love reading.

After reading Jacob's essay about charitable reading, I was faced with this issue of showing love towards a text and the author of that text. Frankly, this theory was an entirely new concept for me. Jacobs has moved past the Christian mindset and created a framework in which all texts are placed. However, the first question I had for Jacobs involved whether or not it is possible for a reader to completely empty themselves of preconceived notions and approach a text without biases.
According to Barbara Hernstein-Smith, it is impossible. Readers bring experiences and their own ideas to the interpretation process. For example, like we discussed in class, the girl who likes specific genres because the boy she admires does, or because her parents did not approve of it. Similarly, if one's economic status is not prestigious then as generally believed your ideas about what should be said or written about is particular. Jacobs ask readers to set aside all of this and open one's heart to let the text alone work internally, thus changing our lives. This, to Jacobs, is what love of the author and text is...emptying.
However, I would agree with Dr. Pete Powers essay that addresses the idea of what love actually is. The idea of loving others and the complexities involved stem from ourselves as human beings that we are to love as well and the differences of perception everyone has, emptying or not. If I were to address someone, who empties themselves as I spoke, read etc...it would be a dull conversation. They would have nothing to say ecxept what I had just stated, becasue they emptied themselves and have nothing original or personal to challenge me with. THis would make conversation dull and uninviting. Readers must be full and full to the hilt with experiences and personal experiences to share. The act of sharing these experiences lovingly or what have you is in fact the charitable reading that needs to occur for the advancement of readers and writers alike. One must be critical and as the verse in Proverbs states, "man sharpens man". This cannot be achieved without conflict, discussion or further agreement.
Another issue brought up by Jacob's essay is the idea that charity is something that I believe cannot be attributed ot reading. As discussed in class, charity and love from what I undersatnd the Christian belief is should be directed at the producer or author of a text, not the products of their labor. It seems Jacobs has confused the text with the love and charity meant for humans.

Negro Speaks of Rivers-Langston Hughes
I've known rivers:
I've known rivers ancient as the world and older than the
flow of human blood in human rivers
My soul has grown deep like the rivers.
I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
went down to New Orleans, and I've seen its muddy
bosom turn all golden in the sunset
I've known rivers:
Ancient, dusky rivers.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

Hughes' poem is a beautiful depiciton of the "negro artist" as described by himself in his essay on the racial mountain. Hughes in his essay encourages other black artists to interpret and depict the beauty of the black race. In this poem, the speaker posseses a wise, timeless voice, reflected by the age and continuation of rivers. Hughes is describing his people as beautiul in a timeless sense. With each river described, Hughes is tracing the lineage present in the history of the black race, beginning with Africa to the United States. Again, Hughes' sentiments of "I am a Negro--and beautiful" are echoed in the muddy waters described and the pyramids lookin gout over the Nile. Though he does not come out and explicitely state this, the images are romanticised and almost a bit trivial.
Hughes'soul has grown deep, but does he truly know his soul? He has known rivers and these rivers he has either never seen or simply heard of as the speaker could not have lived on all the rivers listed. The speaker knows the Mississippi as it is probably most familiar to him (or her), but still the speaker knows rivers...but his sould remains deep like the river. A river always shifts, flows and darkens when the snow melts or it rains. The speaker knows this about river, yet the soul remains deep and buried.
This idea of representing and uncovering the "negro" soul is what Hughes desires of all "negro artists" and is eveident through his attempts as depicted above.

Vulgar.

I was looking over notes that I had compiled for my critical essay and decided to write a blog on it. I struggled with this essay because I couldn’t decide on much of what I was arguing. You might remember Oke’s books from when you had a Christian literature faze, and I would really like to hear what members of the class have to say. This is a bit rough, but hopefully it will make enough sense for the time being.
Breaking away from portraying a life that follows a religious code, the Christian novel attempts to reach those looking for a union between aestheticism and theology. Characterized by use of symbolism and more indirect ways of making Jesus’ lifestyle relative to contemporary times, author’s of symbolism fail to produce as elaborate novels as Herman Melville’s Billy Budd or Ernest Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea (Detweiler 11). Authors struggle with reconciling “the doctrinal Jesus he propagandizes and the symbolic Christ he tries to fashion…” (Detweiler 11). The novels of religious writers are vulgar due to the Christian fiction writer’s attention to content over form
Debates over the religious content of these novels tend to dominate discussions of Inspirational Christian Fiction. But these debates obscure the far more important issue of this genre’s lack of linguistic eloquence. Using Janette Oke’s prairie novel, They Called Her Mrs. Doc as an example, readers encounter a less eloquent side to literature.
Descriptions of characters throughout the novel contain lackluster descriptions of hair and womanhood. The diction is too candid as characters eventually resemble stereotypical, helpless women in need of masculine support. The main character, Cassie, is described as a young, strong prairie woman, looking to God for strength and guidance. The problem with Oke’s writing is it is devoid of form and attention to delivery. She writes in a religiously gaudy manner, projecting godly character onto the readership until the reader is burdened with the prayers and miracles surrounding Cassie in predictable prose and detail (Oke 132). The elite acknowledge that “the autonomy of production is to give primacy to that of which the artist is master, i.e., form, manner, style, rather than the ‘subject’, the external referent, which involves subordination to functions…” (Bordieu 1811). Oke fails to abide by this concept, exemplified in this specific critique of Inspirational Christian Fiction.
At this point you will probably object to my critique of Janette Oke as insufficient. While it may lack further supporting examples, I still maintain that her writing is vulgar and beneath the status quo of elaborate linguistic codes. Based on my own higher education and experience with art, I have been equipped with the right to express this critique of vulgar literature.
Within Inspirational Christian Fiction’s mission is the purpose of outreach. Authors in dedications attribute success to a higher being; “…working class people expect every image to explicitly perform a function, if only that of a sign, and their judgments make reference, often explicitly, to the norms of morality…whether rejecting or praising, their appreciation always has an ethical basis” (Bordieu 1812-1813). Bordieu would argue that vulgar literature is crucial to the health of a society; however, I would assert that the lack of elaborate linguistic codes for the purpose of reaching a “popular” or vulgar audience is devoid of aestheticism and should not be included into the literary canon. Furthermore, I support my statement and believe Hume’s accusation of superstition within religious writing as a reason to avoid the genre of Inspirational Christian Fiction (Hume 499). Content is the main focus of this genre and with no form, content is all that is left to critique. The content instills superstition; therefore, this genre of literature is vulgar material, remaining outside the literary canon.

Are authors responsible to write in ways that will represent and help develop their cultural or gender identity?

I just am fascinated by the feminist critiques due to their courage and aggression displayed in each of their works. I haven't been exposed to much as far as feminist writings are concerned or feminist theories because it never seemed to be an issue. Now, having a very knowledgeable roommate on the subject, my eyes have been opened to differing aspects of this style of criticism.
When I saw this question, I thought of Cixous' sexual charged imagery and a few points brought up in her piece "The Laugh of the Medusa". She concludes this essay by stating, "When I write, it's everything that we don't know we can be that is written out of me, without exclusions, without stipulation, and everything we will be calls us to the unflagging, intoxicating, unappeasable search for love. In one another we will never be lacking" (2056).
The woman of yesterday would feel the need to represent her gender identity through writing. I would argue that no matter what is written or how it is written, it will represent the gender group regardless of what the title and subject/style of the work is. To be afraid of man because he is the "big dick" (2054), would hamper as well as trying so hard to affirm and assert writings as a woman. By writing in such a way that is very much feminist in the political/agenda definition of the word would simply aggravate the problem of inequality. If I were to write a book at this very moment, what part of me would be excluded from the piece? None. I have a faith background, I am a woman and I am not privileged a diverse background...these things are meant to represent me and in some sense my beliefs, gender and cultural background. But, I am not obligated, nor responsible to write confined to the charge of "represent who you belong to". Isn't my writing "representation" enough. I feel that this would cheapen literature if it were to be mainly focused on something I represent alone, instead of the writing itself. I am not saying that after being oppressed, one should still only maintain writing first. As Kolodny said she and others paved the way so that others may "dance through the minefield".
It's important to establish an identity, but in the name of writing...perhaps not even to be affirmed as to who you are as aperson.

abolition.

I chose for my first blog of this week to discuss further the issue of a “Christian” English department. While this may be “beating a dead horse” to borrow the colloquialism, I find it so fascinating the concept of faith and literature.
I would venture so far as to say that I would agree with Abby Nye in the placement of Christianity in the “oppressed” literature category. I do not believe that Christian writers and critiques are victimized, but we face the same problem of trying to be affirmed in our writing. Many perceive Christian writing as a joke (based on a generalization) and the fact that we even had such a discussion as the one we had in class. Many were quick to deem the idea of a Christian English Department as bogus and definitely a bad idea. We, as potentials for the job market would be faced with a mountain of red tape based on our “religious” curriculum that we would implement. We want, again, to be taken seriously.
I would take a step further and substitute certain words into Ngugi’s quote on page 2093 in our textbooks. For the sake if this essay I will use this quote to expound on a point, “Just because for reasons of political expediency we have kept English as our official language, there is no need to substitute a study of English culture for our own”. I feel that the Christian aspect of this debate would describe what “own” is trying to signify. We have kept this Christian aspect out of site for the sake of “political expediency” or “political rightness”. There is no need to substitute our faith for something else that will be more marketable and “better” because faith is taboo (in the way that I believe many of us think about it).
I believe that within the realm of faith there are a lot of different and exciting topics and questions writers and readers can glean from. Perhaps this is where most “Christian” writing is heading, towards a more creative or versatile approach.
Based on the three questions Ngugi brings up on page 2093, of value, direction and orientation…we, as students at a Christian school, already have this idea of religious narrow-mindedness hanging over our heads. The question of value should be addressed in a manner that assures students will not value based strictly on their Biblical convictions. If this were the case, they should maybe switch majors because they as Christian English majors will face the issue of what is value? Is it within the text? How doctrine plays a role? Are we talking about personal conviction? Or is it a generally recognized criterion that is referred to.
Orientation does not exclude previous experiences as a child, young adult or growing human being. There will always be orientation. Should English students ignore it? It is their heritage? While I cannot flesh this out further in my own mind, I still feel the orientation of my background when it comes to being an English student, yet have managed to let it “breath” in order to let my knowledge and understanding of writing, reading and literature expand. Jori said something in class during our “Christian English Department” talk about not being able to experience our own agency if we simply read Christian literature. It is from this sentiment that I tend to look at literature and the English department. Perhaps I am wrong, but I haven’t reached a final say on anything yet.

1975.

Discussing Cixous' essay, my roomate and I mulled over her overtly sexual language. My roomate, a film major, brought up the fact that Hollywood was going through a sexual revolution as an organization and within the entertainment industry as a whole. One such film that tried to challenge or address the issue of feminism is "The Stepford Wives". This movie reveals a masculine obsession with dominance and the protection of their "manhood" and masculinity. The main character who tries to figure out this process ends up running into opposition and finds the mechanical ways in which these "women" are controlled. These themes had not been discussed quite so frankly as when women's issues became a forefront of the cultural and entertainment spectrum.
If on eis offended by her sexual lingo and analogies, remeber the time period surrounding the essay is one of breaking out and breaking free.

Freud.

After looking at Cixous' essay, her references to Freud intrigued me as I have studied psychoanalysis in a few classes here at Messiah. Freud developed his theory of sexuality and psychology using such proposals as women having "penis envy" and men having a fear of castration. When Cixous encourages women to write and to write what they don't know in order to form their identity she calls them to rebuke this "penis envy". Unfortunately, I didn't realize the extent of the mind and self esteem barrier that women faced...to be told from the beginning of psychological discoveries and schools of though that you as a woman subconsciously wanted to become a man to the extent that she felt incomplete without make genitalia creates a void and chasm between the sexes that creeps deeper and deeper with every pen stroke and publication. Men simply fear the removal of their "manhood", thus viewing the envy as a threat. The threat turns into the enemy and the two are never seen in harmony.
Another similar theory that prevents the female from "branching out" and forging her own path in the world is because she sees that she has the same anatomy as her mother and clings to this familiarity, while the man sees that he is different and leaves the home. This crude and incomplete picture of this theory nonetheless represents another problem for women writers...they are encouraged to not go because it is not proper. Their mothers and matriarchs in the family were good Christian women, who labored in love and married into an unequal partnership. Women writers should be able to chose their mediums and techniques. It is their right as human beings, who are glorious in their own sexuality to explode their way into the world and surrounding culture.
I am sympathetic towards Cixous' overtly sexual writing because in order to "explode" onto the scene women must make it known that they are in fact able to make the effort and have the ability to remain in this sphere of literary criticism and writing. She is not intimidated by "the big dick" and she is not the "woman of yesterday".

A Modest Response.

Powers' proposal caused flashbacks of a young girl going through a Christian private school and the weight that the fundamental voices present had on her life and worldview. That young girl would be me and the teachers and administration that ascribed to a similar perspective towards literature and Christian faith.
The first question I had, surrounds the idea of "Christian Imagination". What is the Christian Imagination exactly? The first principle states that this imagination is revealed through Christian writers and texts. This imagination, from what I can glean from the text, is defined by its separation and its "rightness" with God. I believe in a universal imagination that is potentially shaped by environment and beliefs....wouldn't it be impossible for anyone to have a Christian imagination? If belief in a fallen humanity does not include this, then that seems silly. If similar to our bodies we were to make it a slave to what is "right", wouldn't that be minimal if no imagination at all? The reason I say this is when we view our bodies in this way (Biblical) our imagination is seen as an enemy and something to be shunned or persevered through. With the imagination, it is a good thing. Used for much enjoyment and creation. It can be used for horrible deeds such as murder or oppression, but these cases are extreme and few compared to the good and progresion made through the imagination. Much like starving our creativity. As Christians, becoming eclusive to a certain types of literature we are "short changing" ourselves as writers. As writers we must know people and the characters and roles they play. With Christian litarature comes the escape from reality that many books present and present well.
The concept of "in the world, but not of it" is not a new concept to me, because I have heard that growing up. However, this confuses me somewhat due to this mantra's absence from the Scriptural texts. If Messiah College implemented these principles onto the English students, they would be encouraging a separation that excludes whole people groups and whole ideologies. As Christians if we were to do such a thing would make our interaction with others strained or simply opportunities to witness. Spending time on a "service learning" trip would not create a "better way to understand the ways in which the imagination must always work in service of others" make sus unapproachable because we are there to teach, not learn. We become even more distant because we understand what is right and beneficial...everyone else should follow our lead and ascribe to these beliefs of literature.

More Woolf.

Do men and women write differently?

In response to this equestion I would pull from quotes and ideas. From a bio-psychological standpoint, I would say that the differences between male and female hormones and parts of the brain are very much there. So, we cancel the factual side. Could the writer be writing about something on a deeper level? Probably. A male writer taking on the voice of a woman (vice versa) lends no explanantion biologically. This would begin the debate over "the mind-body problem".
Instead, Virginia Woolf (as a writer) describes this dichotamy in a way that makes further sense when she states, "...it was delightful to read a man's writing again. It was so direct, so staightforward after the writing of women. It indicated such freedom of mind, such liberty of person, such confidence in himself" (p.1026)
According to the great feminist thinker, there was a difference between the two types of author. However, in class I was thinking about the question stated above and continued to read onto the last line when I realized that my group in class' discussion was not accurate at all. Having concentrated on the line stating "straightforward", we missed a large part of what Virginia Woolf was saying.
Ulitmately, women suppressed are not to be trifled with. Men's dominance in the arts and life in general forced women for the most part 9as described by feminists) to remain introspective and confined. Males are/were celebrated. Women are/were married and confined to a box. In this box there is no room for creative and original thinking to become actual, because as Woolf explains in "Androgynous" man sweeps into the scene and ravages the female intellect with its straightforward opinion on the world today and she is left with no voice and no say...or atleast nothing the male figure believes is interesting.
As for writing, this comes out on the page and like Virginia's quote, man's writing is straightforward and full of confidence. When hampered and suppressed by a predominantly male, anti-sexual section of the brain wouldn't your work lack the confidence that a man's voice would? If this is what Va. Woolf was getting at, then I agree. However, if this is not what she is writing then I must be confused with why contemporary feminists disagree with this sentiment adn why it is such a controversial claim.

Feminism separated from the Literary.

Reading an article on JSTOR about Virginia Woolf's political importance and her significant writing contribution I am struck by the sentiments of Perry Meisel, who desires to separate the political from the "literary history". Furthermore, critics fail to use feminist authors before Virginia Woolf (specifically, "A Room of One's Own")...thus interpreting all of women's literature through a 19th-20th century lense. Whether or not this is the sole case, Woolf's contribution to feminist literature is both controversial and much discussed.

First of, was Woolf a "butterfly" or a "rebel"? (see "Guerrillas in Petticoats..."). Let me explain, Virginia Woolf began as someone feminist critics and literary theorists reserved as a true example of what a female writer is capable of doing, according to outside research. Almost a hero of sorts. Essays approximately twenty years ago pegged her as a "revolutionary", "rebel" figure in the trenches and at war. This is a very political definiton. Her transformation creates the problem of redefining what "feminism" is. As feminists try to combat the definition of feminist literary theory and institutionalization as well, Woolf's writings do not ascribe to these current ideas of feminism. This proves critical because she is the "center" of all feminist thought.

The question I would like to pose is does the reshaping of feminist thought in a postmodern world negate Woolf's political importance to the cause of femist thought/action? (Has the feminist movement removed itself so far from literature?) I believe the political definition is incorrect because it is no longer relative. The reshaping of feminist thought does place Woolf in a position to only have power in her essays that sparked the movement itself. Today, feminism has begun to comply with different cultures and ideas of feminism. The new term today would be "feminisms" and there is no solid definitions according to author Linda Hutcheon. Each culture deals with its own set of issues and types of scenarios/problems. Based on this very general description, Woolf has lost her strong political voice. Understanding her to be a literary powerhouse, cited Woolf as a key witness and judge of current feminist situations is faulty and refutable. Is this saying that Woolf is outdate. Perhaps in some levels. Should she still be studied? Yes, she broke the mold further, allowing women to write and gain more respect as they use different techniques and theories about characters and style of plot. Thus, she should be separate from the political figure entirely when studied in a class-such as Lit Crit.

The Future of LIfe.

I was reading through a textbook for my Environmental Issues course and saw this wonderful quote that resembled what we as a class have been talking about in Literary Criticism.
"Looking at the totality of life, the POET asks, 'Who are Gaia's children?' The Ecologist responds, 'They are the species. We must know the role each one plays in the whole in order to manage Earth wisely.' The Systematist adds, 'Then let's get started. How many species exist? Where are they in the world? Who are their genetic kin?'
The poet in this quote is someone who asks the questions. The questions create a dialogue where real global problems may be solved. Not only does this quote imply the importance of collective intelligence, but it also implies at the importance of the poet and the question. The question as we have learned in class is what the author seeks to ask and answer in each paragraph of prose or line of poetry. In this case, the poet asks and those that are systematic take over from there. But, we know that the poet hasn't stopped asking and answering life questions. If someone were to use this as an argument against the usefullness of poetry, I would say that they must not take the order of the quote lightly. The author himself appears to put meaning and thought into his writing, therefore we cannot assume that he is casting the poet, ultimately, in a negative light. The poet is necessary for the question.

The ballerina(s) present in the film all have a generic outfit, facial expression and location. Each part of the dance is skillfully and creatively accomplished. Ballet builds on years of tradition study, similar to the study of tradition for Eliot. In the video, there is no authorship or psychological biographies viewed through facial expressions or attire. When the dancer goes behind the curtain and the audience is left with a mere shadow- this is a visual of the formalist idea behind no authorship, merely the form and art itself.
The "reader" or viewer is called to admire the dance for the dance itself.

To Die By a Rose Thorn.

"poems are not...simply emotions..they are experiences. For the sake of a single poem, you must see many cities, many people and things...and know the gestures which small flowers make when they open in the morning..."
-Rilke
In Rilke's statement and his poetry alike, I find a tangible example of formalism present. Not only this, but I found solace as a reader in "not simply emotions". The idea Eliot and the Formalists preach causes me a degree of anxiety. Critiquing a poem changes shape with each explanation of the affective and intentional fallacies. What should I look at in a poem? Art for art's sake? How does one go about that? How does this affect me as a reader? How should I be a good reader under the formalist banner?
Rilke's explanation of poetry resembles Eliot who said that a poet must be a garbage disposal...collecting bits and pieces of the world around us and storing it in our creativity for later. To Rilke this collecting occurred watching the products of nature and humankind (cities). Here is where R.M. Rilke has captured the essence of critiquing formalist poetry- it is not the emotion or that the poem is emotional. Poetry is things and how things work and how they live and thrive. Things could be expanded upon to incorporate linguistic and structural purity.
As a writer, Rilke incorporates a bit of Romantic Theory into the formalism applied to readership. Rilke, from the above quote, acknowledges that he is in fact a slave to the "single poem". Emerson and the Romantics understood the poet to be "in tune" with the world around him or her in such a way that the poet served as interpreter and deciphered nature's signs to others. I understood the idea of describing the blooming flower as a means of perceiving the world at an elevated state from those that are not poets. Yet, Rilke was by NO means a Romantic as a friend of Rodin and modern thinker. In fact, he relates closely with the Formalists in style and attention to art over reader emotion.

I would be curious to find out who the modern day equivalent to Emerson would be. I asked my housemates- all hailing from various concentrations, but knowing who Emerson was. None of them could answer. Who do you think? Is there a modern adherence to romantic theory today and how has it changed/evolved?

comments please!!! (this movie is just the poem read again by brando--but complete and with other photos).

kurtz enjoys ts eliot (reading "Hollow Men").
is dennis hopper's viewpoint of love and hatred romantic in anyway?
thoughts would be lovely.

actors and actresses.

Eliot's theory of Formalism is what is required of viewers when they see an actor or actress in different movies. Watching "Blood Diamond" I must clear my mind of DiCaprio's character in "Titanic". Jack is still a memorable character that stands on his own. He cause emotions and scenes, brought about by his dialogue. In "Blood Diamond", Leonardo's character again creates emotions that are brought about by his character in the moment. Actors and actresses are receptacles for words, feelings and situational responses.

reading, writing....

Is it more important to be a reader or a writer?

From a preliminary standpoint, without having read much of what I have learned into the question or concept I would say that both are equal and necessary for each other to survive....even if one holds a diary, they must actively read over it on paper and in their psychs.
If I were a Romantic, specifically a follower of Emerson, I would ascribe to his beliefs of authorship. Reading as he explains in "The American Scholar" it takes away from the individual intuition.
If I followed Eliot's school of Formalism I would believe, in a sense, that reading is more important based on the ideas of tradition and the poem carrying it's own "weight", meaning and emotion.
I understand writing to be a form of bringing emotions and words together, allowing readers to experience what the poem presents. During class when we discussed the poem, "We Wear the Mask" it didn't bother or change the way I looked at the poem when I found out who the author was. I did not interpret it to be society or a large group of people as the subject, nor did I perceive it to be about slavery. I simply looked at the words used in the poem and the way they described the pain of being hidden or fake. In this sense, writing and reading took an equal amount of importance in regards to this poem.
So, the point that I am trying to get at-or at least scratch the surface of is both reading and writing require a certain amount of importance and caution. If you take on over the other they will suffer. Realizing that reading a piece will further your education and grasp of language will help you become a better writer. And writing is equally important because it allows for intellectual growth and interpretation of life and/or emotions. If writing were neglected, reading would suffer as the further intellectual growth and voice would falter.
While schools of poetry write whole essays on the importance of one over the other, my academic and postmodern training agrees that both cannot happen without the other. I would agree with Eliot as to the importance of history and tradition because what is "new" must be held accountable to what is old.

http://www.greatchange.org/ov-duncan,when_compassion_becomes_dissent.html

"Another bone I must pick with Bush's aim to "rid the world of evil" is with its authorship. As a novelist, I daily concoct speeches destined to emerge from the mouths of fictitious characters. This practice compels me to point out that, every time he speaks formally (which is to say, reads), the president is less himself than a fictitious construct pretending to think thoughts placed in his mouth by others. Thus we see, for example, Bush confusing the words "region" and "regime" as he stands before the U.N. pretending to think thoughts that necessitate war. I'm not making fun of these stumbles. It must be hard to enunciate or understand a daily stream of words you have not written, creatively struggled with, or reflected upon prior to pretending, with all the world watching, to think them. The good thing about this lack of authenticity is that Bush may not be such as fool as to believe he can "rid the world of evil"; the horrific thing about it is that our military might and foreign policy are being deployed as if he can. This massive pretense does not imply that Bush is a liar. It implies, far more seriously, that the U.S. presidency itself has become a pretense, hence a lie".
David James Duncan in an article bemoaning the current lack of
imagination and writing/speaking skills of our current government.

Interesting to think about in relation to Emerson's idea of reading. If we as students are not to dwell on books because they force us to think somone else's thoughts, Emerson would have disagreed with the idea of our governmental speech writing. Bush is not reading God's truth to a country of individualist speakers...and if we believed as Emerson did about the sacred act of "talking" to God we as Americans would ignore Bush's commands. The creativity present in the speech Duncan refered to stops after the first draft. Then it becomes someone else's work and the original emphasis on the imagination of man is lost.
These excerpts raise an interesting point concerning fiction too. I would be interested to find out what Emerson believes in regard to fiction. I understand that J.F. Cooper wrote of the "noble savage" and upheld many trascendental truths but Emerson as a poet and critic is who I want to fully understand (in regards to fiction). As he says in "The American Scholar"-only history and the sciences should be read as monotonous facts. So, in the realm of creative learning, where does the art of "making up" (essentially) fit into the idea that truth is conceived of and from God to an individual and therefore is truth. If it's truth-why do we call it "fiction"? If everything is truth, why would there even need to be that category?
In another direction, if Eliot got his hands on Bush's speech, not simply poetry, would he be able to construct an "emotionless" form of communication between a leader and the masses? It seems that much of what our government says is emotion charged hype.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This brings me back to the impossibility of teaching creative writing under the pretentious new National Security Strategy without seeming dissident. As a voluntary professional fiction writer and involuntary amateur liar, I'm here to tell you that fiction-making and lying are two different things. To write War and Peace required imaginative effort. To embezzle money from a bank does, too. It should not be necessary to explain even to Jesse Helms that this does not make Tolstoy a bank robber. War and Peace is an imaginative invention but also, from beginning to end, a truth-telling and a gift-giving. We know before reading a sentence that Tolstoy "made it all up," but this making is as altruistic and disciplined as the engineering of a cathedral. It uses mastery of language, spectacular acts of empathy, and meticulous insight into a web of individuals and a world to present a man's vast, haunted love for his Russian people. And we as readers get to recreate this love in ourselves. We get to reenter the cathedral.
A lie is also an imaginative invention, but only on the part of the liar. In hearing a lie we can't share in its creativity. Only the liar knows he's lying. The only "gift" a lie therefore gives anyone is belief in something that doesn't exist. This is the cruelty of all lies. There is no corresponding cruelty in fiction. To lie is to place upon the tongue, page, or television screen words designed to suppress or distort the truth, usually for the sake of some self-serving agenda."
-David James Duncan

When the class discussed the difference between a serial killer and an artist, we mentioned the narcissistic attitude behind the "art" of a kill or victim. I found this quote from Duncan interesting as he parallels the art of fiction and lying. One could argue the idea behind, "well it is expressing what his/her beliefs/emotions/interpretations are and therefore is a form of art", but as Duncan and our class emphasized-poetry/art is not meant to be cruel or to self-serve. Emerson and Duncan agree on this topic (writing to help the greater good, to give people words and expression).

The questions raised in class over whether or not the ideals concerning poetry Emerson and Shelley believed in relate and/or can save the world, related to my situation as a student of psychology. I hope in the future to attend graduate school as a phsychology student, ultimately becoming a substance abuse counselor. This "line" of work tends to deal with people and lifestyles at their worst, with many addicts simply staying alive my sheer will power and distractions/programs. In some instances, poetry might be able to work as a type of therapy. BUT, if I were to read a poem or discuss beauty (Emerson and Shelley) to a heroin addict, who sold his/her own fillings for a fix, was kicked out of his/her house and divorced/children taken away--they would potentially look at me as if I was crazy. Now, I may be taking their words too literally and not fully understanding their meaning, but I have serious issues with this idea that poets are gods sent to reveal and display beauty and help people understand what they are thinking in relation to counseling and humanity in general.
Psychology has expanded in the past century and new understandings and treatment are brought to the field on a regular basis. I respect the work many phsychologists are doing, including my profs here at Messiah. They convinced me to look into the issue of the human psych more intimately. I started out an English major and then picked up Psychology because I grew disgusted with the attitude flaunted by students and profs that believed they were in fact "better" than the "common" man and they understood life on a deeper level than anyone else. Instead of attending family get-togethers or holidays, they holed themselves into rooms, alone, slaving through an entire poem only to come out when coffee was served with dessert--hoping for admiration concerning their dedication to words. THIS is what was talked about before class began in many of my classes. They say "Educated", I say "craving recognition"--a common enough flaw in anyone, but a flaw nonetheless. People attend couseling for much less.
People have problems/concerns that poetry will not be able to "solve" and will need higher treatment for. This is why I lost my faith in the wholistic power of the poem. There's no one "common" enough to face humanity in the face and offer solice, inspiration or beauty to those in the sciences or even teh tax lady down the street. It's all original wording, admirable, but filled with "English-major" jokes and puns related to Ovid's "Metamorphosis". I only know these two majors and cannot attest for any other concentration, but if we, the poets, are really called to be revealers and saviors of mankind then shouldn't we come back to earth, since that's where we're stuck anyways? And if we're called to make men fly or hear the nightingale, stop being unable to speak and communicate in a way that makes asking friends or aquaintances to lunch an uncomfortable situation. This may appear like an emotional tirade and it is. But it's erked me enough to make me direct my life in another direction. And I don't feel like they need to be separated.
Poetry and counseling could work so well together if we were able to destroy the emersonian stereotype- "I am not higher than you. I simply want to reveal to you...(blank)". I believe poetry does reveal beauty and maintains and expands our minds and helps reveal more of reality than we are actually aware. In a sense, a shadow of what people really feel, understand, experience, and believe. I don't believe facts and formulas can solve/explain humanity. Poetry has a purpose in that resspect. It's just the attitude that accompanies this way of thought and diction...it MIGHT not mean we're at fault, but we might try and examine why. I'm still trying to figure that out and try and merge the two together, while not loosing site of the importance and necessity of both.

Kerouc's Rocking Chair.

(Scene: Emerson has stopped by for tea at Kerouac's current residence. Kerouac, barefoot sits in a rocking chair. Recognizing Emerson, Kerouac smiles and pulls out a crate, and calls out "pine woods!").
"But never can any advantage be taken of nature by a trick The spirit of the world, the great calm presence of the Creator, comes not forth to the sorceries of opium or of wine. The sublime vision comes to the pure and simple soul in a clean and chaste body" (p.733).
Having recently read "The Dharma Bums" by Jack Kerouac I was greatly impressed with his respect and admiration of nature and the simple and serene. Kerouac, while traveling throughout the West, maintained this simplicity, taking to the mountains, living outside or in a shack (consistent with Emerson's belief that a poet should live "so low" on page 734) and writing all the while. His writing reveals a belief in the interconectedness of people and nature. When he camps with Japhy and hikes in California, Kerouac writes of "Buddha" and "Dharma", which conects all things.
While Emerson and Kerouac share a similar love for nature, their styles and religious beliefs are differing...however, Emerson accentuated content over form...so maybe he would be forgiving of that. And Emerson references a higher power on frequent occasions. So he could forgive that as well. What I find Emerson would frown upon was Kerouac's drug use that ultimately affected his writing. These two writers wrote ENTIRELY different genres (and generally wouldn't be compared against one another), but the first person I thought of was Kerouac when Emerson discussed what he called "tricks".
Kerouac would meditate in the woods for days, seeking communion with his suroundings and Buddha. He sought truth and on many different occasions tried to convince his family and acquaintances about this truth through his writings and verbally. Emerson would find his "wisdom" superficial because truth cannot be found without a pure/natural soul. Thus, Kerouac's writings as a whole could not be perceived as truth through Emerson's viewpoint.

Clip.

http://rossovermouth.com/vermouth_concord.html

Thoreau vs. Emerson Smackdown?

this is an interesting little clip about the old haunts of emerson and thoreau. quick watch. quaint setting.

(unfortunatley, didn't get to finish that last one)....I wanted to conclude the previous post by stating that Emerson exemplified what I understood of Romanticism with his different points and his explanations of what he percieved as important.

Romanticism, Emerson, and the onslaught of emo.

Emerson's opening paragraph juxtaposes the Romantic poets from "those with esteemed umpires of taste." From my previous understanding of Romantic ideals, Romantics believe in emotion, the "wildness" of nature, no real truth and a preoccupation with the idea of beauty.
It appears in the first paragraphs that Emerson dissaproves of the lack of integrity present in those that admire art, yet have corrupted souls. It's one thing to KNOW art, to feel it in your existence and to simply admire the concrete "rules" (if you will) of the art piece. This is the general idea behind Emerson's view of beauty. Drawing upon emotion (again, a main pillar of Romanticism), Emerson parallels this idea with the lifestyle of the poet. The poet must suffer to explain and invent new explanations for the human experience. The poet must liberate his own nature as well as his readership and the object he is seeking to describe, "The poet, by an ulterior intellectual perception, gives them a power which makes their old use forgotten, and puts eyes and a tongue into every dumb and inanimate object" (p.730). The poet has a balanced understanding of what beauty is and how to interpret nature. And he or she also possesses "virtue of being", which alows them to stay in touch with the piney wood, instead of preoccupation with fashion and fine wine.
The poet, in his or her calling to handle dreams, experience everything and represent man, cannot lose touch with the virtue of a simple existence. The poet should not be discontent, yet want to keep the soul simple and joyful. True joy comes from nature and its pure existence. Emerson argues that when nature is used as a poetic tool, there is no distinction between opposing entities (good and not good). Nature in this puristic state represents the universal and the supernatural. To the Romantic, not only does it bring true contentment, nature has a universal quality--beyond simply drawing the soul into nature and vice-versa--becasue it does not symbolize one set things...like the wind signifying turmoil or faith. To a Romantic the wind could something very specific for each individual who attempts to interpret the wind. Beauty cannot be transfixed or it will become stagnant, therefore; not real beauty.
Real beauty is expereinced when the observer feels it in his or her inner soul and delights in the emotions and reactions resulting from a sunset, starry sky or a rush of excitement or terror. Beauty is perfect as Emerson concludes on page 739. And perfect that only the poet-god can handle. The writer is infact god-like with a pious soul kept pure through nature and the invention and transformation of words. Through words we as readers and poet only "scratch the surface" of what could be understood..."The poet pours out verses in every solitude. Most of the things he says are conventional, no doubt; but by and by he says something which is original and beautiful" (page 737)

"The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism"