Meanings Are Abstract, Not Concrete

On page 37 of Beginning Theory by Barry, the fourth idea expressed about theory is that “the meanings within a literary work are never fixed and reliable, but always shifting, multi-faceted and ambiguous.” Everyone has a different set of beliefs, values, and background that alters their opinions of a text.

First, the meanings in literary work as always shifting is apparent in your own approach to a text. If you are sad at the time you are reading a novel, you may transmit your feelings into your interpretation of characters or events occurring in that novel. Also, rereading a novel can help you to discover a new outlook about a character or setting that you did not pick up on beforehand.

Secondly, the meanings of a text can be multi-faceted, which effects your interpretation. For example, aspects of happiness can be analyzed. Is it just a feeling, or is there more to it? Are there requirements for being happy, like qualities you need to be deemed as happy? Is happiness a state of mind, or a result of an experience or action (innate, or acquired through external surroundings)?

Lastly, there’s ambiguity in texts. For example, if a character in a novel is said to have a “dark appearance,” that could be could be taken as the shade of clothing, the dimness of lighting in the setting that gives the character shadows, or it can describe an evil look, and so on. Each of these interpretations of a dark appearance will evoke different ideas the reader ascribes to the character’s personality and how the reader feels about the character.


                                                  The World Wide Web of Happiness

http://www.feng-shui-and-beyond.com/images/xhow-to-be-happy-diagram.jpg.pagespeed.ic.irkfeocFgB.png

The Evolution of Poetry

”But even as we restrict ourselves to the last two centuries, the category of literature becomes slippery: would  works which today count as literature - say poems that seem snippets of ordinary conversation, without rhyme or discernable metre - have qualified as literature for Madame de Staël?” (Culler, 22).

Diversity in Reading

On page four of Peter Barry's Beginning Theory, he says in the last paragraph, "I suggest that it is much better to read intensely in theory than to read widely."
As he goes on to explain what he means by this, can this be a good view for reading in general?

Source: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/34/40/bc34401d4ba4a1bdd11ed7a1293d2b24.jpg

A reality by any other name still won't be the real thing

Image found at: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/29/eb/a229eb04f665ed1b5e73dd4c07bd8d1d.jpg
It is an image of Markus Zusak's The Book Thief.

     "All reality is constructed through language," (Barry 37) is an idea discussed in the reading that I've had some trouble with. I agree with the sentiment that we understand our reality through language, and the lens through which we see most things converts itself into words; however, I don't agree that "all reality" is made of language. By this I mean that a dog may see the same tree as I do, and I recognize it's tree-ness by converting that into a word in my head, but the dog has only an image. I don't think that makes the tree any less real because the dog does not have language for it. Additionally, I could hear a mysterious sound and not know what it is, but the fact that I do not have a word for it does not mean there was no sound. If there is an island I have never seen, one that has never been written about, it is still real; it is a tangible part of the world. By definition, reality is "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them" (Dictionary.com). I believe that words will always fall just shy of reality, we can get closer and closer  to it but never quite get there.

Image found at: https://4thwavenow.com/author/4thwavenow/
It is a visualization of an excerpt of Adrienne Rich's "Diving into the Wreck".
The full poem can be found at https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/diving-wreck.

FutureLit/TheorySounds

First of all, let's give a big thank you to Barry and Culler for confounding their readers right at the start of their books!

#tentativelythankful #tentativelyblessed

Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/KjtbV

Personally, I anticipate the coming chapters ("Structuralism", "Postmodernism" in Barry; "Rhetoric, poetics, and poetry", "Narrative" in Culler) to be much more user-friendly when it comes time to offer pointed, thoughtful responses.

Alas, our authors started big: so must we.

Barry outlines the Ten Tenets of Liberal Humanism (19-22) and eventually notes the evolution to aspects of literary theory today (36-37). The former are antiquated yet pointed: "text...must be detached from...contexts"; "Human nature is essentially unchanging" (19). The latter are modern and flexible: notions are "fluid and unstable things"; "Theorists distrust all 'totalising' notions" (36, 37).

Similarly, Culler notes the modern declarations of the death of theory. His example illustrates feminist theorists complaining of new generations taking political and cultural achievements for granted. He asks the reader if that is the death or triumph of feminism, for if a theory is taken for granted, is that not the death of the theory (17)?

With all of that in mind, I gather that the inherent point of literary theory is confounding: objectivity and subjectivity and context and detachment and more all matter and contribute to an ambiguous field of study.

Yay ambiguity!

Source: https://i.imgur.com/iZiMcGZ.jpg

So if the liberal humanism of the Enlightenment isn't so enlightened anymore, what will become of our fluid, purposefully abstract version of literary theory? Is the future of literary theory indeed the death of theory? Will it become a field in which anything goes because all aspects of reading literature matter? Will reading just become reading again?!?!?!?

To Theorize or not to Theorize

         I’ve found literary theory to be an intriguing, wonderful way to examine the texts of past and present. Literature manages to transcend beyond stagnancy – it was not made to be forgotten, but rather, an ongoing conversation. Its complexity is why the ten tenets of liberal humanism, as shown by Barry, were even created. The fifth tenet is hard for me to agree with simply because it denies the idea of nurture, and much of literature reflects the history and ideals of its time. Shakespeare used his country’s kings and queens, past and present, to symbolize his own desires to discuss class-ism, greed, and recklessness. Contemporary writing delves into the modern day’s troubles, or seeks to discern the lessons of the past. The liberal humanism’s weakness is clear in the way some of the tenets are resolute in interpretation. This allows for our comparison of current literary theory, which is an awesome way to use our “I” perspective and put on our thinking caps.

https://fthmb.tqn.com/cLwWCY4eLyqLt029pFkNxYeZxqw=/1500x1000/filters:no_upscale()/Shakespeare-58caac793df78c3c4fb664f7.jpg

Pleasure in Reading

In Peter Barry's Beginning Theory, there is one particular quote that stuck in my mind. On page 24, in the first full paragraph of the page, Barry explains that, "The notion of literature giving pleasure will now seem an unremarkable sentiment, but Sidney’s aim was the revolutionary one of distinguishing literature from other forms of writing, on the grounds that, uniquely, literature has as it primary aim the giving of pleasure to the reader.” (Barry 24) It is also explained that works of fiction and the like were thought of as works of the devil. (24). Why do you think that fictional works, poetry, and representation works were thought of as works of the devil?

Photo: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/close-up-of-book-with-heart-shaped-pages-and-white-royalty-free-image/548327833

The relationship of form and content...

In the ten tenets of Liberal Humanism, rule 7 states that form and content must be fused organically or information does not correctly integrate and becomes 'fanciful' (Barry 21).  For instance, Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles is filled with consistent lengthy descriptions that have either been criticized as being too detailed and purely decorative by some readers. Others argue that Hardy's extensive writing of landscapes and scenery assist in the immersive quality of Tess. The same can be debated of Emily Brontë's use of the isolating Moors in Wuthering Heights.What are examples of books, short stories, or poems that seem to have inorganically meshed detail/content that do not seem to fit their accompanied plot or seem to be purely ornamental? What about examples of books that engage the connection between form and content?

Source: http://www.bookdrum.com/books/wuthering-heights/9780141439556/setting.html

You're Not Special - Or Are You?

Abby Richardson

                If “individuality is something securely possessed within each of us as our unique ‘essence’” (Barry, 20), does that mean that if you were born in another time period, in another part of the world, would you still be you? Would you still be a person who sees only the good in others if your whole life was spent being turned on by people you thought were friends? Would you still be a ‘strong, independent woman’ if you were born in a time where virtually every aspect of your life did something to prevent that? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I’m a firm believer that nurture is more influential than nature in shaping an individual, so if I had to answer this question I would say no, you would not be the same person. I believe people start out as blank slates, or as close to that as they can be, and are shaped into who they are by their experiences. Saying this, I do believe that people are unique, because everyone experiences the world differently, but the you that you are had hundreds, thousands, millions of different ways it could have turned out.

Image source: https://vulcanpost.com/5767/naiise-a-website-for-people-who-want-products-that-showcase-their-individuality/ 

Oh you think that's timeless?

Luke Staley

When discussing the spider web of ideas associated with Liberal Humanism the one that aroused my curiosity the most was the idea that Human Nature is “essentially” unchanging. I initially disagreed with this statement, but after a little bit of internal wrestling with the idea I think it is pretty spot on. Just underneath the surface of beginner level analysis I think it can be very clearly seen that there is a correlation between unchanging human nature and the phenomenon of “timeless literature”. For example, why is it that a book written hundreds, maybe even thousands of years ago move so powerfully the emotions of a reader living in modern times? I would argue that it is because there are, (as Barry outlines), inherent ever-present human feelings that we all have that connect us as a species; thus, if an author manages to tap into to feelings through a beautiful work of literature, that authors writings will affect many who read their work regardless of when it is read relative to when it was written.

Source: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/odyssey-chorus-voices