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.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, April 4, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
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.
"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.
Friday, February 29, 2008
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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.
-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.
Monday, February 25, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)