anyone.”
Isn’t this exactly what Barthes and Foucault talk about in their essays? Isn’t pseudonymity a parallel for these theoretical beliefs? Perhaps this is what makes authorship so problematic. When I look at an author’s name, I immediate think of a context and other works they have written; I am already biased!

Since I have a hard time releasing the author from his work, I should adopt the idea that an Author is pseudonomininous (this is not a real word, but I like it). This relates to the whole idea of blogging. Blogging is almost like a production, it turns writers into actors on a stage where no ones identity is ever really fixed or set in stone.

Hmmmmm..... The picture you may ask??? Its how theory makes me feel... most days.

I Got Id

I think this weeks post will be a mix and match of everything floating around in my brain.

First of all, I wanted to take the time to comment on the Derrida documentary. I was not a fan of the documentary; however, I appreciate the little nuances the documentary put forth. The documentary chose to depict Paris in its most dismal and deconstructed state. This parallels the very message of deconstruction. Instead of showing Paris in its most spectacular grandeur, Paris was, in essence, deconstructed.

The irony of the documentary is that it is deconstructed in nature. Derrida goes into great detail in regards to the self/other relationship and the escapable truth. Ironically, the documentary is trying to depict truths about Derrida. However, Derrida’s truth about himself will be much different that the film maker’s truth. In fact, at one point in the documentary, Derrida explains how he acts differently in front of the camera.

Also, the film was very interesting and voyeuristic. I often felt uncomfortable watching the documentary. There were these remarkable scenes where we watched Derrida watching himself watch himself. I found this visual choice shocking and very effective. I also enjoyed how Derrida was shown as a regular man. The film always focused on his brilliant mind; literally I was always looking at the image of his head. I found that quite remarkable and thought provoking because he was depicted as an average man with this brilliant mind.

Secondly, I would like to comment on psychoanalytic theory. I have always been fascinated by Freud and psychoanalysis. I am captivated by metaphoric and metonymic thought. While doing the exercise in class I realized that I am more of a metonymic thinker than a metaphoric thinker.

However, maybe I like studying Freud because I kind of understand his thoughts. Please don’t get me wrong here, I am in no way saying that I believe in the Oedipus complex or saying I have penis envy. However, I understand that the unconscious is one of the most powerful and revealing forces the human mind has.

I don’t think I will ever understand the depths of my brain; however, it is fun to try and figure out why I, or anyone else, is so screwed up. Also, this relates too many of the ideas we have already studied in language theory. Will we ever really understand language? I am sure we can recall a few important people who don’t think so!

I mean take any one of your weird nightly dreams and try and analyze it. I have this one recurring dream. I am a child and there is this scary clown-man that is chasing me through my empty house. After seeing him kill all of my family members, I try and jump down a very long flight of stairs. However, just as I reach the bottom stair his “go-go gadget arms” grab me and pull me back to the top stair. The dream ends when I am some how transported to my front glass door. It is locked and the scary clown-man is pacing back and forth clawing at the glass. Scary? I happen to think so.

This is one of the night terrors I had as a child. It is one of the only terrors I remember and I always manage to have the dream every year, and every year it gets more and more involved.

Could this perhaps be my unconscious telling me something? Is this figure a displacement of my father? Is this figure a condensation of my fear of death that I acquired at a young age?

I happen to think I have this dream because I am beyond afraid of losing the people I love. This happened because I was introduced to death at a very young age. Perhaps, these are a few of the reasons. I am sure Freud would have a few more ideas…..

Also, I am looking foward to reading Lacan for tomorrow. I am very interested in this mirror business!

La Lengua

Ocean, as defined by dictionary.com, is a vast body of salt water that covers ¾ of the earth’s surface. However, what if ocean were not the word used to describe what we know as the ocean. What if the ocean was named thesip? For instance, on a hot summer’s day you would go to the thesip to soak up the sun. In other words, does the word ocean really have anything to do with what the ocean really is?

This week in class we were asked to study structuralism and Ferdinand Saussure . I must say I was fascinated by a structuralist’s perspective regarding language and how humans have come up with language to define/rationalize the things that surround us. Structuralists, like Saussure, believe that language is made up of signs. A sign, in my mind, is an equation,

Signified + Signifier = Sign

In this definition, the signified and signifier work together to create signs that are representative of language and sound. This relates to Saussure’s belief that the “bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary.” Structuralists believe that reality is created through language and the construction of signs. For instance, the word flower is a sign that is made up of the signified and the signifier. The signified is the concept of the flower, the signifier is the arbitrary definition of flower, and the sign is the word.

Does the word flower have anything to do with the intrinsic value of that flower? No. The term flower is merely a means of defining the idea/concept of what we see to make a rational definition. The word for flower will forever be fixed through the use of language. The term flower will help us differentiate a flower from a tree, a plant, or a blade of grass. However, since our definition is arbitrary the sign will always be unstable. Through the structuralist perspective, it is only through the opposition of signs that can we truly know the difference between signs. For instance, the sign sunflower will help designate a difference between a rose or tree. The relationship between signs is relational and dependent on difference.

I could not agree more with the arbitrarity of language. Granted arbirtarity is not a word, however, you all know what I mean. Saussure states, “philosophers and linguists have always agreed in recognizing that without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut, consistent distinction between two ideas. Without language, though it is vague, though it is an uncharted nebula. There are no pre-existing ideas and nothing us distinct before the appearance of language (34).”

Although Saussure is complicating, his theories about language are fascinating and accessible through examples. I happen to agree with the idea that language is arbitrary and symbolic. It is mind bending to think about language and all its complexities. The way we come up with signs, as a society , is really intriguing and something I would like learn more about. It makes me think, if words are arbitrary is meaning arbitrary? If that is the case, how do we glean so much meaning from texts?

Marxism: A Bit Foggy

Ah yes, the Rosenberg’s…I remember now. Looking back, I must say that I had the privilege of attending a lecture by Ethel and Julius Rosenberg’s son. It was a captivating lecture that really enhanced my understanding of the 1950’s and Communism. However, I must say that class discussion has further complicated my understanding of Marxism. I honestly feel as though there is too much jargon involved in Marxism. There are just so terms and ideas to take into account.

Despite my discouragement, I will study on in hopes of one day having the proverbial light bulb turn on. Thankfully, Dr. Christopher Craig’s post uncomplicated my mind and make Marxism a bit more accessible. Not only was Dr. Craig’s writing style seamless and understandable, he took Marxism down a few lofty steps.

Dr. Craig states, “American ruling class ideology continuously spins narratives that attempt to limit the working class’s ability to recognize and respond to its own subjugation.” Hmm, this makes absolute sense. In a capitalistic sense, it is beyond genius that has captured the working class and made them blind to their own suppression. In essence, this is exactly how capitalism functions, even in a literary sense.

Literature is ideological and will always be to varying degrees. Regardless of an author’s intention, literature will implant hegemonic and capitalistic ideologies weather or not they were instilled in the author or not. Although I find it hard to take credit away from the author, texts do have ‘logic all their own.’ I think I will always struggle with the infinite theoretic ideal that “the author is dead.”

In addition, Dr. Craig was right when he said, “We believe that there are narratives that exist outside of the dominant ideology of society. Novels, for example, that confront or ignore ruling class values and interests are somehow separated from the ideology to which they are hostile or with which they are seemingly unconcerned. While these texts do identify important oppositional voices in the dominant society, they cannot escape the influence of the ideology they oppose.”

I believe I am at the point where I understand Marxism. Although some parts are foggy, I think it is all starting to make sense. Examples are key! I really appreciate Dr. Craig’s guest lecture and look forward to more this semester.

Liberal Humanism vs. Marxism

I find it had to wrap my brain around liberal-humanism. In essence, liberal-humanism challenges many of my preconceived notions about literature and how to deconstruct it.

Liberal humanism tells me that human nature us unchanging- I think to my self, “how can this be?” How can human nature not evolve and change with humans over time? I cannot help but wonder if I am a product of my surroundings or some biological basis of behavior?

However, if I stop and think about pieces of literature that are “timeless,” it all starts making sense. There will always be a common threat woven into pieces if literature that really matter and have value to society. This means that, if literature is a reflection of society, our nature is fairly consistent.

Through this perspective, literature is separate from all that surrounds it. In essence, literature should not be studied through historical, political, or even an autobiographical lens. Liberal humanism strictly enforces the belief that a text is separate from the author’s bias. Essentially, this is one of the areas were liberal humanism and Marxist theory conflict.

Marxism, steeped in communist ideals, places strong emphasis on the background of literature. It is the experience, social class, and bias of an individual that create great works of literature.

I whole-heartedly agree with this assessment of literature. I do not believe text can stand alone without contextual/historical analysis. I could never attempt to understand George Orwell without understanding the political complexities of his life or the time period. Since I am not from this time, I will consume Orwell’s message in my own context. Therefore, I must understand background to consume in a more complete manner.

I do not believe that good writing is classless or blind to circumstance as liberal humanism suggest. I would write a paper about loss and suffering completely different that someone who has never lost anyone in their life. I do not believe that an author is unaware of what he or she is saying. Granted, we are all products of our environment but I believe we all know the message we wish to convey in our prose.

Intro

Hello! Welcome to Barrows & the Academy!

Barrows & the Academy is an academic blog created for my professor Dr. M. This blog will allow students the opportunity to explore critical theory and transcend the confines of classroom learning.

In my experience, theory is a subject I struggle with. However, previous courses have given enough insight to further my journey into theory.

Throughout the semester, I hope to cultivate my blogging skills and learn more about literary theory and its practices. Through this blog, I hope to learn valuable insight from my peers and those in the blog-o-sphere.

The past three years as a communications major have laid the groundwork for my future as a writer and a graduate of Emmanuel College.

I look forward to learning from and reading peer responses to theory and engaging in intellectual conversations. I hope my blog offers different perspectives into theory and will expand the minds of others.


For more information about me, please feel free to check out my profile!

Enjoy!