It's unbelieveable that the term is over and it's time for the final paper.
I've chosen two notions that I've discovered for myself in this course for the topic of my paper. I'd like to explore the relationship between defamiliarization and intertextuality as discussed in works by Shklovsky and Kristeva. I will also refer to other theorics to explain the relationship between the two concepts in literature.
till tomorrow
Monday, April 4, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Subaltern studies
So I attempted to read Spivak's article, twice. It's definitely the hardest read I've encountered in this course. I know she is a very important figure in this field, but I can't understand what she's saying in this article. it is so dense, that I can't pick the imprtant point to concentrate on.
Something that I did understand at the beginning: Spivak states that a functional change ina sign-system is a violent event which can only be operated by the force of a crisis. Subaltern is the main figure of change: the subalternity turns things upside-down. I hope to clear some more things out for myself before tomorrow's class.
Something that I did understand at the beginning: Spivak states that a functional change ina sign-system is a violent event which can only be operated by the force of a crisis. Subaltern is the main figure of change: the subalternity turns things upside-down. I hope to clear some more things out for myself before tomorrow's class.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
What is an author? by M. Foucault
Foucault starts by saying that he is concentrating on thye relationship between text and author.
He states that "in writing, the point is not to manifest or exalt the act of writing, nor is it to pin a subject within language; it is, rather a quistion of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears" (102). To me, this quote means that writing kills the author (maybe?). He often returns to the topic of death in writing, which of course, reminds me of Barths' "Death of the author". Although Foucault mentions that writing can also be a way of keeping the writer//his work from death, by leaving a legacy behind. He also discusses that we recognize an author by his works, since we can recognize his'her style of writing, which in turn makes the works original/authentic. In other words, we associate the author with is works and vice versa. Being an author of a work gives a special status to the discourse that is the written work. That is, his works are accepted differently from regular discourse (but what is the difference between a regular discourse and the one written my an author?)
An author function is given to the discourse by the existence and circulation in a society. This means that a writer is an author when his works are circulated among some group of people.
In the end, Foucault proposes that this function of the author will disappear, which will lead to the death of the author and his voice won't matter anymore. Rather, the influence on the reader and the meaning of the discourse will be more important.
He states that "in writing, the point is not to manifest or exalt the act of writing, nor is it to pin a subject within language; it is, rather a quistion of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears" (102). To me, this quote means that writing kills the author (maybe?). He often returns to the topic of death in writing, which of course, reminds me of Barths' "Death of the author". Although Foucault mentions that writing can also be a way of keeping the writer//his work from death, by leaving a legacy behind. He also discusses that we recognize an author by his works, since we can recognize his'her style of writing, which in turn makes the works original/authentic. In other words, we associate the author with is works and vice versa. Being an author of a work gives a special status to the discourse that is the written work. That is, his works are accepted differently from regular discourse (but what is the difference between a regular discourse and the one written my an author?)
An author function is given to the discourse by the existence and circulation in a society. This means that a writer is an author when his works are circulated among some group of people.
In the end, Foucault proposes that this function of the author will disappear, which will lead to the death of the author and his voice won't matter anymore. Rather, the influence on the reader and the meaning of the discourse will be more important.
Monday, March 14, 2011
hooks, Butler, sexuality and performance.
Well, finally we're leaving behind marxism and moving onto sexuality and performance.
Paris is Burning...Is Paris Burning? I got to see some episodes of this documentary - very powerful, impressive, lots to learn...
I enjoyed reading the two analyses of this documentary by bell hooks and Judith Butler. Two women - different approaches. First detail that struck me - the name of the first author - why does she spell it with small letters? At first I though it was a typo, but apparrently not!
hooks starts with her own exprience as a black woman who used to picture cross-dressing of women into men as empowering, which represented moving from "powerlessness to privilege". For men to dress up and represent women was degrading to both men and women. She also brings up that especially black women were ridiculed in the "white machista society". The author agrees that impersonations of women were desempowering to both women and men.
From her point of view as a black female, hooks states in regard to Livingston's documentary: within the world of the black gay drag ball culture she depicts, the idea of womanness and femininity is totally personified by whiteness". White womanhood is the most sought after in that environment. That's why black gay men try to be like white women, not black ones. They hope being (acting) like white women will bring them closer to the white male, partiarch, which symbolises power and class.
In general, we feel a strong criticism from hooks towards Livingston for emposing her view on the black gay portrail. The film is clearly shaped by the perspective of the director although she tries to exclude the author. We hear her ask questions without seeing her. But the meer choice of questions giudes the characters in the direction that the interviewer wants. hooks compares Livingston's appropriation of black experience to Madonna's. hooks takes them out of the context of their lives by situating the documentary almost exclusively in the balls. "Certainly the degree to which black men in this gay subculture are portrayed as cut off from a "real" world heightens the emphasis on fantasy, and indeed gives Paris is Burning its tragic edge" (p. 154).
Butler presents another point of view on the documentary. Her article "Gender is Burning".
Butler starts by discussing the misconception/misinterpretation of drags and lesbians as based on misogeny (hatred of women) and misandry (hating men).
She talks about ambivalence which in this context can be both appropration and subversion of sex/race. Sometimes the tension between the two can be solved, sometimes appropriation takes over subversiveness.
I'd like to understand better what Butler says about denaturalization and the concept of performance.
That's all for now.
Paris is Burning...Is Paris Burning? I got to see some episodes of this documentary - very powerful, impressive, lots to learn...
I enjoyed reading the two analyses of this documentary by bell hooks and Judith Butler. Two women - different approaches. First detail that struck me - the name of the first author - why does she spell it with small letters? At first I though it was a typo, but apparrently not!
hooks starts with her own exprience as a black woman who used to picture cross-dressing of women into men as empowering, which represented moving from "powerlessness to privilege". For men to dress up and represent women was degrading to both men and women. She also brings up that especially black women were ridiculed in the "white machista society". The author agrees that impersonations of women were desempowering to both women and men.
From her point of view as a black female, hooks states in regard to Livingston's documentary: within the world of the black gay drag ball culture she depicts, the idea of womanness and femininity is totally personified by whiteness". White womanhood is the most sought after in that environment. That's why black gay men try to be like white women, not black ones. They hope being (acting) like white women will bring them closer to the white male, partiarch, which symbolises power and class.
In general, we feel a strong criticism from hooks towards Livingston for emposing her view on the black gay portrail. The film is clearly shaped by the perspective of the director although she tries to exclude the author. We hear her ask questions without seeing her. But the meer choice of questions giudes the characters in the direction that the interviewer wants. hooks compares Livingston's appropriation of black experience to Madonna's. hooks takes them out of the context of their lives by situating the documentary almost exclusively in the balls. "Certainly the degree to which black men in this gay subculture are portrayed as cut off from a "real" world heightens the emphasis on fantasy, and indeed gives Paris is Burning its tragic edge" (p. 154).
Butler presents another point of view on the documentary. Her article "Gender is Burning".
Butler starts by discussing the misconception/misinterpretation of drags and lesbians as based on misogeny (hatred of women) and misandry (hating men).
She talks about ambivalence which in this context can be both appropration and subversion of sex/race. Sometimes the tension between the two can be solved, sometimes appropriation takes over subversiveness.
I'd like to understand better what Butler says about denaturalization and the concept of performance.
That's all for now.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Grassi's rhetorical thought
Grassi starts by asking whether theoretical speech can be rhetorical. Since theoretical thinking is considered rational, and rhetoric thinking influences feelings, he conludes that feelings "disturb the clarity of rational thought" (p. 18).
Grassi shows that rhetoric is often perceived as secondary to philosophy, as a "technical doctrine of speech". Therefore, the author decides to "delimit the function of rhetoric" in order to find out "whether rhetoric has a purely technical, exterior, and practical aim of persuading, or whether it has an essentially philosophical structure and function" (p.19).
Theoretical speech is "figurative", "imaginative", "metaphorical" or "showing", i. e. "it shows something which has a sense, and this means that to the figure, the speech transfers a signification" (p. 20).
Rhetorical speech cannot have a rational character. "Rhetoric"assumes a fundamentally new significance; it's not and cannot be the art, the technique of an exterior persuasion; it is rather the speech which is the basis of the rational thought. Following this idea: "we are obliged to say that rhetorical speech comes before every rational speech, i. e. theoretical speech" (p. 20).
"The essence of man is determined both by logical and emotional elements, and as a result speech" has to appeal to both rhetoric and philosophy (p. 27).
I guess that's what we are doing: combining theory and practice/ theoretical texts which give us background knowledge and we read literary texts that demonstrate or illustrate what we learn from the theoretical texts (and thet's what many theoretical texts do by including literary examples to support their statements).
After giving the example of Plato, Grassi concludes that the true philosophy is rhetoric, and the true rhetoric is philosophy (one doesn't precede the other, rather, the two coexist) p. 32.
Metaphor is the basis of both rhetoric and philosophy. Metaphor by iteslf is metaphor since it's derived from a verb that meant "to transfer", which originally describes a concrete activity and now it's a "metaphorical" activity ("transposition of words").
These are some notes and ideas about Rhetoric based on the reading of Grassi.
Grassi shows that rhetoric is often perceived as secondary to philosophy, as a "technical doctrine of speech". Therefore, the author decides to "delimit the function of rhetoric" in order to find out "whether rhetoric has a purely technical, exterior, and practical aim of persuading, or whether it has an essentially philosophical structure and function" (p.19).
Theoretical speech is "figurative", "imaginative", "metaphorical" or "showing", i. e. "it shows something which has a sense, and this means that to the figure, the speech transfers a signification" (p. 20).
Rhetorical speech cannot have a rational character. "Rhetoric"assumes a fundamentally new significance; it's not and cannot be the art, the technique of an exterior persuasion; it is rather the speech which is the basis of the rational thought. Following this idea: "we are obliged to say that rhetorical speech comes before every rational speech, i. e. theoretical speech" (p. 20).
"The essence of man is determined both by logical and emotional elements, and as a result speech" has to appeal to both rhetoric and philosophy (p. 27).
I guess that's what we are doing: combining theory and practice/ theoretical texts which give us background knowledge and we read literary texts that demonstrate or illustrate what we learn from the theoretical texts (and thet's what many theoretical texts do by including literary examples to support their statements).
After giving the example of Plato, Grassi concludes that the true philosophy is rhetoric, and the true rhetoric is philosophy (one doesn't precede the other, rather, the two coexist) p. 32.
Metaphor is the basis of both rhetoric and philosophy. Metaphor by iteslf is metaphor since it's derived from a verb that meant "to transfer", which originally describes a concrete activity and now it's a "metaphorical" activity ("transposition of words").
These are some notes and ideas about Rhetoric based on the reading of Grassi.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Benjamin's technological reproducibility
I actually enjoyed reading this part of Benjamin's book. The goal of this piece was to study the impact of the reproduction of artwork and the art of film are having on art in its traditional form. He explains that a reproduction's shortcoming is its lack of "here and now" of the original work of art. This means the manual reproduction's lack of authenticity puts it below the original. However, when the technological reproduction appears, although it still lacks the here and now of the original, it is superior to the manual reproduction and to the original because technological reproduction can take the original further than it could ever get by itself. Besides, it is more independent of the original than the manual reproduction.
"By replacing the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced" (p. 22).
Benjamin proposes that art should be politicized (as opposed to fascist idea of aesthecizing of politics).
The film is a form of art that contributes to expansion of art among the masses. According to Benjamin, "it is the artwork most capable of improvement. And this capability is linked to its radical renunciation of eternal value" (I understand its originality?) p. 28.
One of the crucial points in this chapter, in my opinion is the following quote:
"The technological reproducibility of the artwork changes the relation of the masses to art" (p.36). Masses exposed to the arts can be educated together (or brainwashed, I guess, too). By education of the masses a change can be made in the direction desired by the political leaders. That's exactly what the communists wanted and achieved to a degree.
That's all for now. Sorry for the late blog...
"By replacing the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced" (p. 22).
Benjamin proposes that art should be politicized (as opposed to fascist idea of aesthecizing of politics).
The film is a form of art that contributes to expansion of art among the masses. According to Benjamin, "it is the artwork most capable of improvement. And this capability is linked to its radical renunciation of eternal value" (I understand its originality?) p. 28.
One of the crucial points in this chapter, in my opinion is the following quote:
"The technological reproducibility of the artwork changes the relation of the masses to art" (p.36). Masses exposed to the arts can be educated together (or brainwashed, I guess, too). By education of the masses a change can be made in the direction desired by the political leaders. That's exactly what the communists wanted and achieved to a degree.
That's all for now. Sorry for the late blog...
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Deus ex Machina
I agree with many posts that machines, discussed by the author, can influence the reader or can be interpreted by the reader in many ways (depending on the reader, context, situation, etc.). In contrast, the thesis of the writer suggests that artistic text is a machine working on the reader as a transforming device. I am interested in the different kinds of " machines": linguistic, information, magical, etc.
Monday, February 7, 2011
"The death of the author" by R. Barthes
This is my first experience reading something by Barthes, although I have heard lots about him. This essay is so dense with information, that it's hard to choose one point to concentrate on. What apllealed to me was his idea of writing being the death of the author. I like the example of Mallarme, for whom "it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is,to reach that point where only language acts, 'performs', and not 'me'. Mallarme's entire poetics consists in suppressing the author in the interests of writing (which is, as will be seen, to restore the place of the reader)." With the death of the author, Barthes says that the modern "scriptor" differs from the old "author" is not an antecedent of the written work, but rather he is born at the same time with his work.
Another important point of this essay is: "the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original." It's again related to translation: there is always a subject and a situation that has already been discussed/written/translated. That's why no matter what the subject it is repeated by a writer or a critic. We can only mix ideas and paraphrase, but it's very hard to invent new literature. Therefore, to translate is to transfer information into another language (or sometimes express in the same language) while taking into consideration the particular reader at the particular time, and also keeping in mind the effect the the original created in the audience of its time and try to create the same effect on the "new" audience.
Now, that's all for today. Looking forward to tomorrow's discussion, should be great!
Another important point of this essay is: "the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original." It's again related to translation: there is always a subject and a situation that has already been discussed/written/translated. That's why no matter what the subject it is repeated by a writer or a critic. We can only mix ideas and paraphrase, but it's very hard to invent new literature. Therefore, to translate is to transfer information into another language (or sometimes express in the same language) while taking into consideration the particular reader at the particular time, and also keeping in mind the effect the the original created in the audience of its time and try to create the same effect on the "new" audience.
Now, that's all for today. Looking forward to tomorrow's discussion, should be great!
Sussure on language
I am fascinated by linguistics. That's why I really enjoyed this weeks' readings. Saussure's analysis of the difference between language and speaking tells us that Language is necessary if speaking is to be intelligeable, but speaking is necessary for the establishment of language, and historically, it actually comes first (Ch. 4). This statement is probably obvious for everyone (or almost everyone). It should be noted, Saussure's writing is full of dualities and contradictions like the one just mentioned.
Although his ideas on writing as a means of representation of language are even more touching. Is it only writing that expresses language? What about theatre? Oral art (like myths, that were passed on from generation to generation orally)? I agree, though, that writing serves to keep language more or less "stable" (while pronunciation changes much faster). It's curious that Suassure separates Language (meaning pronunciation) from writing. Why does he sometimes use Language meaning only pronunciation? He says: "language is constantly evolving, while writing tends to remain stable" (p. 28). And later he says: "Spelling influences and modifies langauge" (p. 31). To me all those are parts of Language: speaking, pronumciation, writing, spelling...
Now, Linguistic sign...
... unites a concept and a sound-image (or signified and signifier).
One of the characteristics of the sign - mutability - interests me the most. I believe that if "time influences change of the sign (that is a shift in the relationship between the signifier and the signified)" and at the same time sign is based on tradition, we can interpret sign in many different ways depending on the time and the context when we happen to "face" it. When we read something we should be free to interpret it accoring to our background and our previous knowledge. If we know nothing about the author, it should not affect our understanding in a negative way. In any case: it's our personal interpretation and we can take away from the reading something others don't, simply because something appeals to us and not anybody else.
I really enjoyed Bill's post about translation. I completely agree that any translation contains loss compared to the original or any version written before. There can't be a perfect transaltion, just the least bad one. It's not always possible to avoid loss or addition of extra information because (like in reading) translations are ususally made for a different audience than the one that the originals were meant for.
Seems like that's all for now. I might also write about the "Death of the author" by Barthes - another fascinating piece!
Although his ideas on writing as a means of representation of language are even more touching. Is it only writing that expresses language? What about theatre? Oral art (like myths, that were passed on from generation to generation orally)? I agree, though, that writing serves to keep language more or less "stable" (while pronunciation changes much faster). It's curious that Suassure separates Language (meaning pronunciation) from writing. Why does he sometimes use Language meaning only pronunciation? He says: "language is constantly evolving, while writing tends to remain stable" (p. 28). And later he says: "Spelling influences and modifies langauge" (p. 31). To me all those are parts of Language: speaking, pronumciation, writing, spelling...
Now, Linguistic sign...
... unites a concept and a sound-image (or signified and signifier).
One of the characteristics of the sign - mutability - interests me the most. I believe that if "time influences change of the sign (that is a shift in the relationship between the signifier and the signified)" and at the same time sign is based on tradition, we can interpret sign in many different ways depending on the time and the context when we happen to "face" it. When we read something we should be free to interpret it accoring to our background and our previous knowledge. If we know nothing about the author, it should not affect our understanding in a negative way. In any case: it's our personal interpretation and we can take away from the reading something others don't, simply because something appeals to us and not anybody else.
I really enjoyed Bill's post about translation. I completely agree that any translation contains loss compared to the original or any version written before. There can't be a perfect transaltion, just the least bad one. It's not always possible to avoid loss or addition of extra information because (like in reading) translations are ususally made for a different audience than the one that the originals were meant for.
Seems like that's all for now. I might also write about the "Death of the author" by Barthes - another fascinating piece!
Monday, January 31, 2011
K. Marx "Manifesto of the Communist Party"
Marx is talking here about two main social classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat. As a result of the indistrial revolution all over the world, working class starts to lose their jobs, their work is being replaced by machines, value of their production depends on the machines. "All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex" (p. 18). A small portion of bourgeoisie joins the proletariat. "The proletarian movement is a self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority" (p. 20). The need for a change appeared because existence of bourgeoisie was no longer compatible with the society.
The immediate aim of Communists: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeoisie, conquest of political power by the proletariat. The theory of the Commmunists: abolition of the private property.
Capital is a social power, it's a collective product.
"Communism deproves no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations" (p. 24).
Literature
French Socialist and Communist literature enteres Germany when the bourgeoisie in that country had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism. German philosophy joint with French literature, the Germans did not practically adapt to the French social conditions. It assumed a purely literary aspect. "The work of the German literati consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience" (p. 30).
"Working men of all countries unite!"- the slogan of the Communists, translated into dozens of languages all over the world.
A Communist Confession of Faith and The Principles of Communism are very similar documents, since they contain the same ideas, only rephrased and elaborated in the second. They talk about the new order that they hope to establish in the new society: to abolish competition and replace it with association and communal ownership of goods. "Communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them".
The immediate aim of Communists: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeoisie, conquest of political power by the proletariat. The theory of the Commmunists: abolition of the private property.
Capital is a social power, it's a collective product.
"Communism deproves no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations" (p. 24).
Literature
French Socialist and Communist literature enteres Germany when the bourgeoisie in that country had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism. German philosophy joint with French literature, the Germans did not practically adapt to the French social conditions. It assumed a purely literary aspect. "The work of the German literati consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience" (p. 30).
"Working men of all countries unite!"- the slogan of the Communists, translated into dozens of languages all over the world.
A Communist Confession of Faith and The Principles of Communism are very similar documents, since they contain the same ideas, only rephrased and elaborated in the second. They talk about the new order that they hope to establish in the new society: to abolish competition and replace it with association and communal ownership of goods. "Communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them".
Theses on Feuerbach my K. Marx
In his theses, K. Marx critises F's ideas by proposing new ways of looking at social behaviour. Marx disagrees with F. and wants a change in the order of the human society, which should be the centre of everything. His idea of changing the world is through new materialism, which in turn is based on human society.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Formalism, Structuralism, PE... some thoughts
The idea of defamiliarization (from V. Propp, Russian formalism) is understandable to me and I enjoyed reading the examples of its application in literature. Also, the role of linguistics in Literary theory and criticism seems central to me as well. However, I agree with the criticism of formalism: they did not consider the social aspect of literature. I beleive that human contrubution to the literature is very important, just like the relationship between text and culture. The article in Wikipedia was very helpful in explaining the concepts.
Metalanguage... seems like a very useful idea, but since the theories and opinions change over time, so does the metalanguage, right? So with every new approach to Literary theory we have to "adjust" to new vocabulary to talk about literary works.
Metalanguage... seems like a very useful idea, but since the theories and opinions change over time, so does the metalanguage, right? So with every new approach to Literary theory we have to "adjust" to new vocabulary to talk about literary works.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Morphology of the folktale
A very interesting point of view by V. Propp. I love fairy tales, but I had never thought of their structure until I read this piece. It makes perfect sense that the fairy tales consist of the same sequence of identical functions of the caracters. The events are very predictable, but we still enjoy the colorfullness of the stories. It's amazing that hundreds of tales from different cultures can be analized according to Propp's structure.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Little Cask by Maupassant
Here it is... thoughts on The Little Cask by Maupassant.
It's an interesting little story with an important lesson (like many of the writer's stories). He always teaches us something. This one in particular teaches not to be greedy and to watch out for people who might seem like friends, but in reality want to trick you. That little lady thought she could outsmart the innkeeper into giving her more money for her land, but happened to be weaker that the alcohol.
I'd like to read the story's original, since this version seems awkward. I'd like to give it another chance in French. If anyone has read it in French, what were your thoughts about this English translation?
The end!
It's an interesting little story with an important lesson (like many of the writer's stories). He always teaches us something. This one in particular teaches not to be greedy and to watch out for people who might seem like friends, but in reality want to trick you. That little lady thought she could outsmart the innkeeper into giving her more money for her land, but happened to be weaker that the alcohol.
I'd like to read the story's original, since this version seems awkward. I'd like to give it another chance in French. If anyone has read it in French, what were your thoughts about this English translation?
The end!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)