1. Rock on Professor Phillips for scaffolding our week topics so well.
2. Rock on Gertrude Stein and the James Brothers for being champions of lingustic thought.
3. Rock on Lerer for writing a clear an interesting article on a subject that has potential to be confusing and boring.
I totally dig the Structuralist idea of signifier/signified. They expose the arbitrariness of language, something A LOT of my classes have rolled with. There is absolutely NOTHING in the word grapefruit that is particularly round, pinkish, sour and sweet (I dunno how they really taste, the last time I come into contact with one was at 5 in the morning in Africa after throwing up for two days straight.) But you get what I mean. In French, grapefruit is pomplemousse. Yeah, French doesn't do much better at explaining the concept of the object. Well what about a word like vomit. Latin past tense is vomi, French is vomi and English is vomited. Well, that doesn't work because they share roots which does not actually reflect the act of tossing one's cookies, or perhaps in Rome tossing one's grapes.
Alright, so we have that down. Words does not equal objects. But at the same time, they do. The final argument and ultimate failure of Stein is that she failed to remove meaning from language. Because language is so deeply rooted in our brain, we cannot step out of our language. The reason we know her sentences are nonsense is because we automatically make meaning, no matter what our brain tells us.
I think one thing that was alluded to but not really mentioned was how we think. I believe the human brain doesn't function in words, like a rolling teleprompter during the Grammys. Instead, it's this odd mix of feelings, fleeting images, concrete images and colors. Language is an attempt to unify and successfully communicate the mess that is our thoughts. Thus arises the need for a structure that will ensure success, which is grammar. However, as Stein and Chomsky demonstrated, we don't really need to think in words. We need the signifier that is the word to trigger the image/feeling in our brain. In this distinction is the failure of Stein; our imagination. Stein underestimates the ability of humans to make meaning from images.
There is also the aesthetic quality mentioned in the Lerer reading, which is another factor of language. I really can't concretely say this with science backing, but there is something in "In the room the women come and go/ Talking of Michaelangelo." The rhyme nicely encapsulates the couplet, but I just love the way it sounds. I think the Stephen Fry phrase is "trippingly off the tongue." We bathe in our language. We eat words, taste and digest them in our brain and excrete meaning. Why do we like rhyme? That's a French thing; Anglo-Saxon poetry is based in meters, French did rhyme schemes in poetry first. So we have a tendency, as demonstrated last week, to make meaning as first as a self-preservation activity, but we have developed it past that, I think. It's become a way of life, speaking.
So in Tender Buttons (talk about great titles) under the "Food" section we have the following sentence: Room to comb chickens and feathers and ripe purple, room to curve single
plates and large sets and second silver, room to send everything away,
room to save heat and distemper, room to search a light that is simpler,
all room has no shadow.
1. We don't comb chickens. When is the last time you saw a farmer catch and comb a chicken? No. But we can imagine it.
He thought with a despairing thought, it's time to comb the chickens. For fifteen minutes he would battle against the Henrietta, the lead hen. Upon grasping her fat body with his calloused hands, he would have to fight another five minutes to calm her down. But he always forgets about the pleasure of combing Henrietta because of the long fight that precedes. He takes out the chipped wooden comb, missing a few teeth, not unlike himself. The hen settles down between his legs, fluffing her feathers out with pride, attempting to retain dignity in spite of her captivity. The farmer strokes her sides intentionally at first. But as the pair settle into one another, the process becomes more unconscious. He hums the song his mother sang when she made summer blueberry scones. He sings the Beach Boys' Don't Worry Baby as Henrietta drifts into a waking reverie, basking in the afternoon sun and combing. In the prime of their matronly and fatherly years, they make peace for ten minutes.
So while I take artistic liberty, I can make meaning from nonsense because I can subvert the nonsense. As an English speaker, I am aware that these are not conventional sentences or word usage. But that doesn't mean they cannot work.
The rest of the phrase is a lot more abstract and I think we make meaning from the action implied. There is always the remembrance of things when experiencing things. So the "room to curve" reminds me of a sort of silversmith, a person who needs space to actually make plates and heat the fire that will help the construction.
There is always weight of words. I have a theory that there is no such thing as a synonym; all words have a specific context. We can never depart from the issues of audience, rules and predictions. Our brain also resists degradation. Stein does an excellent job of making the basis of structuralism by showcasing grammar but she just underestimated our ability to abstract. On the same point, we also becomes very frustrated by her dense poetry and prosody because we have to constantly abstract meaning.
Theories of Language and Writing show how complicated communication is. While we try and try to explain everything, there will always be dissonance because there is no absolute unity and congruity in all aspects of our language. Of course we shall never give up the fight to find ourselves, but perhaps we could be less cutthroat about it and remember the enjoyment of language.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Some Days We Take It Slow
So, after deciding to take this week for a presentation, I find myself confused and wholly disappointed in the articles I read. I have yet to finish The Cognitive Dimension because it's too boring for me. I think I may be thinking too hard to trying to find a topic and render myself in a mental block.
What does one do to get over a block? Take a bath to get away and then write out the problems.
The most comprehensible article was Damasio's. I appreciate his lauding of Shakespeare right away. This old dead white guy knew everything about everything and the faster we accept this the better.
So Damasio argues that emotions beget feelings. He firsts separates feelings from emotion, the former being private and the latter public. "emotions and related phenomenon are the foundation for feelings." (28) Alright, I almost believe this dude. Feelings are shadows "of the external manner of emotions." (29) Sooooo the public expression causes the private experience? Not following.
Then he goes into this homeostasis machine tree upside down lung thing explanation which is not confusing in structure, but I get lost as to how this relates to emotions being the cause of feelings. I have the desperate need to slow this article and break it down into manageable pieces.
Fact 1: We are supposed to solve problems automatically
How I make sense of this: Theory of Mind automaticity. Humans are trained to be social beings that interpret each other very very very quickly, which gives evidence that nature equipped us with the ability to solve things quickly. We also want to live, so solve problems quickly gives us the chance to die another day. Got it.
Fact 2: Homeostasis machine enables us to do that. This causes actions like moving, activity levels and cooperation with the environment to keep us from dying. Rock on.
Branches:
Low: metabolism, basic reflexes, immune system. Stuff that is necessary to be alive that we do not think about. See fact one.
Middle: Behaviors associated with pleasure/punishment. Example: healing a hurt knee or a cold. So this is where the emotions come in, I think. He cites the public actions of the body, like holding a recently banged knee or of my own thoughts, one scrunches up their nose when they smell something bad. Similarly, when one's body functions well, it shows it. The walk is loose and open, perhaps a smile may flit across the visage. Endorphins are released, too! These physical features of wellness or sickness manifest themselves in a public manner. But apparently, "the experience of pain or pleasure is not the cause of the pain or pleasure behaviors and is by no means necessary for those behaviors to occur." (33) What? You just said that when our body functions well we show all these things. If the experience does not cause behavior, what the heck does? I'm
going to read on to clear up confusion.
Next level: Drives and motivations; desires and appetites.
Topish: Emotions-proper
Top: Feelings!!!
Alright, so these all work together and have developed because we want to live. These also all nest together, but in a very messy way. Some project back and some forward.
Then this dude gets to what he I think he is really saying. One aspect of emotions is that they facilitate social relations, also stave off dangers and help take advantage of an opportunity.
Okay, but how does scrunching my face do any of this stuff? I can see how it warns other people that something is up, but what about these other three? How does holding a broken hand help me stave off dangers? Unless I missed something, this guy never goes in depth as to why exactly emotions came to be. Help????
Now I'm hoping that the Vermeule article will make sense of the previous article.
So we animate everything because it is better to think something is alive and pay attention to it than to ignore it and possibly die. We look for social cues above all and eye contact is the main mode of finding these cues.
Alright, I think I can talk about something here. With the idea that we animate everything, I began to search in the poems for instances in which animism occurs. Dream Song 14 is very interesting because the first line claims life to be boring. Is it really? Life is a concept noun, not a thing that is actually alive. Humans are alive and life is the span of our years, so life is like time in that it goes on no matter what. Life ends individually but at the same time it onyy ends at the end of the world. So, life is not boring. Human perceive it as boring.
I found "the sky flashes" really interesting because this would be a very useful animation. If our forefathers and mother were walking in Africa hunting, noticing the sky flashing would indicated perhaps a storm and this encourage them to seek shelter.
Now the sea yearning, that's a tough one. Does she yearn for the sailors who sailed upon her face during hurricane season? Does she yearn for the shore which is why she laps upon it?
The final motif, the "tranquil hills" who of course cannot be tranquil. They sit for thousands of years, which one understands why we ascribe peacefulness to them. This technique could communicate safety or a place of reset.
Perhaps life is actually boring because it cannot make itself interesting due to its lack of life. But to acknowledge that it is us who is boring is socially taboo and we should make life more interesting by doing stuff. But does that make life more interesting or is it we become more interesting?
Ugh, struggle bus tonight.
What does one do to get over a block? Take a bath to get away and then write out the problems.
The most comprehensible article was Damasio's. I appreciate his lauding of Shakespeare right away. This old dead white guy knew everything about everything and the faster we accept this the better.
So Damasio argues that emotions beget feelings. He firsts separates feelings from emotion, the former being private and the latter public. "emotions and related phenomenon are the foundation for feelings." (28) Alright, I almost believe this dude. Feelings are shadows "of the external manner of emotions." (29) Sooooo the public expression causes the private experience? Not following.
Then he goes into this homeostasis machine tree upside down lung thing explanation which is not confusing in structure, but I get lost as to how this relates to emotions being the cause of feelings. I have the desperate need to slow this article and break it down into manageable pieces.
Fact 1: We are supposed to solve problems automatically
How I make sense of this: Theory of Mind automaticity. Humans are trained to be social beings that interpret each other very very very quickly, which gives evidence that nature equipped us with the ability to solve things quickly. We also want to live, so solve problems quickly gives us the chance to die another day. Got it.
Fact 2: Homeostasis machine enables us to do that. This causes actions like moving, activity levels and cooperation with the environment to keep us from dying. Rock on.
Branches:
Low: metabolism, basic reflexes, immune system. Stuff that is necessary to be alive that we do not think about. See fact one.
Middle: Behaviors associated with pleasure/punishment. Example: healing a hurt knee or a cold. So this is where the emotions come in, I think. He cites the public actions of the body, like holding a recently banged knee or of my own thoughts, one scrunches up their nose when they smell something bad. Similarly, when one's body functions well, it shows it. The walk is loose and open, perhaps a smile may flit across the visage. Endorphins are released, too! These physical features of wellness or sickness manifest themselves in a public manner. But apparently, "the experience of pain or pleasure is not the cause of the pain or pleasure behaviors and is by no means necessary for those behaviors to occur." (33) What? You just said that when our body functions well we show all these things. If the experience does not cause behavior, what the heck does? I'm
going to read on to clear up confusion.
Next level: Drives and motivations; desires and appetites.
Topish: Emotions-proper
Top: Feelings!!!
Alright, so these all work together and have developed because we want to live. These also all nest together, but in a very messy way. Some project back and some forward.
Then this dude gets to what he I think he is really saying. One aspect of emotions is that they facilitate social relations, also stave off dangers and help take advantage of an opportunity.
Okay, but how does scrunching my face do any of this stuff? I can see how it warns other people that something is up, but what about these other three? How does holding a broken hand help me stave off dangers? Unless I missed something, this guy never goes in depth as to why exactly emotions came to be. Help????
Now I'm hoping that the Vermeule article will make sense of the previous article.
So we animate everything because it is better to think something is alive and pay attention to it than to ignore it and possibly die. We look for social cues above all and eye contact is the main mode of finding these cues.
Alright, I think I can talk about something here. With the idea that we animate everything, I began to search in the poems for instances in which animism occurs. Dream Song 14 is very interesting because the first line claims life to be boring. Is it really? Life is a concept noun, not a thing that is actually alive. Humans are alive and life is the span of our years, so life is like time in that it goes on no matter what. Life ends individually but at the same time it onyy ends at the end of the world. So, life is not boring. Human perceive it as boring.
I found "the sky flashes" really interesting because this would be a very useful animation. If our forefathers and mother were walking in Africa hunting, noticing the sky flashing would indicated perhaps a storm and this encourage them to seek shelter.
Now the sea yearning, that's a tough one. Does she yearn for the sailors who sailed upon her face during hurricane season? Does she yearn for the shore which is why she laps upon it?
The final motif, the "tranquil hills" who of course cannot be tranquil. They sit for thousands of years, which one understands why we ascribe peacefulness to them. This technique could communicate safety or a place of reset.
Perhaps life is actually boring because it cannot make itself interesting due to its lack of life. But to acknowledge that it is us who is boring is socially taboo and we should make life more interesting by doing stuff. But does that make life more interesting or is it we become more interesting?
Ugh, struggle bus tonight.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Nerdworms
"Readers often comprehend a story by assuming the perspective of a character...and mentally represent his or her emotions" (697)
I totally dug into this idea presented by Mar and friends because I think there was an assumption with "a" character. What happens when we have a novel like Persuasion that uses FID that gives us an insight into multiple characters minds? The FID blurs the line between narrator and character which creates this odd sense that we may be in the characters minds, but at the same times gives us a very powerful sense of the presence of some kind of thought process.
For instance, after being totally rained on by "Heartache and Head Injury," I awaited the final reunion of Anne and Captain Wentworth. And let me tell you, I was getting highly irritated by the end. JUST KISS ALREADY. They kissed in my head though not narrated explicitly, manners of the time be damned. And when they finally admitted they still loved each other, the narrative gets interesting. We hear Wentworth's description of his feelings through the Anne/Narrative hybrid FID present throughout the novel. "jealousy of Mr. Elliot had been the retarding weight, the doubt, the torment." (226) In this, the reader cannot be sure who is speaking, but we clearly understand the sentiment that makes us empathize with the object, Wentworth. In this case, it doesn't particularly matter who is speaking, but rather that direct entrance into the content of the speech which either removes bias of characters/narrators or overloads bias to a point where the reader has to make a decision themselves. I argue for the last point, that we as readers are forced in points like this, that remove the obvious speaker, to use the meaning repairing center of our brain in conjunction with our social skills as humans to make an inference. The inference being that Wentworth was jealous of Elliot and acted really weird at the concert. We have to feel jealousy, that pain of hating so much to the point where we can't do anything but feel awkward and tormented, like we read about just a few chapters ago, and what we probably have experienced in life. FID encourages us to empathize with someone and make social assumptions because the narration isn't allowing us direct access to a speaker, thus assigning an interpretation based on the book. There has to be a melding of abilities. And yet, this happens incredibly quickly and really without us knowing. I think we don't process immediately that there is a lack of speaker because we have raw information that is matched up with previous information from the novel.
Later in the paragraph we get "he" and "his" which reject direct access to Wentworth, but we still don't know if Anne is narrating or the narrator is doing their job.
In this ambiguity, I found myself empathetic with Anne, Mrs. Smith and Wentworth. I completely understood the pain of Wentworth's rejection by Anne because of FID, as well as Anne's desire to be with Wentworth. Poor Mrs. Smith! Her life just sucked something awful; the worst luck a fiction book can make, Candide aside. I think Austen did a great job using FID to create empathy for multiple characters, which ultimately supplies the reader with many social experiences that could manifest themselves in everyday life.
Another question I has was can a "naturally empathetic" person be found? The authors raise the question that such a person may be able to comprehend story telling better and be more inclined to read. As we have discussed in the previous week, this "natural" is called into question because we cannot isolate that which is nature and that which is educated. The article suggests tracking children who are more inclined to engaged in "imaginative play" and see if they later on become a bookworm, which would then make them a more socio-capable individual. However, these children may reject reading for it is a solitary action, one that may mirror society, it does not exactly replace the relationships and interactions of real life.
I also began to question how children and students are taught to read literature. For instance, the study of poetry often involves the evaluation of formal features, that is things like rhyme scheme, structure, vocabulary and other tonal features. I have found that this type of lens can push the reader away from the emotionality, that is the "message" of the piece. This would therefore inhibit the social interaction aspect that one would gather from the reading of the fiction. I may be stretching the theory by applying it to poetry, but the same is true with books. If one makes plot maps, character webs, factual worksheets and academic essays, one may be distracted from the society within the novel because one is looking for something else. The fault in this argument is that we cannot say if we pick up the empathy unconsciously or consciously. As a teacher, I would have to draw attention to the sentences that point to instances that call for socio-interpretation like the example of Wendy and her trembling drawer. I would like to see a study done on the difference in education of literature. I get emotionally attached to characters, but I also can distance myself when I'm specifically searching for formal features. I wonder if a school system systematically rejects the emotionality and empathetic nature of fiction, would that render a bookworm an "unfeeling" nerd?
I totally dug into this idea presented by Mar and friends because I think there was an assumption with "a" character. What happens when we have a novel like Persuasion that uses FID that gives us an insight into multiple characters minds? The FID blurs the line between narrator and character which creates this odd sense that we may be in the characters minds, but at the same times gives us a very powerful sense of the presence of some kind of thought process.
For instance, after being totally rained on by "Heartache and Head Injury," I awaited the final reunion of Anne and Captain Wentworth. And let me tell you, I was getting highly irritated by the end. JUST KISS ALREADY. They kissed in my head though not narrated explicitly, manners of the time be damned. And when they finally admitted they still loved each other, the narrative gets interesting. We hear Wentworth's description of his feelings through the Anne/Narrative hybrid FID present throughout the novel. "jealousy of Mr. Elliot had been the retarding weight, the doubt, the torment." (226) In this, the reader cannot be sure who is speaking, but we clearly understand the sentiment that makes us empathize with the object, Wentworth. In this case, it doesn't particularly matter who is speaking, but rather that direct entrance into the content of the speech which either removes bias of characters/narrators or overloads bias to a point where the reader has to make a decision themselves. I argue for the last point, that we as readers are forced in points like this, that remove the obvious speaker, to use the meaning repairing center of our brain in conjunction with our social skills as humans to make an inference. The inference being that Wentworth was jealous of Elliot and acted really weird at the concert. We have to feel jealousy, that pain of hating so much to the point where we can't do anything but feel awkward and tormented, like we read about just a few chapters ago, and what we probably have experienced in life. FID encourages us to empathize with someone and make social assumptions because the narration isn't allowing us direct access to a speaker, thus assigning an interpretation based on the book. There has to be a melding of abilities. And yet, this happens incredibly quickly and really without us knowing. I think we don't process immediately that there is a lack of speaker because we have raw information that is matched up with previous information from the novel.
Later in the paragraph we get "he" and "his" which reject direct access to Wentworth, but we still don't know if Anne is narrating or the narrator is doing their job.
In this ambiguity, I found myself empathetic with Anne, Mrs. Smith and Wentworth. I completely understood the pain of Wentworth's rejection by Anne because of FID, as well as Anne's desire to be with Wentworth. Poor Mrs. Smith! Her life just sucked something awful; the worst luck a fiction book can make, Candide aside. I think Austen did a great job using FID to create empathy for multiple characters, which ultimately supplies the reader with many social experiences that could manifest themselves in everyday life.
Another question I has was can a "naturally empathetic" person be found? The authors raise the question that such a person may be able to comprehend story telling better and be more inclined to read. As we have discussed in the previous week, this "natural" is called into question because we cannot isolate that which is nature and that which is educated. The article suggests tracking children who are more inclined to engaged in "imaginative play" and see if they later on become a bookworm, which would then make them a more socio-capable individual. However, these children may reject reading for it is a solitary action, one that may mirror society, it does not exactly replace the relationships and interactions of real life.
I also began to question how children and students are taught to read literature. For instance, the study of poetry often involves the evaluation of formal features, that is things like rhyme scheme, structure, vocabulary and other tonal features. I have found that this type of lens can push the reader away from the emotionality, that is the "message" of the piece. This would therefore inhibit the social interaction aspect that one would gather from the reading of the fiction. I may be stretching the theory by applying it to poetry, but the same is true with books. If one makes plot maps, character webs, factual worksheets and academic essays, one may be distracted from the society within the novel because one is looking for something else. The fault in this argument is that we cannot say if we pick up the empathy unconsciously or consciously. As a teacher, I would have to draw attention to the sentences that point to instances that call for socio-interpretation like the example of Wendy and her trembling drawer. I would like to see a study done on the difference in education of literature. I get emotionally attached to characters, but I also can distance myself when I'm specifically searching for formal features. I wonder if a school system systematically rejects the emotionality and empathetic nature of fiction, would that render a bookworm an "unfeeling" nerd?
Friday, March 9, 2012
Holy Spoiler Alert, Batman!
I'm sorry about the late post, most awful jet lag yesterday that rendered me incapable of doing anything but napping with my kitty, Bella.
I was pretty irritated at the "Of Heartache and Head Injury" piece because, as usual, I read an article before reading the primary piece, IT GAVE AWAY THE ENTIRE NOVEL. I have never read or seen "Persuasion" and now I know the whole darn thing. I have not the slightest clue why I thought the article would save the juicy incidences seeing as no other articles do, but perhaps I am more emotionally invested in Austen than Proust. Oh bla di, life goes on.
The article, among many things, discusses the tension between nature and nurture in Austen's time. My point of view from this article is that the authors, thinkers and doctors (used broadly, as people who studied the brain and body, could I get a proper word, NP?) disagreed as to whether the brain held the mind, and if human personalities came from education or nature, or some combination thereof. Richardson, perhaps unconsciously, summed up Austen's view in about the middle of the article that helped me immensely sort out the multiple theories, "The struggle between rational control and passionate feeling.....manifests not a split between the mind and the body but the impossibility of ever teasing them apart." (149) This quote lead to the discussion of a "divided subject," (149 also) one that always is subjected to the unconscious and the conscious, wild emotion and reason.
The question for me became not if "Persuasion" is either or, but in what way do these human "sides" influence the other? How does education impress on natural disposition and conversely, how does character impress itself on reason? And on a similar note, in what way does the family or surroundings play a role; is there an inherited trait in the families?
So, I thought about Anne's two sisters, Mary and Elizabeth who function as the ugly/evil stepsisters in the Cinderella fairytale mentioned in Richardson. They are really, just awful creatures. Their father, Sir Walter Elliot, is a miraculously pompous being due to his vanity of physical beauty and baronet title. This trio is vastly different from our actual hero, Anne Elliot, who is described as a much more modest girl. With the Richardson article in mind, I wondered how exactly Mary and Elizabeth turned out so rotten and Anne so "ripe" (hahaha)
Elizabeth inherited her father's good looks. "For one daughter, his eldest, he would really have given up anything...his tow other children were of very inferior value." (7) 1. Ouch! 2. Did this mentality of the father create the personality of Elizabeth, who was naturally born beautiful? Did she learn to be haughty or did her father teach her to be haughty? As far as I am into the novel at this point, Austen doesn't give the readers a clear answer. I am tempted to say that Elizabeth would be a different person had she not been spoiled by her father, but I cannot say for sure. If she had been born in a different family, would she still have beauty that distinguishes and makes room for vanity? The line between nature and nurture are blurred, the final theory being that it is a combination of the two.
The other sister, who is not beautiful, but married, a big deal in that age see Pride and Prejudice for that whole barrel of monkeys. She faces a sort of bipolar disorder in that she constantly oscillates between highs and lows. "...she had great good humor and excellent spirits; but any indisposition sunk her completely." (35) Later, Mary chastises Anne for not coming sooner, despite a cheerful letter. Mary draws attention to herself, away from Elizabeth, by being depressed and unwell, thus demanding care. She also pushes Anne out of the picture by acting so. She also "...inheriting a considerable share of the Elliot self-importance..." (35) Wait, what? Austen portrays personality as something that can be inherited! Elizabeth got it, Mary got it. But does Anne? Thus far, nope. That begs the question, is there something in nature that can suppress another nature or is it education that is doing it?
I think Austen wants us to look at the twining of humans and the earth, viewing the two as more than partially autonomous. Not one or the other, or one more than the other, but a symbiotic relationship that produces unique individuals even if they are raised by the same family.
God knows I don't want to be nor am the same as my brother.
I was pretty irritated at the "Of Heartache and Head Injury" piece because, as usual, I read an article before reading the primary piece, IT GAVE AWAY THE ENTIRE NOVEL. I have never read or seen "Persuasion" and now I know the whole darn thing. I have not the slightest clue why I thought the article would save the juicy incidences seeing as no other articles do, but perhaps I am more emotionally invested in Austen than Proust. Oh bla di, life goes on.
The article, among many things, discusses the tension between nature and nurture in Austen's time. My point of view from this article is that the authors, thinkers and doctors (used broadly, as people who studied the brain and body, could I get a proper word, NP?) disagreed as to whether the brain held the mind, and if human personalities came from education or nature, or some combination thereof. Richardson, perhaps unconsciously, summed up Austen's view in about the middle of the article that helped me immensely sort out the multiple theories, "The struggle between rational control and passionate feeling.....manifests not a split between the mind and the body but the impossibility of ever teasing them apart." (149) This quote lead to the discussion of a "divided subject," (149 also) one that always is subjected to the unconscious and the conscious, wild emotion and reason.
The question for me became not if "Persuasion" is either or, but in what way do these human "sides" influence the other? How does education impress on natural disposition and conversely, how does character impress itself on reason? And on a similar note, in what way does the family or surroundings play a role; is there an inherited trait in the families?
So, I thought about Anne's two sisters, Mary and Elizabeth who function as the ugly/evil stepsisters in the Cinderella fairytale mentioned in Richardson. They are really, just awful creatures. Their father, Sir Walter Elliot, is a miraculously pompous being due to his vanity of physical beauty and baronet title. This trio is vastly different from our actual hero, Anne Elliot, who is described as a much more modest girl. With the Richardson article in mind, I wondered how exactly Mary and Elizabeth turned out so rotten and Anne so "ripe" (hahaha)
Elizabeth inherited her father's good looks. "For one daughter, his eldest, he would really have given up anything...his tow other children were of very inferior value." (7) 1. Ouch! 2. Did this mentality of the father create the personality of Elizabeth, who was naturally born beautiful? Did she learn to be haughty or did her father teach her to be haughty? As far as I am into the novel at this point, Austen doesn't give the readers a clear answer. I am tempted to say that Elizabeth would be a different person had she not been spoiled by her father, but I cannot say for sure. If she had been born in a different family, would she still have beauty that distinguishes and makes room for vanity? The line between nature and nurture are blurred, the final theory being that it is a combination of the two.
The other sister, who is not beautiful, but married, a big deal in that age see Pride and Prejudice for that whole barrel of monkeys. She faces a sort of bipolar disorder in that she constantly oscillates between highs and lows. "...she had great good humor and excellent spirits; but any indisposition sunk her completely." (35) Later, Mary chastises Anne for not coming sooner, despite a cheerful letter. Mary draws attention to herself, away from Elizabeth, by being depressed and unwell, thus demanding care. She also pushes Anne out of the picture by acting so. She also "...inheriting a considerable share of the Elliot self-importance..." (35) Wait, what? Austen portrays personality as something that can be inherited! Elizabeth got it, Mary got it. But does Anne? Thus far, nope. That begs the question, is there something in nature that can suppress another nature or is it education that is doing it?
I think Austen wants us to look at the twining of humans and the earth, viewing the two as more than partially autonomous. Not one or the other, or one more than the other, but a symbiotic relationship that produces unique individuals even if they are raised by the same family.
God knows I don't want to be nor am the same as my brother.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Collective Writing Rules, but Topic Sentences Drool
When one opens a fiction novel, one expects a story about a family, love, a caterpillar or epic battles to destroy the evil Empire. Rightly so one envisions a saga of some sort, for the tradition of such a narrative structure dates back to before books were made, that is the oral tradition of poems like Beowulf or later Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In this genre of general story-telling, one expects to understand the plot. One expects to understand each sentence uttered. Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne nuclear-bombs every expectation of literature. The reader does not get a cohesive narrative, but receives instead a jumble of languages, bizarre characters, and a righteous headache. Or, if one has the right attitude, a smile. Sterne uses literary tools unconventionally that distract and confuse the narrative, destroying a clear and cohesive reading experience. [Can you do more with this transition? The space between (and logic that links) these two sentences seems like key part of your argument. Can you do more argumentative work of your own with Vu? What’s the relationship between 1) Sterne’s tools, 2) attention as single resource and 3) divided among diff. tasks to diff amounts. Super interesting work here!] Attention is “a single resource that can be divided among different tasks in different amounts” (Vu, 19) and Sterne forces our attention to be divided in more ways than the reader can handle in the novel, [slow down and unpack. Again, seems key to your argument. Which ways? So it’s the number of ways it’s divided that overloads our attention? Or the way he divides it? Both?] rendering Tristram Shandy wholly unreadable and incomprehensible.
One of the first and most prominent modes of attention distraction of Tristram Shandy is frequent character interjections.
Another tactic employed by Sterne is the visual manipulation of the written formant.
Another example of visual manipulation used by Sterne is when he manipulates letters and words, as opposed to imagery like marbled and black pages.
It is dangerous to say Sterne planted all of these devices to manipulate the audience. (Man, this is like, the worst topic sentence ever.)
Finally, the way in which Sterne actually writes his story creates confusion in the reader. (seriously, these things are getting worse.)
Sterne through Shandy’s narration admits to the prevalence distractions early in the novel. “Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine-they are the life, the soul of reading; take them out of this book for instance, eternal winter would reign in every page of it.” (52) In this particular case, the digressions do add life to the pages of the novel, but readers cannot distinguish or understand that life. If the jargon and extra languages fled the pages, perhaps a cohesive story would be left, but that is not a message or point of the novel. The novel sets out to confuse and play, turn literature upside-down. It is necessary to laugh at Shandy’s story and narrative style because that is what the novel is; it’s a joke. A very intelligent joke that happens to be incredibly critical of literature and leaves the reader questioning reality, but a joke nonetheless.
This exercise really pointed out how horrendous my topic sentences are. Hello future editing technique! Don't worry guys, this paper is totally getting restructured.
One of the first and most prominent modes of attention distraction of Tristram Shandy is frequent character interjections.
Another tactic employed by Sterne is the visual manipulation of the written formant.
Another example of visual manipulation used by Sterne is when he manipulates letters and words, as opposed to imagery like marbled and black pages.
It is dangerous to say Sterne planted all of these devices to manipulate the audience. (Man, this is like, the worst topic sentence ever.)
Finally, the way in which Sterne actually writes his story creates confusion in the reader. (seriously, these things are getting worse.)
Sterne through Shandy’s narration admits to the prevalence distractions early in the novel. “Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine-they are the life, the soul of reading; take them out of this book for instance, eternal winter would reign in every page of it.” (52) In this particular case, the digressions do add life to the pages of the novel, but readers cannot distinguish or understand that life. If the jargon and extra languages fled the pages, perhaps a cohesive story would be left, but that is not a message or point of the novel. The novel sets out to confuse and play, turn literature upside-down. It is necessary to laugh at Shandy’s story and narrative style because that is what the novel is; it’s a joke. A very intelligent joke that happens to be incredibly critical of literature and leaves the reader questioning reality, but a joke nonetheless.
This exercise really pointed out how horrendous my topic sentences are. Hello future editing technique! Don't worry guys, this paper is totally getting restructured.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
The Vivacity of Objects
The idea that most interested me was presented in the very end of the Scarry article. "An image elicited by the verbal arts, in contrast, has some of the vivacity, solidity, persistence and giveness of the perceived world, attributes that can in part be accounted for the instructional quality of writings, the explicit directions for how to construct the image that replace our own sense of volition..." (52) The verbal created image is contrasted with the day dreamed image, which has less "vivacity." The written word has the ability to make life where there is none; there is only ink, paper and you. This life feels real and has qualities of life that perhaps we miss when dreaming. We can make someone die that never really inhabited this earth; they inhabited our minds.
I began to think about how exactly these worlds are created in literature. I admire JK Rowling and Suzanne Collins because of the worlds they write in their books. The culture feels so real, there are faults and triumphs, jobs, trees, death and births. How does an author fabricate life? How do they convince their readers that what they say is actually true? I wrote in the margins of the Scarry article, "verbal arts gives life." I then deconstructed that initial notion. To have a sentence, one generally has a subject and a predicate which consists of a verb.
The path which had hitherto been considerably smooth, now became rugged and steep. (Brown, 97)
Let's do a kind of sentence diagramming exercise here. The path is the subject of this sentence, it is modified by an adjectival phrase. (" which had hitherto been considerably smooth, now") What is indicative is the verb "became." The path was not rugged before, but now it was changing. The path, an inanimate object, suddenly has the ability in Edgar Huntly to change! The path was probably always rugged and steep at the point which the narrator says it became. The way our language functions depends on human ability to abstractly interpret the sentence, as much as the sentence seems logical and natural. What is correct is "To my perception, the path I was walking on became rugged and steep." The path exists separate from the narrator, but only until the narrator gives us the knowledge of its existence do we grant it the ability to enter our discourse. That path was exactly as it was before the narrator arrived, but the need to describe it necessitates that a verb be ascribed to it. The path can now become animated through human description of it. The path has life! It changes like I change my clothes! In a day dream, Huntly would not have thought "The path which had hitherto been considerably smooth, now became rugged and steep" but rather just walked up the steep path. But because the path was described using a code system that requires a the subject to do something, the object has a sort of life. Is this making sense at all?
The nature of our language forces action on all that is a subject, even if that subject does not have the ability to act. Thus, written and spoken word creates life that would otherwise be glossed over in perception or daydreaming.
On page 45, the author outlines Rousseau's mental exercise for a Madame Delessert in which Rousseau writes incredibly detailed descriptions of a certain flower. Delessert is challenged to create that image of the flower based on the description. I believe Rousseau wanted to prove he can replicate the image of the flower with is words so that one does not actually need to see the flower to know exactly what it looks like. To unpack that statement and put a theory lens on this exercise, Rousseau believes that language can offer direct and perfect access to mental imagery.
We did an exercise in my writing class that mirrors Rousseau's. Our group received an ordinary object.We kept our object, a large binder clip, hidden from the prying eyes of our neighbors and set out to describe the object using words. We then went around to other groups who performed the same task, and tried to guess their object based on descriptions, and they ours. Every object was guessed. Our class was able to directly access the objects in question based on constructed images. So, the answer to the question "does language offer direct access to mental imagery?" would seem yes. And yet, I do not believe it fully.
"...but the impression made upon me by this incident was unexampled in my existence. My reading had furnished me with no instance, in any degree, parallel to this, and I found that to be a distant and second-hand spectator of events was widely different from witnessing them myself and partaking in their consequences. My judgment was, for a time, sunk into imbicility and confusion. My mind was full of images unavoidably suggested by this tale..." (87)
Even direct, live narrative was unable to directly access the emotions and story of Clithero. Reading couldn't do that either. True, images were created, but they are jumbled. In another layer, does the reader directly access Clithero's story because Huntly can't? In reading a novel, does the reader directly access the characters or author's intention? My theory is no, because language is imperfect in that sense; it cannot directly access emotions. However, we can make new worlds that are full of life.
I began to think about how exactly these worlds are created in literature. I admire JK Rowling and Suzanne Collins because of the worlds they write in their books. The culture feels so real, there are faults and triumphs, jobs, trees, death and births. How does an author fabricate life? How do they convince their readers that what they say is actually true? I wrote in the margins of the Scarry article, "verbal arts gives life." I then deconstructed that initial notion. To have a sentence, one generally has a subject and a predicate which consists of a verb.
The path which had hitherto been considerably smooth, now became rugged and steep. (Brown, 97)
Let's do a kind of sentence diagramming exercise here. The path is the subject of this sentence, it is modified by an adjectival phrase. (" which had hitherto been considerably smooth, now") What is indicative is the verb "became." The path was not rugged before, but now it was changing. The path, an inanimate object, suddenly has the ability in Edgar Huntly to change! The path was probably always rugged and steep at the point which the narrator says it became. The way our language functions depends on human ability to abstractly interpret the sentence, as much as the sentence seems logical and natural. What is correct is "To my perception, the path I was walking on became rugged and steep." The path exists separate from the narrator, but only until the narrator gives us the knowledge of its existence do we grant it the ability to enter our discourse. That path was exactly as it was before the narrator arrived, but the need to describe it necessitates that a verb be ascribed to it. The path can now become animated through human description of it. The path has life! It changes like I change my clothes! In a day dream, Huntly would not have thought "The path which had hitherto been considerably smooth, now became rugged and steep" but rather just walked up the steep path. But because the path was described using a code system that requires a the subject to do something, the object has a sort of life. Is this making sense at all?
The nature of our language forces action on all that is a subject, even if that subject does not have the ability to act. Thus, written and spoken word creates life that would otherwise be glossed over in perception or daydreaming.
On page 45, the author outlines Rousseau's mental exercise for a Madame Delessert in which Rousseau writes incredibly detailed descriptions of a certain flower. Delessert is challenged to create that image of the flower based on the description. I believe Rousseau wanted to prove he can replicate the image of the flower with is words so that one does not actually need to see the flower to know exactly what it looks like. To unpack that statement and put a theory lens on this exercise, Rousseau believes that language can offer direct and perfect access to mental imagery.
We did an exercise in my writing class that mirrors Rousseau's. Our group received an ordinary object.We kept our object, a large binder clip, hidden from the prying eyes of our neighbors and set out to describe the object using words. We then went around to other groups who performed the same task, and tried to guess their object based on descriptions, and they ours. Every object was guessed. Our class was able to directly access the objects in question based on constructed images. So, the answer to the question "does language offer direct access to mental imagery?" would seem yes. And yet, I do not believe it fully.
"...but the impression made upon me by this incident was unexampled in my existence. My reading had furnished me with no instance, in any degree, parallel to this, and I found that to be a distant and second-hand spectator of events was widely different from witnessing them myself and partaking in their consequences. My judgment was, for a time, sunk into imbicility and confusion. My mind was full of images unavoidably suggested by this tale..." (87)
Even direct, live narrative was unable to directly access the emotions and story of Clithero. Reading couldn't do that either. True, images were created, but they are jumbled. In another layer, does the reader directly access Clithero's story because Huntly can't? In reading a novel, does the reader directly access the characters or author's intention? My theory is no, because language is imperfect in that sense; it cannot directly access emotions. However, we can make new worlds that are full of life.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
My Sin, My Soul
My Sin, My Soul
A rule when creating new worlds whilst writing is that the new world must have rules in itself. For example, in the magical world of Harry Potter, there are five essential rules to magic that can never be violated, such as one cannot conjure food. There is also a governmental system and as JK Rowling insists, magic does not solve all problems. If these rules did not exist, the Magical World would be less believable thus hindering the reader's ability to engage in the story. So, Johnson is not entirely wrong when he denounces fantastical works that exist unbounded in terms of creation. However, to insist that all stories must reflect our own known world is utterly ridiculous. What authority does he have to claim that he know what humans should and should not read? Before language was written down, before books, when wax tablets engraved with hieroglyphics transmitted knowledge from one person to another. I am absolutely positive that corruption, rape, violence and all other immoral acts (except online pirating or course) were abound in the civilizations. The usage of written communication in its toddler years was used for recording business transactions; things like how many bottles of oil on a ship or how many slaves sold in the market. There was no documentation of vice, and yet it was still present. To outlaw the documentation of evil does not guarantee the eradication of it.
Johnson insists on the censory of literature, a hot debate among educators today. Literature provides a safe place for experimentation with decisions. To unpack that, let me use an example. I read a book called Tweak that was the biography of a meth addict. It was very graphic with scenes of sex, drug-induced trips, drug deals, withdrawals and physical fights. The book was very raw and unrestrained, making me very afraid of being in the same room as meth. Now the question is, at what age can a "youth" read that? Will the portrayal of a very real problem in our world that happens to be a destructive and vice-filled account destroy the innocence of the child? What if I wanted to teach that in a Health class outlining the dangers of drug addiction? I think there is a very real possibility that the children, being able to experience drug addiction in a safe environment (that is the world created in the narrative), will choose to not engage in drug use. However, I cannot say with absolute certainty that every child will swear off drugs for life because of the book and there may be some youths who will try drugs because of what they read. I cannot make promises, but with the right lesson plan and proper discussion, this Johnson condemned book could be beneficial "morally."
In all, I think Johnson is trying to make the world a safer and more "moral" place, but his censorship denies the possibility that we can learn from mistakes in literature. I also am a firm believer that we need some rain to appreciate the sun, but that is another, less related topic.I cannot imagine a world without Lolita. Banned books don't stay banned.
Changing thoughts but not authors, I was quite interested and agreed much more with the Adventurer piece. When Johnson described the process of oral debate, I was reminded of Selfridge's Daemon theory of mental lexicon access. As a defender of a statements, one has to, "he is entangled in unexpected difficulties, he is harassed by sudden objections...his thoughts are scattered and confounded, and he gratifies the pride of airy petulance with an easy victory." (Johnson, 2) This confusion is similar to the daemons in our lexicon fighting for the loudest voice. This verbal contest is so quick, just milliseconds, if that, that we don't know we are confused or don't know for a little while. But, when the word is repeated often, the victory of comprehension written words seems effortless, just like winning an argument.
The necessity to read, write and engage socially with other people to be that "full man" also mirrors how we process words in parallel models/structures.Our brains use the phonological route for less familiar words, thus learning and making the unfamiliar familiar. But for words used often take the direct lexical route, one that allows nearly instantaneous access to the meaning. We would have serious difficulty learning new words without sounding them out, and we would read slow if we could not directly access the meaning. Without one, we are lopsided readers, similar to Johnson's argument. If we only read, we get lost and blinded by the brilliance of our own thoughts, which speaking to people who hold different views combats, allowing intellectual development. Also, only speaking can cause confusion and writing allows us to organize our thoughts, explore our assumptions to be better speakers or readers.
To rely only on one tool hinders our problem solving ability making road blocks in our life that could be easily overcome, if we work to develop an arsenal of weapons against confusion.
I very much in love with the statement by Lamb, "I dream away my life in others' speculations." I think it is a beautiful notion of inhabiting another world, another perspective that will increase our intellectual and cultural awareness. It also reminds me of Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, both being enchanting and fantastical books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)