In her chapter, The Corporate University, Jane Juffer describes her idea of space regarding women who are professors at universities. She laments that because professors are expected to be essentially a "mind without a body" that it limits the private ambitions of women in the field, as having a personal life with children is essentially out of the question for the esteemed intellectual.
While Juffer stuck primarily to the affects that it has on professors, I would submit that professors similarly hold the same idea of a "mind without a body" towards students. While at CSB|SJU many professors have good relationships with students, where they actually know things about each others lives, there is still a good degree of seperation. Professors assign homework with the expectation that students will do it. While this is obviously the role of the student, it tends to blank out that students are not able to be the intellectual at all hours of the day. It runs with the assumption that "student" is a full time job at that 8 hours of intellectual work per day should be the norm.
It is here where many professors fall into the same ideologies that Juffer is pointing out. Students are separated from their social and private ambitions by the drive from professors to make us be "minds." Students, generally trying to challenge this ideology, simply end up doing only part of the work, skimming readings, or blowing off assignments that they think they can get away with. It isn't so much that students are lazy, as much as the mind v. body question is taken from a different prospective. Students want to try to balance personal and intellectual lives just as much as professors who would like to be mothers, but are not supported by their institution. I'm not claiming that professors should reduce workloads, as their primary goal is to teach, but rather that professors should become aware of their ideologies so that their expectations for students reflect a more realistic model of how students work.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Barthes, The French, and the Muslims
Think back to our discussions earlier this discussion on how we look at literature. On the one hand, we saw some arguments that we should evaluate text without any considerations about the author's contexts. Then we moved to Barthes who asked the question "What about the reader?" This question forced us to consider how being in a certain environment affects how we read and understand literature.
In Bharati Mukherjee's novel The Holder of the World, we get a rare chance to really consider this question by looking critically at different time periods, geographies, and world views. While the allusions to Hawthorne's work are painfully obvious, and we are expected to consider how the meaning is changed, I find myself wondering how we might consider this story in the context of a different readership, a different worldview.
In the novel, we get a good glimpse at what the transposition of Puritan to India looks like. While Mukherjee goes into depth explaining how the two cultures are completely different, yet at the same time the same, I can't help but make comparisons to various bits of French literature that I have read, and noting the differences.
One of the most important differences to note is how the Eastern world is viewed. In Mukherjee's novel, early in part three, Hannah remarks that "Muslims' aversions and their attractions struck familiar chords with devout Christians. They had a haven, a hell, a book, a leader, a single god; they knew sin and tried to repent..English attitudes saw Islam as a shallow kind of sophistication...Muslims had restrictions, which were noble and manly." Alongside this, she also remarks how afraid she is of Hinduism for how opposite it is from her own religion. However what this illustrates is that the thought process at this time allowed for thoughts of Eastern peoples in a way that is familiar and understanding, even though it is very different.
This makes a sharp contrast to most French literature of the era, which always illustrated the East as extremely outlandish, with strange, incomprehensible customs and ideas. They were a marauding, savage people, and, most importantly, unenlightened of intelligent, western ways.
For example, in Moliere's famous work Le Bougeois Gentilhomme, the final act is an exhibition in the obscene. In order to fool a greedy, foolish father into allowing his daughter to marry the man she loves, rather than a rich nobleman, her friends and family put on an elaborate farce. They bring a representative of the "Grand Turk" who has an silly title, something that might translate to "The Grand Boobah" or something like that, who intends to honor the father with titles and agree to marry his daughter to the son of the Grand Turk, who is really the daughter's lover. The representative however, is described as wearing strange clothing, he performs strange rituals, and speaks in a strange language, which demonstrate the prevalent thought process of the time that the East was a strange and unknowable place. The idea was to ridicule the unknown for amusement.
COVIELLE: Finally, to complete my assignment, he comes to ask for your daughter in marriage; and in order to have a father-in-law who should be worthy of him, he wants to make you a Mamamouchi, which is a certain high rank in his country.
MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: Mamamouchi?'
COVIELLE: Yes, Mamamouchi; that is to say, in our language, a Paladin. Paladin is one of those ancient . . . Well, Paladin! There is none nobler than that in the world, and you will be equal to the greatest lords of the earth.
Similarly, in Corneille's great work Le Cid, the "Muslim's" (oftentimes, in French literature, the term Saracen is used as a blanket term to describe Eastern peoples, including Indians, Turks, and others) attacked one of the major port cities. They are depicted as incredibly violent, bloodthirsty heathens who are bent solely on conquest.
"If anything, Hannah had a Christian's skepticism about other faiths, bolstered by a Muslimized intolerance for idolatry. Hannah was a pure product of her time and place, her marriage and her training, exposed to a range of experience" p220. So what do we get in the end? A re-affirmation that we walk away with totally different conceptions of reality based on who we are, where we are, and what we read. The English/American/Puritan viewpoint regarding the East is incredibly different from that of the French. Thus, especially when reading Holder of the World, we have to constantly e considering how we ourselves are reading this novel, just as we must look and critically examine how the characters in the novel are examining their own situations.
In Bharati Mukherjee's novel The Holder of the World, we get a rare chance to really consider this question by looking critically at different time periods, geographies, and world views. While the allusions to Hawthorne's work are painfully obvious, and we are expected to consider how the meaning is changed, I find myself wondering how we might consider this story in the context of a different readership, a different worldview.
In the novel, we get a good glimpse at what the transposition of Puritan to India looks like. While Mukherjee goes into depth explaining how the two cultures are completely different, yet at the same time the same, I can't help but make comparisons to various bits of French literature that I have read, and noting the differences.
One of the most important differences to note is how the Eastern world is viewed. In Mukherjee's novel, early in part three, Hannah remarks that "Muslims' aversions and their attractions struck familiar chords with devout Christians. They had a haven, a hell, a book, a leader, a single god; they knew sin and tried to repent..English attitudes saw Islam as a shallow kind of sophistication...Muslims had restrictions, which were noble and manly." Alongside this, she also remarks how afraid she is of Hinduism for how opposite it is from her own religion. However what this illustrates is that the thought process at this time allowed for thoughts of Eastern peoples in a way that is familiar and understanding, even though it is very different.
This makes a sharp contrast to most French literature of the era, which always illustrated the East as extremely outlandish, with strange, incomprehensible customs and ideas. They were a marauding, savage people, and, most importantly, unenlightened of intelligent, western ways.
For example, in Moliere's famous work Le Bougeois Gentilhomme, the final act is an exhibition in the obscene. In order to fool a greedy, foolish father into allowing his daughter to marry the man she loves, rather than a rich nobleman, her friends and family put on an elaborate farce. They bring a representative of the "Grand Turk" who has an silly title, something that might translate to "The Grand Boobah" or something like that, who intends to honor the father with titles and agree to marry his daughter to the son of the Grand Turk, who is really the daughter's lover. The representative however, is described as wearing strange clothing, he performs strange rituals, and speaks in a strange language, which demonstrate the prevalent thought process of the time that the East was a strange and unknowable place. The idea was to ridicule the unknown for amusement.
COVIELLE: Finally, to complete my assignment, he comes to ask for your daughter in marriage; and in order to have a father-in-law who should be worthy of him, he wants to make you a Mamamouchi, which is a certain high rank in his country.
MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: Mamamouchi?'
COVIELLE: Yes, Mamamouchi; that is to say, in our language, a Paladin. Paladin is one of those ancient . . . Well, Paladin! There is none nobler than that in the world, and you will be equal to the greatest lords of the earth.
Similarly, in Corneille's great work Le Cid, the "Muslim's" (oftentimes, in French literature, the term Saracen is used as a blanket term to describe Eastern peoples, including Indians, Turks, and others) attacked one of the major port cities. They are depicted as incredibly violent, bloodthirsty heathens who are bent solely on conquest.
"If anything, Hannah had a Christian's skepticism about other faiths, bolstered by a Muslimized intolerance for idolatry. Hannah was a pure product of her time and place, her marriage and her training, exposed to a range of experience" p220. So what do we get in the end? A re-affirmation that we walk away with totally different conceptions of reality based on who we are, where we are, and what we read. The English/American/Puritan viewpoint regarding the East is incredibly different from that of the French. Thus, especially when reading Holder of the World, we have to constantly e considering how we ourselves are reading this novel, just as we must look and critically examine how the characters in the novel are examining their own situations.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Gamer Space
We have talked a lot about the idea of space. We recognize that the idea of a university offers a "space" which we use for a wide variety of reasons, from career preparation to a safe haven for intellectualism. Similarly, the space of "home" gives us a place for safety, relaxation, a sense of belonging, etc.
But what about spaces that are less...tangible?
Online spaces have been on a sharp rise over the course of the past two decades. There are a wide variety of communities on the internet that people flock to. But why? What is it that these communities provide that makes them so popular?
To answer this, I will take my discussion to the gaming community. While many may regard the reasoning of the gamer "space" as being one for procrastination, laziness, and abandonment of more intellectual pursuits, this space provides benefits for the community which subscribes to it.
World of Warcraft, the most successful online gaming community, is the world's largest MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game). Although its membership has been on decline due to the game's age, it still boasts a whopping 10.2 million monthly subscribers, all willing to pay $15 per month to play.
I believe that the reason why these spaces are so important can be broken down into 3 main categories:
1. Alternatives
World of Warcraft (and other community-based games like it) offer an alternative way of socializing to that of the norm. There is a very active stigma that gamers are very anti-social because they often prefer to spend time in their rooms online that out in the real world having fun with their friends. But I beg the question, do we have to leave the room to be physically present with others to have a social space? Are social interactions any less "real" because they are done online rather than face-to-face? World of Warcraft gives the option to people to socialize with people in an environment that is comfortable for them. Some students may prefer to spend the night hanging out with their friends in game, talking about life and having fun, rather than going out to parties with their "real life" friends. Rather than amusing themselves with party drinking games or whatever the case may be, the game provides them with a means to socialize without many of the social pressures.
2. Freedom of speech and Social Safety
One part of the gaming community's bad reputation is that it provides mind-numbing entertainment. While this may certainly be founded in some truth, it is certainly not representative of the whole. Games like Call of Duty don't inspire much faith in a great sense of intellectualism. However, in more community based games, such as World of Warcraft, a great deal of intellectual discussion actually does take place. A recent example of this could be the Kony 2012 campaign that went viral just a short time ago. Certainly a complex and controversial issue, I heard remarkably few discussions in most social spheres, and when I did, it did not go much deeper than "Have you seen that Kony video? Crazy shit, right?" However, when I logged in to WoW the night that Kony 2012 went viral, I spent about three hours talking with many of my fellow guild-mates about the issue. We talked about a lot of the research that we had done on the topic and our opinions, all while playing a game that we thought was fun. It also brought together a discussion from a wide range of viewpoints. In our 10 man "battleground" group, for example, we have a 16 year old from Vermont, a 40-year old couple from Washington, a member of the Puerto Rican National Guard, a bodybuilder from Green Bay, a 23 year old stay at home mother of two, and a guy who admits to smoking pot while playing. In what other sphere could such a conversation take place between such a diverse group of people? This gaming environment then becomes an important driver of social capital.
I certainly don't intend to make a claim that video games should be a respected means of intellectual conversation, but I do remark that it is often a product of what I would term "social safety." In any online community, whether it is a video game or an internet forum, there is a certain degree of anonymity. Because you are a relatively unknown person online, it frees you of many of your social constraints. You are much more free to give an honest, uncensored opinion on something, because there are fewer social repercussions. If, for example, I am discussing an issue like abortion while eating dinner for my friends and I say something that is contrary to the beliefs of my friends, or if I otherwise offend them with my opinions, there is a problem. I would likely create some tension among my friend group that would make me feel inhibited in having that conversation in the future. Online, however, if I have a problematic interaction, it is easy to simply slip back, as my social interactions on the internet have less bearing on my real life.
3. Team building
The days of individualized gaming are long past. There are remarkbly few successful videos game which do not require a strong degree of online interaction. The market itself becomes one of the biggest arguments against the few ignorant people who claim that gaming is an anti-social environment. People play video games to be entertained to be sure, but they also seek a sense of community. Must MMORPGs focus on team tasks that force you to work together to success at a certain goal. One of the most popular examples in World of Warcraft is raiding. You get together with a group of either 10 or 25 players to go through a "raid." Each raid comprises of usually 5-12 different encounters. In order to make it through all of these encounters, the group must work together to develop strategies specific to the challenges for each fight. At times, this can be a very intense logic puzzle, as the group tries to determine what goes wrong each time, as they work to defeat the encounter. It requires an intense degree of communication and teamwork to be able to do anything. In a way, it is very similar to a sports team. The team has to practice together, develop strategies for different ways to tackle the game, they mus communicate effectively, and have a good sense of camaraderie. And yet, although the ideology behind both things are the same, games like WoW are often culturally frowned upon. But what is so different between a raid group and a football team, other than the popularity of the game and the space in which it is played? Certainly, as the above meme suggests, there are worse ways to spend your time than playing e-sports with your e-friends.
In the end, the question of whether online gaming is valid comes down to a consideration of the idea of "space." While I have just analyzed the space of online communities, perhaps a better way to think about it would be considering the space of any group activity. Side by side, many of the reasons for the existence of that space would likely look very similar. I encourage you, therefore, to try to break away from the cultural stigma against online video games, and try to understand the value to such communities in our society.
But what about spaces that are less...tangible?
Online spaces have been on a sharp rise over the course of the past two decades. There are a wide variety of communities on the internet that people flock to. But why? What is it that these communities provide that makes them so popular?
To answer this, I will take my discussion to the gaming community. While many may regard the reasoning of the gamer "space" as being one for procrastination, laziness, and abandonment of more intellectual pursuits, this space provides benefits for the community which subscribes to it.
I believe that the reason why these spaces are so important can be broken down into 3 main categories:
1. Alternatives
World of Warcraft (and other community-based games like it) offer an alternative way of socializing to that of the norm. There is a very active stigma that gamers are very anti-social because they often prefer to spend time in their rooms online that out in the real world having fun with their friends. But I beg the question, do we have to leave the room to be physically present with others to have a social space? Are social interactions any less "real" because they are done online rather than face-to-face? World of Warcraft gives the option to people to socialize with people in an environment that is comfortable for them. Some students may prefer to spend the night hanging out with their friends in game, talking about life and having fun, rather than going out to parties with their "real life" friends. Rather than amusing themselves with party drinking games or whatever the case may be, the game provides them with a means to socialize without many of the social pressures.
2. Freedom of speech and Social Safety
One part of the gaming community's bad reputation is that it provides mind-numbing entertainment. While this may certainly be founded in some truth, it is certainly not representative of the whole. Games like Call of Duty don't inspire much faith in a great sense of intellectualism. However, in more community based games, such as World of Warcraft, a great deal of intellectual discussion actually does take place. A recent example of this could be the Kony 2012 campaign that went viral just a short time ago. Certainly a complex and controversial issue, I heard remarkably few discussions in most social spheres, and when I did, it did not go much deeper than "Have you seen that Kony video? Crazy shit, right?" However, when I logged in to WoW the night that Kony 2012 went viral, I spent about three hours talking with many of my fellow guild-mates about the issue. We talked about a lot of the research that we had done on the topic and our opinions, all while playing a game that we thought was fun. It also brought together a discussion from a wide range of viewpoints. In our 10 man "battleground" group, for example, we have a 16 year old from Vermont, a 40-year old couple from Washington, a member of the Puerto Rican National Guard, a bodybuilder from Green Bay, a 23 year old stay at home mother of two, and a guy who admits to smoking pot while playing. In what other sphere could such a conversation take place between such a diverse group of people? This gaming environment then becomes an important driver of social capital.
I certainly don't intend to make a claim that video games should be a respected means of intellectual conversation, but I do remark that it is often a product of what I would term "social safety." In any online community, whether it is a video game or an internet forum, there is a certain degree of anonymity. Because you are a relatively unknown person online, it frees you of many of your social constraints. You are much more free to give an honest, uncensored opinion on something, because there are fewer social repercussions. If, for example, I am discussing an issue like abortion while eating dinner for my friends and I say something that is contrary to the beliefs of my friends, or if I otherwise offend them with my opinions, there is a problem. I would likely create some tension among my friend group that would make me feel inhibited in having that conversation in the future. Online, however, if I have a problematic interaction, it is easy to simply slip back, as my social interactions on the internet have less bearing on my real life.
3. Team building
 |
| Lightbane encounter in World of Warcraft's Trial of the Crusader |
The days of individualized gaming are long past. There are remarkbly few successful videos game which do not require a strong degree of online interaction. The market itself becomes one of the biggest arguments against the few ignorant people who claim that gaming is an anti-social environment. People play video games to be entertained to be sure, but they also seek a sense of community. Must MMORPGs focus on team tasks that force you to work together to success at a certain goal. One of the most popular examples in World of Warcraft is raiding. You get together with a group of either 10 or 25 players to go through a "raid." Each raid comprises of usually 5-12 different encounters. In order to make it through all of these encounters, the group must work together to develop strategies specific to the challenges for each fight. At times, this can be a very intense logic puzzle, as the group tries to determine what goes wrong each time, as they work to defeat the encounter. It requires an intense degree of communication and teamwork to be able to do anything. In a way, it is very similar to a sports team. The team has to practice together, develop strategies for different ways to tackle the game, they mus communicate effectively, and have a good sense of camaraderie. And yet, although the ideology behind both things are the same, games like WoW are often culturally frowned upon. But what is so different between a raid group and a football team, other than the popularity of the game and the space in which it is played? Certainly, as the above meme suggests, there are worse ways to spend your time than playing e-sports with your e-friends. In the end, the question of whether online gaming is valid comes down to a consideration of the idea of "space." While I have just analyzed the space of online communities, perhaps a better way to think about it would be considering the space of any group activity. Side by side, many of the reasons for the existence of that space would likely look very similar. I encourage you, therefore, to try to break away from the cultural stigma against online video games, and try to understand the value to such communities in our society.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
How to Write About the French
Whenever possible, use the word Paris in the title. If you say Paris, even if you are not talking about Parisians, you are still talking about the French as far as most audiences are concerned, so don't worry. Possible subtitles may include Eiffel Tower, Napoleon, Socialism, or Fashion.
If you feel inclined to include pictures of French people in your article, make sure that all of the men are wearing very tight clothing, have mustaches, and, above all, that they have a long cigarette in hand. The women should also be smoking, be abnormally thin, and have a slight hint of armpit hair, barely seen beneath her knee-length dress. And berets. Regardless of gender, berets are a must.
It is advantageous to show only images of the French sitting at a table at an outdoor cafe. You could go the extra mile and show one of the typical gray-skinned french sitting beside and Algerian immigrant if you wanted to be extremely political, and show that you are aware of the country's hot political topics. Even better, you could show an Islamic woman without a burka.
Make sure you talk about the food. It is, after all, the heart and soul of the country. Depict lavish breads, delectable chocolates, and slimy snails (if you can actually find them anywhere) but make sure that you avoid showing anything that could just as easily be found in America. Especially avoid Mac-Do, as Americans would be confused by seeing the restaurant in Paris.
Throughout the book, make sure that you iterate how rude, arrogant, and judgmental the French are. Tell stories of how scandalized you were when a woman refused to give you directions to a popular tourist site or how unappreciative a man was that you country "saved his ass" in World War II. Make sure you mention how you had the feeling that you were always being judged as "the ignorant American."
One of the most important rules however is that you must compare everything to the United States. Make sure you spin it in a light that makes it seem so wrong. Their evil universal healthcare system, their lazy 35 hour work week, their blatant alcoholism for drinking wine with most meals, racist treatment of immigrants, etc. You are, however, allowed to point out that the bread is significantly better. In fact, if you don't mention this, or if you say the contrary, you will likely undermine the credibility of your entire article.
Keep in mind that your readership has no clue about what is going on in French politics. Take this opportunity to explain the strangeness of having so many viable political parties, socialism in everything government related (you don't need to explain this, socialism stands for itself), and, most importantly, make a point of the fact that President Sarkozy is married to a supermodel. You may also wish to make note of how strangely small the French are.
Don't bother talking about anything regarding films or literature. All of the good movies in France are just French-dubbed versions of all the good American films anyway. You can mention a couple bits of music, but only if it is rap and partially in English. You have a pretty good chance with having people enjoy some of MC Solaar's raps.
Finally, make sure you end by talking about how wonderful it was sitting at a cafe in the evening, sipping on some fancy wine and watching the sun set over Paris, bathing the ancient buildings in a soft light, the Seinne glowing slightly, as as the Eiffel Tower lights up for the night.
It is advantageous to show only images of the French sitting at a table at an outdoor cafe. You could go the extra mile and show one of the typical gray-skinned french sitting beside and Algerian immigrant if you wanted to be extremely political, and show that you are aware of the country's hot political topics. Even better, you could show an Islamic woman without a burka.
Make sure you talk about the food. It is, after all, the heart and soul of the country. Depict lavish breads, delectable chocolates, and slimy snails (if you can actually find them anywhere) but make sure that you avoid showing anything that could just as easily be found in America. Especially avoid Mac-Do, as Americans would be confused by seeing the restaurant in Paris.
Throughout the book, make sure that you iterate how rude, arrogant, and judgmental the French are. Tell stories of how scandalized you were when a woman refused to give you directions to a popular tourist site or how unappreciative a man was that you country "saved his ass" in World War II. Make sure you mention how you had the feeling that you were always being judged as "the ignorant American."
One of the most important rules however is that you must compare everything to the United States. Make sure you spin it in a light that makes it seem so wrong. Their evil universal healthcare system, their lazy 35 hour work week, their blatant alcoholism for drinking wine with most meals, racist treatment of immigrants, etc. You are, however, allowed to point out that the bread is significantly better. In fact, if you don't mention this, or if you say the contrary, you will likely undermine the credibility of your entire article.
Keep in mind that your readership has no clue about what is going on in French politics. Take this opportunity to explain the strangeness of having so many viable political parties, socialism in everything government related (you don't need to explain this, socialism stands for itself), and, most importantly, make a point of the fact that President Sarkozy is married to a supermodel. You may also wish to make note of how strangely small the French are.
Don't bother talking about anything regarding films or literature. All of the good movies in France are just French-dubbed versions of all the good American films anyway. You can mention a couple bits of music, but only if it is rap and partially in English. You have a pretty good chance with having people enjoy some of MC Solaar's raps.
Finally, make sure you end by talking about how wonderful it was sitting at a cafe in the evening, sipping on some fancy wine and watching the sun set over Paris, bathing the ancient buildings in a soft light, the Seinne glowing slightly, as as the Eiffel Tower lights up for the night.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
War, Liberty, and the Whole Damn Thing
I will be the first to admit that I am a fan of all of the nerdy fantasy novels that give nerds their reputation. I don't spend my time playing Dungeons and Dragons, but a sit down with a novel involving swords and magic is just my cup of tea. Lately I've been reading this story called Faith of the Fallen by Terry Goodkind. The book hits a lot of interesting themes about reasoned thought, self-interest, capitalism, and social justice, all wrapped up in a fantasy world that makes things interesting. The main conflict is between two different factions: the oppressive Imperial Order and the freedom-fighting D'Haran Empire. The former proposes that Man is inherently bad and that self-sacrifice to a "greater good" is the only way to salvation and that anyone who expresses thought on self-enterprise is branded a selfish sinner and publicly executed. The latter, in opposition to these ideals, tries to bring down the Imperial Order in the name of social justice.
The reason that I find this conflict so interesting is that, if you consider the perspective of a person living on either side, they are fighting to preserve their way of life against a dogma that they think to be evil or unjust. This isn't fictional, this is how it is in every war. Our recent "War on Terror" is a perfect example of this. So logically, because of a difference in ideology, opinions on war are largely subjective.
Derrida gives us an interesting look into this sort of situation. He proposes the idea of the "center." That there is something about X that is at once the core, yet something completely separate. He points out that describing something, really describing it is not really possible. The closest that we can get is with metaphor and metonymy. So how does this relate to my nerdy novel? Here we have two opposing factions, who are both asserting their moral superiority to justify their war. But what the hell is morality? Apart from it being something filled with cultural bias, what is it, really? Try to thing of what morality means, what it is at it's "center." You can think of examples, you can give a beat-around-the-bush generalizations, but you can't really come up with anything concrete, and certainly not anything that is universal. I would be surprised if you could come with with a universal definition for morality that would be agreed upon by everyone in the world.
Let's try another idea. Liberty. What does it mean? As an American, my first instinct is that which has been indoctrinated into me: that I am a free person. I can go where I want, do what I want, and say what I want, all within some societal limits. But is that what Liberty is? For me, perhaps, but that my definition certainly isn't universal, and could not really be said to be the core definition of what the word really entails.
Apart from the lame joke I tried for in the title, we can make this a broader reference by trying to analyze the "Whole Damn Thing" i.e. everything else. While war and liberty might be great examples for this indescribable "center," Derrida points out that we really can't describe anything with any degree of fundamental reality. But I will admit that I don't really like the idea. The whole "there is this center that is the foundation for something but its not really there, its somewhere else" thing bothers me. So I go back to my fantasy novel. I have this whole world that is made up and follows its own rules and reality. I question why I enjoy reading this geeky stuff. Then it hits me. In this novel, in any story, and even in real life, it doesn't matter if you can describe something at it's core. While Derrida and Lacan point out the problem, for me, it stays on a philosophical level. When I read about the atrocities of the Imperial Order in this book, I don't care about what morality is at a fundamental level. I care simply that it is in conflict with my sense of morality. No ideology will ever be universal, and so why not embrace our subjectivity to do or think what we believe to be the "reality" of something, even if its inexplicable?
The reason that I find this conflict so interesting is that, if you consider the perspective of a person living on either side, they are fighting to preserve their way of life against a dogma that they think to be evil or unjust. This isn't fictional, this is how it is in every war. Our recent "War on Terror" is a perfect example of this. So logically, because of a difference in ideology, opinions on war are largely subjective.
Derrida gives us an interesting look into this sort of situation. He proposes the idea of the "center." That there is something about X that is at once the core, yet something completely separate. He points out that describing something, really describing it is not really possible. The closest that we can get is with metaphor and metonymy. So how does this relate to my nerdy novel? Here we have two opposing factions, who are both asserting their moral superiority to justify their war. But what the hell is morality? Apart from it being something filled with cultural bias, what is it, really? Try to thing of what morality means, what it is at it's "center." You can think of examples, you can give a beat-around-the-bush generalizations, but you can't really come up with anything concrete, and certainly not anything that is universal. I would be surprised if you could come with with a universal definition for morality that would be agreed upon by everyone in the world.
Let's try another idea. Liberty. What does it mean? As an American, my first instinct is that which has been indoctrinated into me: that I am a free person. I can go where I want, do what I want, and say what I want, all within some societal limits. But is that what Liberty is? For me, perhaps, but that my definition certainly isn't universal, and could not really be said to be the core definition of what the word really entails.
Apart from the lame joke I tried for in the title, we can make this a broader reference by trying to analyze the "Whole Damn Thing" i.e. everything else. While war and liberty might be great examples for this indescribable "center," Derrida points out that we really can't describe anything with any degree of fundamental reality. But I will admit that I don't really like the idea. The whole "there is this center that is the foundation for something but its not really there, its somewhere else" thing bothers me. So I go back to my fantasy novel. I have this whole world that is made up and follows its own rules and reality. I question why I enjoy reading this geeky stuff. Then it hits me. In this novel, in any story, and even in real life, it doesn't matter if you can describe something at it's core. While Derrida and Lacan point out the problem, for me, it stays on a philosophical level. When I read about the atrocities of the Imperial Order in this book, I don't care about what morality is at a fundamental level. I care simply that it is in conflict with my sense of morality. No ideology will ever be universal, and so why not embrace our subjectivity to do or think what we believe to be the "reality" of something, even if its inexplicable?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Le choix du cid and our metonymic unconcious.
In the 17th century, famous French dramaturge Pierre Corneille wrote his famous adaption the Spanish fable, which he titled Le Cid. The play covers a broad range of issues which reflected French society in the 17th century. Through the piece, we see the emergence of the ideas of Absolutism, inspired by Cardinal Richelieu, conflicts of court dueling, conflicts of familial honor, and one of the most tragic tales of love that has ever been written.
To give you a general sense of the story, the play opens with the leading lady, Chimene, in her room with her lady-in-waiting. She is the daughter of the Count, who is the champion of the king. She talks about how excited she is to marry a man named Don Rodrigue. The set-up seems like everything will be happy between the two families. Perhaps it would have, but in an audience with the Count, Don Rodrigue's father, who was a military hero in his younger days, is insulted. Unable to defend his honor, the father asks Don Rodrigue to avenge him, and return honor the the family name. Torn between his love for Chimene and his need to regain his honor, Rodrigue challenges Chimene's father to a duel (which at the time were strictly forbidden, due to the loss of life of so many members of high-ranking society) which results in the death of the Count. Despite her fierce love for Rodrigue, Chimene is forced to demand justice from the King, in order to restore the tarnished honor of her family. Throughout the story, we get glimpses, from both characters, that they both love each other and that, in choosing these terrible actions, they are really trying only to be worth of the love of the other. Thus, the primary conflict in the story is how one balances love and honor. Evidently, the choice is not easy. If you would like to read more on the story (which is relatively short and extremely interesting) a somewhat good translation can be found here. Although its hard to tell by reading it in English, the actual French version is very lyrical, with non-stop rhyme throughout the entire piece.
So how might we interpret this classic tale of love and loss in terms of literary criticism? In his essay, Agency of the letter in the unconcious, Jacques Lacan argues that our human desires are metonymy, that is, something that is meant to represent a part of the whole. What he describes with this idea is that we are never truly satisfied by whatever it is we want, and in fact, we always tend to want more. One interpretation of his essay might assert that what we really want is to want something. In Le Cid, this idea manifests itself in what became known as le choix du cid, or "the choice of the cid," an expression which describes a situation where one loses everything no matter which action is taken. In the play, this is Rodrigue's decision between killing Chimene's father and losing her love, or losing his honor and being unworth of her love. What le choix du cid means in terms of Lacan is that not only do we lose no matter what we choose, but our choice will still render us unsatisfied and wanting. For example, after the death of her father, Chimene seeks the death of Rodrigue from the king. Although she claims to staunchly desire this, it is evident that she does not really know what she wants, and is really only pursuing what she thinks she wants, driven by societal context. And certainly, no matter what action is taken on her part, she will still be left wanting when all is said and done. I wont spoil the ending for you, but I will suggest to you that the final resolution itself is the epitome of this idea of "desire=metonymy." What makes Corneille's work so interesting and so well-studied, and what makes Lacan's work so conflicting, is that there really is no solution. The characters in Le Cid do not have any good option laid before them. We, as desiring human beings have no real solution to our endless desires. But is that really a bad thing? One could say that our obsession with material things makes us petty and shallow. I would assert that it is rather what makes our lives interesting. We always have something to strive for, even if we really don't know why we strive for it. Le Cid would be a wholly uninteresting bit of literature if there was no struggle for what the characters really want. Desire is the spice of life, after all.
To give you a general sense of the story, the play opens with the leading lady, Chimene, in her room with her lady-in-waiting. She is the daughter of the Count, who is the champion of the king. She talks about how excited she is to marry a man named Don Rodrigue. The set-up seems like everything will be happy between the two families. Perhaps it would have, but in an audience with the Count, Don Rodrigue's father, who was a military hero in his younger days, is insulted. Unable to defend his honor, the father asks Don Rodrigue to avenge him, and return honor the the family name. Torn between his love for Chimene and his need to regain his honor, Rodrigue challenges Chimene's father to a duel (which at the time were strictly forbidden, due to the loss of life of so many members of high-ranking society) which results in the death of the Count. Despite her fierce love for Rodrigue, Chimene is forced to demand justice from the King, in order to restore the tarnished honor of her family. Throughout the story, we get glimpses, from both characters, that they both love each other and that, in choosing these terrible actions, they are really trying only to be worth of the love of the other. Thus, the primary conflict in the story is how one balances love and honor. Evidently, the choice is not easy. If you would like to read more on the story (which is relatively short and extremely interesting) a somewhat good translation can be found here. Although its hard to tell by reading it in English, the actual French version is very lyrical, with non-stop rhyme throughout the entire piece.
So how might we interpret this classic tale of love and loss in terms of literary criticism? In his essay, Agency of the letter in the unconcious, Jacques Lacan argues that our human desires are metonymy, that is, something that is meant to represent a part of the whole. What he describes with this idea is that we are never truly satisfied by whatever it is we want, and in fact, we always tend to want more. One interpretation of his essay might assert that what we really want is to want something. In Le Cid, this idea manifests itself in what became known as le choix du cid, or "the choice of the cid," an expression which describes a situation where one loses everything no matter which action is taken. In the play, this is Rodrigue's decision between killing Chimene's father and losing her love, or losing his honor and being unworth of her love. What le choix du cid means in terms of Lacan is that not only do we lose no matter what we choose, but our choice will still render us unsatisfied and wanting. For example, after the death of her father, Chimene seeks the death of Rodrigue from the king. Although she claims to staunchly desire this, it is evident that she does not really know what she wants, and is really only pursuing what she thinks she wants, driven by societal context. And certainly, no matter what action is taken on her part, she will still be left wanting when all is said and done. I wont spoil the ending for you, but I will suggest to you that the final resolution itself is the epitome of this idea of "desire=metonymy." What makes Corneille's work so interesting and so well-studied, and what makes Lacan's work so conflicting, is that there really is no solution. The characters in Le Cid do not have any good option laid before them. We, as desiring human beings have no real solution to our endless desires. But is that really a bad thing? One could say that our obsession with material things makes us petty and shallow. I would assert that it is rather what makes our lives interesting. We always have something to strive for, even if we really don't know why we strive for it. Le Cid would be a wholly uninteresting bit of literature if there was no struggle for what the characters really want. Desire is the spice of life, after all.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Who needs the flowery bullshit?
A few years ago, back when "liking" everything that you possibly could on facebook was cool, I, apparently, was not. In fact, it could be said that I had a rather depressing outlook on life because I refused to "like" anything. It had nothing to do with any notion of non-conformity or anything like that- it just simply drove me nuts to see "Johnny Appleseed likes ZOMG IM SUCH A NINJA and 47 other things." I made one exception however, in the case of the CollegeHumor page. The site puts out a ton of funny content every day, and I was in desperate need of some form of procrastination, so it helped a lot.
Now, in our discussions about the meaning of signs and metaphors, and how it affects how we view the world around us, I find myself asking "Why the hell do we need metaphors to begin with?" I mean, don't get me wrong, I am an English major and I understand all too well the value of using these iconic and symbolic phrases to bull-shit my way through a paper, but what purpose do they really serve? If you really think about it, there are very few things that are commonly used in metaphor that could not be more simply put in common language.
For example: More simply put, becomes
My love for you is a rose ------------------------------------> I love you a lot.
Boom! Simple, right? Sure, it might be a little more boring and a little less sentimental, but hey, it gets the point across, doesn't it? And isn't the whole point of us having language with which to speak simply to express our ideas to other people? While the English student in me recoils at the thought, it is definitely thought-provoking. When did we cross the line into this realm of metaphysical meanings for things, when at one point in human history we grunted at each other to convey important information?
Anyway, back to the CollegeHumor thing. This question that I'm trying to get at here echoes something that popped up on my facebook so long ago. While other people might have missed it between posts by groups such as "Im glad that I'm not on fire right now" and "Damn, it feels good to be a ganstuh," CollegeHumor put out a rather interesting video about the importance of metaphor in our music. Its worth a laugh if you haven't seen it.
While it could be said that oftentimes, the songs that are portrayed in the above video certainly do illustrate the same idea as the "flowery, poetic bullshit," oftentimes, without the metaphor, we would find that we would hate our own music. There is something within that exchange between reality and metaphor that gives more depth to whatever it is one is trying to say. That is not to say that a metaphor says more than a nice description would. I could certainly, as an writer, describe in detail something comparable to how my love "is a rose." While it would have all of the same information and perhaps many of the connotations, it still falls short.
So to repeat the question, why do we use metaphor? Why do we use signs at all, rather than just "telling it like it is." As Saussure notes, the only real thing that gives a word meaning is its difference in comparison to other words. Some words don't even really have a real tangible meaning. So to put this idea on a slightly larger scale, perhaps what gives metaphor its value is also its difference in comparison with other means of describing things. In his famous song Long Black Train, Josh Turner could very easily have simply said "You don't have to give in to your addictions." While the idea would certainly be true, it would not have been made very popular in the music industry. What gives the idea value is that, in comparing the metaphor to how we would, for example, explain the meaning to a friend, that there is a difference between the two. More importantly, that the difference could even be different between people. I could certainly take the meaning of the song in a completely different direction than someone trying to overcome a drug addiction.
In the end, Metaphor is important, because nobody wants to hear John Mayer sing about how his songs are going to get him laid.
Now, in our discussions about the meaning of signs and metaphors, and how it affects how we view the world around us, I find myself asking "Why the hell do we need metaphors to begin with?" I mean, don't get me wrong, I am an English major and I understand all too well the value of using these iconic and symbolic phrases to bull-shit my way through a paper, but what purpose do they really serve? If you really think about it, there are very few things that are commonly used in metaphor that could not be more simply put in common language.
For example: More simply put, becomes
My love for you is a rose ------------------------------------> I love you a lot.
Boom! Simple, right? Sure, it might be a little more boring and a little less sentimental, but hey, it gets the point across, doesn't it? And isn't the whole point of us having language with which to speak simply to express our ideas to other people? While the English student in me recoils at the thought, it is definitely thought-provoking. When did we cross the line into this realm of metaphysical meanings for things, when at one point in human history we grunted at each other to convey important information?
Anyway, back to the CollegeHumor thing. This question that I'm trying to get at here echoes something that popped up on my facebook so long ago. While other people might have missed it between posts by groups such as "Im glad that I'm not on fire right now" and "Damn, it feels good to be a ganstuh," CollegeHumor put out a rather interesting video about the importance of metaphor in our music. Its worth a laugh if you haven't seen it.
So to repeat the question, why do we use metaphor? Why do we use signs at all, rather than just "telling it like it is." As Saussure notes, the only real thing that gives a word meaning is its difference in comparison to other words. Some words don't even really have a real tangible meaning. So to put this idea on a slightly larger scale, perhaps what gives metaphor its value is also its difference in comparison with other means of describing things. In his famous song Long Black Train, Josh Turner could very easily have simply said "You don't have to give in to your addictions." While the idea would certainly be true, it would not have been made very popular in the music industry. What gives the idea value is that, in comparing the metaphor to how we would, for example, explain the meaning to a friend, that there is a difference between the two. More importantly, that the difference could even be different between people. I could certainly take the meaning of the song in a completely different direction than someone trying to overcome a drug addiction.
In the end, Metaphor is important, because nobody wants to hear John Mayer sing about how his songs are going to get him laid.
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Apple Fetish
Last semester, in one of my larger courses on campus, my professor told students that she encouraged students to bring their computers to take notes during class. While I preferred to stick to the ancient method of writing on a stone tablet, I was shocked by how many of my peers showed up boasting their MacBook Pros. What was really surprising to me, however, was what ensued when these people began talking about their machines. They brought up the superior computing abilities, resistance to viruses, window-jumping abilities, etc. One of the guys I spoke with, after finding out that I used a P.C. laughed, stating that I paid a bunch of money for an inferior machine. However, when I brought up the fact that my computer had twice as much RAM, a stronger processor, a better graphics card, and longer battery lifer than his MacBook, and for hundreds of dollars less, he still asserted that his Mac was better than my P.C.
You might be thinking "So what? Some kid didn't like your computer." That is not the point, however.This guy refused to believe something other than what he had been programmed by Apple to believe about computers. The advertising and culture support he received all supported the idea that this MacBook was a superior machine, which justified his purchase. He has so completely sunk in to this image of Apple the company, Apple the logo, that he rejected the idea of the product itself being something different.
In his work, The Fetishism of the Commodity and Its Secret, Karl Marx questions determines the "worth" or "value" of something. He contends that this"exchange value" is derived, in part, from human labor. While this might certainly be true to some extent for Apple, I would assert that in terms of the Mac, the price is directly related to the "image" or "logo" of Apple.
In No Logo, Naomi Klein discusses a push in the marketing world towards a new strategy. Rather than marketing a product, many companies are now trying to push some monolithic image upon the masses. Companies like Nike try to impress the "Just Do It" image through a number of different platforms. When we think of Nike, we don't first think of shirts or shoes or equipment. We think of celebrities like Tiger Woods. We think of the Nike Swoosh. Most importantly, however, we think of sports. Nike embodies sports. Because of this, Nike has been very successful.
Apple does the same thing. By pushing this idea of sleek and elegant, yet super-powerful technology, Apple is working to create an image. Through the "virus free" propaganda, they enhance this idea. But is a MacBook fundamentally better than any other computer? In terms of the parts that go into it, the cost for labor, etc. is there anything all that special about a Mac? I would contend that really, what constitutes the huge discrepancy in price between a Mac and an identically performing P.C. is the image. To some extent, Apple is allowed to jack up its prices because of the image that it projects. Because of this "logo inflation," Apple makes people think that their parts are superior to those of competitors. Perhaps the fact that Macs are so expensive even allows them to be expensive. We ascribe a certain sense of quality to things that are expensive. If a MacBook costs more than a similar P.C. then it must be better, right? It's a vicious cycle.
It might seem as if I were trying to champion the cause of the P.C. and say that Macs are terrible. On the contrary, I think that both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I really have little preference. What is important, however, is to note that the fundamental difference between the two platforms stems not from the quality of the machine, but of the way that we perceive the companies who make them. Apple has managed to completely "fetishize" their product. By creating an image within our society about their products, they have altered the way we think about the product itself, how much we are willing to pay for it, and how we think about similar products made by other companies. I think that as a whole, we need to strive to see through what marketers want us to see in order to look with clearer eyes at what we want for ourselves.
Friday, February 3, 2012
I'm a Soul Man *trumpets*
In his essay Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault gets at a very important question. By analyzing the way prison systems have evolved, and especially how punishment has changed over time, he ends up reaching a very philosophical conclusion. He examines that punishment used to be a form of physical pain used to set an example of sorts. After a burst of humanism, imprisonment becomes more about the rehabilitation of a broken individual into society by using a host of psychological and other academic experts. Foucault exerts, at the end, that "the soul is the prison of the body." In so doing, the inevitable question erupts, "What is a soul?"
This question has been in the forefront of society for hundreds of years, and manifests its self in many different ways. From the most evident point of view, that of religion, the soul is some sort of separate, non-physical entity that represents the eternal self. Churches of many types have taught lessons that the soul, after death, continues while the body deteriorates.This is perhaps the basis for the perceptions that many of us have of the soul.
What does it mean to have a soul, however? We use the term to mean a wide variety of things. For example, some might contend that Bill O'Riely has no soul. That is to say, that he is a mean person. Does this imply that a soul is inherently good? If we state that a murderer "has no soul," then does that contend that souls are tied to the very question of morality? And if so, how can we justify the subjectivity of morality? Is a soul's moral sense based off of the society of the person, or some human standard for morality?We also use the term to describe some genres of music.Perhaps this would imply that the soul is inherently upbeat and happy. It is something that we exhibit when we are feeling uplifted or spiritual.
The soul often comes up in political debates. When we talk about abortion, we often discuss when "life" begins. Often, the argument is brought up that the "soul" exists at conception, and that a baby's life is somehow valuable because of this. So is the soul then what gives us the essential spark of life that makes us who we are? Can we exist independently from it? The same issue can come up in discussions about capital punishment. It is a moral quandary about our societal right to take the life of someone, and therefore the soul.
I am positive that in writing this piece, Foucault had many of these questions on his mind. He was striving to figure out the relationship between a man and his conscience. He figured that in the modern prison system, a man's body is not tried as it once was, but his mind most certainly was. In describing prisoners, he says "A 'soul' inhabits him and brings him to existence, which is itself a factor in the mastery that power exercises over the body. The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body." In describing it thusly, he is starting a conversation that really asks us to consider what a soul really is and how it affects us.
The only problem is that nobody has the same answer, and the metaphysical nature of the idea itself forces debate. So perhaps a soul is impossible to define, but I think that we all should consider what our "souls" mean to us.
This question has been in the forefront of society for hundreds of years, and manifests its self in many different ways. From the most evident point of view, that of religion, the soul is some sort of separate, non-physical entity that represents the eternal self. Churches of many types have taught lessons that the soul, after death, continues while the body deteriorates.This is perhaps the basis for the perceptions that many of us have of the soul.
The soul often comes up in political debates. When we talk about abortion, we often discuss when "life" begins. Often, the argument is brought up that the "soul" exists at conception, and that a baby's life is somehow valuable because of this. So is the soul then what gives us the essential spark of life that makes us who we are? Can we exist independently from it? The same issue can come up in discussions about capital punishment. It is a moral quandary about our societal right to take the life of someone, and therefore the soul.
I am positive that in writing this piece, Foucault had many of these questions on his mind. He was striving to figure out the relationship between a man and his conscience. He figured that in the modern prison system, a man's body is not tried as it once was, but his mind most certainly was. In describing prisoners, he says "A 'soul' inhabits him and brings him to existence, which is itself a factor in the mastery that power exercises over the body. The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body." In describing it thusly, he is starting a conversation that really asks us to consider what a soul really is and how it affects us.
The only problem is that nobody has the same answer, and the metaphysical nature of the idea itself forces debate. So perhaps a soul is impossible to define, but I think that we all should consider what our "souls" mean to us.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Measurements of Success
In his piece, Hawthorne and the "Scribbling Women," Michael
Winship discusses how Hawthorne has been read over time. He talks about
Hawthorne's frustration, in his own time, that he was unable to sell
nearly as many copies of his own writing, as many authors who, according
to him, wrote terrible and contrive works of literature. While many
people would likely feel for Hawthorne, as a writer of what we now deem
to be one of the ultimate "American classics," we really have to examine
what he's going up against. Winship details this throughout his piece
how Hawthorne's work sold over time compared to other works. While this
is certainly comprehensible, there might very well be a gap between what
we think to be the difference, and what actually was the case.
Keeping this in mind, I propose a more modern case. As a child of the 1990's, I like many of my peers, grew up on the Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling. Unlike my peers however, I do not obsess about these literary works to this day- I prefer to keep my childhood favorites to my childhood. While Rowling certainly inspired many of us to read with her loveable characters, easy-to-follow plot, and word choice that allowed us to not have to consult a dictionary, I would contend that Harry Potter is not exactly the exactly literary genius or even the most original of ideas. At this point, I am most likely provoking some indignant response from die-hard "Potterites" who feel quite the contrary. I am not seeking to convince anyone of my opinions on Rowling, but rather, to explain how Hawthorne might well have felt about "Scribbling Women."
So what constitutes a work that could stand to prove that Rowling is as much contemporary garbage as Hawthorne felt that The Lamplighter was? While a number of thought-provoking, intelligent pieces come to mind, I would like to compare it to a novel by Yann Martel, entitled The Life of Pi. This book focuses on many rich themes about religion, the "human condition", the value of stories, the reality of fiction, and many others. For those of you interested in a truly thought-provoking work, I strongly suggest you pick it up. While The Life of Pi is certainly somewhat well known, and has received a number of literary prizes, its success in terms of books sales, movie tickets, costumes, action figures, etc. are absoultely dwarfed by the works of J.K. Rowling. Potter fans might be quick to add that this is certainly indicative of Rowling's brilliant writing and amazing story. I would contend that Rowling's success is largely due to her ability to aim a story at a very receptive audience. She has also certainly been aided by an undeniable grassroots movement effect surrounding her writing. But hey, it works, doesn't it? I mean, she has become incredibly rich off of these stories! I will admit to being a proud owner of the books myself, and I truly did enjoy them as a child. They really got me into reading. But for me, that is where the heart of the matter lies.
The Harry Potter novels got me into reading. They served as a gateway. Most of the Potter fans my age still claim that these novels were the most incredible thing that they have ever read, and honestly, it is most likely because it is one of the only novels that they ever really read for enjoyment, perhaps because of some bandwagon effect. I used them as a stepping stone into bigger, better, and deeper literature. This is precisely where I feel Hawthorne is frustrated. He wrote the Scarlet Letter, which is one of the most philosophically interesting and thought provoking works of his time, and he did not get nearly the attention for it that he deserved because everyone else was still hung up on the "Harry Potter" of his era. The frustration he felt is palpable.
Some might think that my point of this is simply to get at this idea that Rowling is a terrible author. This is far from the point. For many children Rowling really helped begin a journey of literary enjoyment, and her stories are cherished by innumerable kids and adults. So no, don't stop loving Harry Potter. My challenge, however, is to move beyond, and to try out other ideas. Don't stop with a story you like. It wounds me deeply to see the "Favorite Books" section of the profile of many of my Facebook friends. The section reads "Harry Potter" and that's it. Its hard to believe that even someone who "has better things to do than spend their free time reading" (which amuses me then, that they picked up Harry Potter in the first place) could not find any other piece that they find as moving. My challenge to everyone is to move beyond the books of your childhood, into the "Scarlet Letters" of our day. To give appreciation not only to those authors whom we love and who are famous worldwide, but also to explore the author who is not well known, but worthwhile nevertheless.
Keeping this in mind, I propose a more modern case. As a child of the 1990's, I like many of my peers, grew up on the Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling. Unlike my peers however, I do not obsess about these literary works to this day- I prefer to keep my childhood favorites to my childhood. While Rowling certainly inspired many of us to read with her loveable characters, easy-to-follow plot, and word choice that allowed us to not have to consult a dictionary, I would contend that Harry Potter is not exactly the exactly literary genius or even the most original of ideas. At this point, I am most likely provoking some indignant response from die-hard "Potterites" who feel quite the contrary. I am not seeking to convince anyone of my opinions on Rowling, but rather, to explain how Hawthorne might well have felt about "Scribbling Women."
So what constitutes a work that could stand to prove that Rowling is as much contemporary garbage as Hawthorne felt that The Lamplighter was? While a number of thought-provoking, intelligent pieces come to mind, I would like to compare it to a novel by Yann Martel, entitled The Life of Pi. This book focuses on many rich themes about religion, the "human condition", the value of stories, the reality of fiction, and many others. For those of you interested in a truly thought-provoking work, I strongly suggest you pick it up. While The Life of Pi is certainly somewhat well known, and has received a number of literary prizes, its success in terms of books sales, movie tickets, costumes, action figures, etc. are absoultely dwarfed by the works of J.K. Rowling. Potter fans might be quick to add that this is certainly indicative of Rowling's brilliant writing and amazing story. I would contend that Rowling's success is largely due to her ability to aim a story at a very receptive audience. She has also certainly been aided by an undeniable grassroots movement effect surrounding her writing. But hey, it works, doesn't it? I mean, she has become incredibly rich off of these stories! I will admit to being a proud owner of the books myself, and I truly did enjoy them as a child. They really got me into reading. But for me, that is where the heart of the matter lies.
The Harry Potter novels got me into reading. They served as a gateway. Most of the Potter fans my age still claim that these novels were the most incredible thing that they have ever read, and honestly, it is most likely because it is one of the only novels that they ever really read for enjoyment, perhaps because of some bandwagon effect. I used them as a stepping stone into bigger, better, and deeper literature. This is precisely where I feel Hawthorne is frustrated. He wrote the Scarlet Letter, which is one of the most philosophically interesting and thought provoking works of his time, and he did not get nearly the attention for it that he deserved because everyone else was still hung up on the "Harry Potter" of his era. The frustration he felt is palpable.
Some might think that my point of this is simply to get at this idea that Rowling is a terrible author. This is far from the point. For many children Rowling really helped begin a journey of literary enjoyment, and her stories are cherished by innumerable kids and adults. So no, don't stop loving Harry Potter. My challenge, however, is to move beyond, and to try out other ideas. Don't stop with a story you like. It wounds me deeply to see the "Favorite Books" section of the profile of many of my Facebook friends. The section reads "Harry Potter" and that's it. Its hard to believe that even someone who "has better things to do than spend their free time reading" (which amuses me then, that they picked up Harry Potter in the first place) could not find any other piece that they find as moving. My challenge to everyone is to move beyond the books of your childhood, into the "Scarlet Letters" of our day. To give appreciation not only to those authors whom we love and who are famous worldwide, but also to explore the author who is not well known, but worthwhile nevertheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)