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.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, May 2, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, April 25, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)