Separate Circles, Same Track?

In Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism the quote, “liberal knowledge is its own end” stuck out to me because I was wondering how we can truly come to a real ‘end’ in school of thought. Is there an end to philosophy? What about music theory? The opportunities to approach something differently are endless, but how mind blowing is it that we could probably never configure just all those ways? I think when I posted earlier I was channeling my (attempted) understanding of structuralism into frustration rather than open thought. Are there mixtures of schools of thought and theory? Or are they black and white and everyone will be grouped into one exclusive school of thought?

Me before I opened my mind:

(Source: https://tenor.com/view/real-housewives-thats-my-opinion-opinion-shout-yell-gif-3984951)

Me after I opened my mind:

(Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/NZrRI)

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

Paragraph post info

A paragraph is an elusive thing: it seems like something really obvious, something we have known how to write since elementary school. But how do you define a paragraph? How can you tell a good paragraph from a lackluster one? And how do you write the kind of paragraphs that make it easier to communicate your ideas to your reader?

Simply put, a paragraph is a group of sentences that develop a single idea. That’s it. The correct length for a paragraph is however many sentences are required to introduce the idea of the paragraph, explain that idea, provide any necessary examples or evidence, explain that evidence, wrap up your idea, and (sometimes) transition into your next idea. However, you have to stick to a single idea!

If you can’t write a clear, well-developed paragraph, you can’t write a good paper, a clear memo, a convincing email, or an enticing cover letter. Those who master the paragraph are ready to take on the world!

Home Office photo by Free-Photos on Pixabay.com

On the days you are responsible for this part of the project, you will write a single paragraph of between 100-200 words. This will require you to limit yourself to a single idea that refers specifically to the theory we are working with and to develop it in a concise manner.

We will post our paragraphs here on the blog and read them aloud at the beginning of the day's in-class discussion.  This will help us ensure that we are giving all members of our learning community time and space to express their thoughts.

There are two additional requirements for posting your paragraphs here on the blog: your post must have two labels 1) the name of the theory for the week (they are listed below in my labels on this post), and 2) Paragraph. Your post must also include an image (static or gif) that illustrates the idea of your paragraph. Your photo should be captioned with a title and source. (Please note: the source for an image is NEVER "Google Images." Credit where credit is due, please!)