Assignment # 6: Psychoanalytic

It's nearly time for psychoanalytic criticism, and I CANNOT WAIT!!!!

_ - _ - _ - _ - _


Sex and death, sex and death, sex and death!!!

I have to say, in just about every way, psychoanalytic analysis is awesome. One of my most mind-blowing lectures of all time came courtesy of Dr. Warren Ginsberg, whose analysis of the Dido and Aeneas love affair in "The Aeneid" was so powerful, so attuned to human nature, so vividly modern, that I am still more than a little haunted by its ramifications. Dr. Ginsberg gave what I would call a classic psychoanalytic reading, in which the character's behaviour was interpeted as the expression of unconscious desires and fears. Let's just say that ever since, the book has not been "just a book:" rather, a devastating tragedy of love both initiated and thwarted by mutual neurosis. So much for soulmates...

As my hero Lois Tyson writes, "when we look at the world through a psychoanalytic lens, we see that it is comprised of individual human beings, each with a psychological history that begins in childhood experience in the family and each with patterns of adolescent and adult behaviour that are the direct result of that early experience" (12). Super. To a psychanalyst, our behaviour patterns originate in our unconscious, where all our early emotional traumas are imprinted, but which we've repressed in order to function as children/teens/adults. Yet those bad times are not gone; they're not in the least self-healing wounds. Human behaviour has a curious way of actively "playing out" those conflicts, feelings, and experiences in "disguised, distorted, and self-defeating ways" - of scratching at our own scabs, you could say(13).

In Freud-speak, the unconscious employs a number of different defenses in order to keep a safe veil between itself and the conscious. Selective perception, selective memory, denial, avoidance, projection, displacement, regression, etcetera - all tactics to protect us from core fears, such as fears of abandonment, intimacy, betrayal, an unstable sense of self, or low self-esteem. Until such issues are recognized and addressed, they "determine our behaviour in destructive ways of which we are usually unaware" (Tyson 17). The bizarre way humans handle their attitudes towards sex and death are particularly revealing, and interested Freud to no end.

But what has this to do with literature? I mean, we can hardly examine the childhood of Aeneas, right? And wouldn't it be silly to attempt to explain the "Aeneid" by psychoanalyzing Virgil? Valid questions, of course. But they maybe miss the point.

There will inevitably be one student who reacts aggressively towards the introduction of Freud into the literature classroom, and variations on the above questions often accompany their eye-rolling. Do you have to "believe" that Freud was right in order to accept PC? I think not - he had a lot of wacky ideas, but even Freud himself changed his opinions, and hoped that others would extend and emend his theories. The point is: HUMAN BEHAVIOUR IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. And literature has an incredible capacity, through its nuances, its aesthetics, its structure, to allude and illuminate this paradox. Freud provides us with a common vocabularly to articulate the inner world, and the purpose of his classical PC was to empower people - to allow them to wrangle with those inner demons by giving them a proper name.

Anyway.

Psychoanalytic criticism is grounded in two schools: Freudianism and object relations theory, which "emphasizes the internalization of relations to other as a formative force that creates the self"(Ryan 36). This points to the work of Jacques Lacan, whose work focused on relationships, rather than how the mental life develops, in order to explain human behaviours. We must necessarily define boundaries between ourselves and others, yet this is a traumatic experience for wee little babies, and Lacan's work stresses lack and loss as a primal, unavoidable experience for all humans. Lacan describes our progression from the Mirror Stage to the Imaginative Order, and finally to the Symbolic Order: bridges between the preverbal and verbal stages. Ryan writes that "to learn language and to enter the realm of cultural signification is to learn to make do with out direct contact with the object named or signified;" hence, our sense of rupture and loss from a prior, preverbal world of complete unity (37). Behind all of this lies the Real, "the uninterpretable dimension of existence... we experience the Real when we have a moment in which we see through ideology, when we realize that it is ideology - and not some set of timesless values or eternal truths" (Tyson 32) such as language (an arbitrary construction of culture) has led us to believe. A critic acquainted with Lacan may attempt to explore a text in reference to these Orders.

Phew!

I haven't yet found a Lacanian take on a poem, but I'd like to see this in action.

The end!

Assignment #5: (Russian) Formalism

FORMALISM... Let's go.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ah, sweet Russia. Bahktin, Jakobson, Shklovsky et. al - scholars of the day who advanced this particular, and peculiarly quasi-scientific, way of defining literature and approaching its analysis.

This assignment carried me back to 1917, before the Bolshevik Revolution - I rather feel in retrospect that it should be taught before New Criticism, which was a later American development which I can now better contextualize. In fact, their points of convergance and divergance are interesting to a nearly distracting degree:

Although the two agree on the "special" and "strange" qualities which distinguish literary language from daily (pragmatic) discourse, it's fascinating that the two diverged in regards to its transcendental function. The Russian Formalists seemed determined to prise out any mystical connotations, instead boiling down literature to an assemblage of elements which, as a whole, constitute the greatness of a piece of literature - which create the meaning, essentially. Form creates meaning.

Yet the American NC's examined form as a means to see how their manipulation illuminates "universal truths" - which would, in a sense, restore some of the perhaps sacred value which Russian Formalists sought to undermine. Fascinating, given that one country greeted modernity by rejecting its religiously permeated past, while the other - the "secular" United States - embraced a fetishism of literary language. Meaning and form are inseparable.

At times like these, I rather wish I had a teacher to ask, as few of the books I have read say very much about the cultural contexts which gave birth to these theories. It's a pretty damned important question, frankly - what was going on that made this theory fit the needs of the culture? Formalism and NC still linger in the American Language Arts classroom - is that still valid, or are we shifting towards a new paradigm, with new needs?

Still, props to RF and NC for placing our attention back on the text itself.

Literary CRITISM vs. Literary THEORY

There's a difference. Gosh, what a good point to make!

literary CRITICISM
-- "tries to explain the literary work to us: its production, its meaning, its design, its beauty."

literary THEORY
-- "tries to explain the assumptions and values upon which various forms of literary criticism rest."

a literary CRITIC
-- "has a tendency to interpet rather than to evaluate literature" and their opinions impact the literary marketplace "in terms of which works they choose to interpet and which works they ignore." Even though critics themselves may not even be aware of what theory informs their opinions, popular critics (and the theories which they use) are consequently powerful shapers of culture.

So, one applies literary theory in order to achieve literary criticism. Everybody does it, whether or not they know they do it, and a responsible academic / critic / human being should critically examine what assumptions inform their interpretation - not just of literature, really, but of the world. After all, everybody's a critic. But not everyone realizes the conceptual framework which tints their worldview, leading to assumptions, blind spots, and stunted growth. As a person, or as an academic, of course.

*All citations from Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today, 2006.

Assignment #4: (American) New Criticism

Note to self: sort out New Criticism!

----

Summary...

Well, all I can say is that NC makes sense now. The Tyson text did a great job of summarizing it, and her essay on "The Great Gatsby" makes me want to run out and buy it / eat it / see the world anew.

I'm debating whether I need to run myself through the gauntlet of applying it to some text... but honestly, NC methods are pretty much what I've done all my life, without realizing it, as it turns out. I have to disagree with the notion of "a single best interpretation," of course, but so has everyone since the 1960's; the concepts of NC still permeate American education even if its strict demands for organic unity are no longer in vogue.

Mind you, I'm a fan of organic unity. I can appreciate the IDEA of a play like "Ubu Roi," but at the end of an excruciating three hour experience of ad-libbed French surrealist theater - well, I'd be interested to examine how the original, textual version used its formal elements to create "complexity" and "order" that supposedly legitimate the greatness of literary texts. But then again, I'd have to pretend the stage version didn't matter to me, nor the text's contextual history as a piece of Bohemian Paris, nor the author's predisposition for opium, yadda yadda yah.

I have written out a much more cohesive summary of NC, but my brain is exhausted from the Germany-Ghana match today (1-0!) and that's all I've got for today.

*Note to self: The "Well-Wrought Urn" by Cleanth Brooks (1947) is the go-to text for NC, and T.S. Eliot is among its major figures.

Helpful website: Dr. Warren Hedges "New Criticism Explained"
VirtuaLit definition

Assignment #2: Greek Humanism

Plato and Aristotle!

My goal here is to read and write out my own summary of the main principles governing Book 10 of the Republic, and Poetics (specifically chapters 1-15 and 26).

Texts:
James Hutton's 1982 Aristotle: Poetics.
Peter Burian's 1986 Plato and Aristotle on Poetry.


Summary:
I must say, I'm a geek about the classics. If it weren't for the funky alphabet, it'd be cool to learn Greek... oh well.

Anyway, I've read through and written my synopses, and am collecting some critical commentary to frame my reading. What surprised me was how much I enjoyed Plato - Plato!!! The one who wants to banish all poets and their rebellious ways. I did see somewhere that Plato shouldn't be confused with his speakers, Socrates and Glaucon; that in fact Plato wasn't stated categorical, heavy-handed philosophical truths - rather, by walking readers through his process of inquiry and response, he is simply encouraging us to think through our assumptions, and perhaps emulate a bit of his critical approach. Plato wasn't necessarily anti-poet - he was, in fact, a poet, or at least as a writer of prose was often so lumped. Nonetheless, the text is frustratingly teleological about the goals of poetry, and wildly conservative in its preoccupation with its moral and social duties.

What redeemed Book 10, a bit, was not only its delightful style - he even makes jokes about Homer! - but the ending allegory of Er, a poor schlub of a soldier who makes it into the afterlife, acting as a witness, and being resurrected a week later in order to share the bad news with us all.

The bad news being, actually, quite mystical and fun-to-read news: in short, we're responsible for the creation of our own lives. Literally. Departed souls get to frolic in a meadow for one week, before pondering what new guise to take on in their next incarnation. Lusty, cocky Er nearly chooses a tyrant's life, for sadly, his "virtues are a matter of mere habit" rather than something he thought critically about during his lifetime. Another sheep in the herd, as it were.

But I'm off topic; poetry is therefore contextualized as yet another peril for the soul, and we need to live good, honorable lives because otherwise, we're just perpetuating a shit-show in heaven.

It'll be delightful to see what the next 1K years of philosophers and writers made of this.

---

Aristotle Summary

Oh, scientific observation. Oh, categorization, analysis, definition. You are the bones of Aristotle's approach, and although I found you intriguing in many points, I did not have the boatload of fun I'd anticipated.

He gives poetry back some of the dignity Plato denied it, but overall I was thrown by how incomplete and jumpy the text actually is - he touches only briefly on epic poetry, and the majority of this essay - likely a compilation of his lectures for the Lycaeum - is devoted to tragedy and its superiority. Plot rules all, I guess. I actually feel that I learned a great deal of why Greek tragedy is what it is, so... controlled, cool, violent, and self-congratulatory. I mean, the standards for its criticism were so precise; Aristotle seems happy to fault even Homer - "damn his complex plots and their pandering to the ignorant audience"!

Anyway. I can see why this essay matters. It's devoted to the art of poetry, not poems. It's like describing the toolbox in an excruciatingly dry and high-handed way. I discovered that this text somewhat disappeared until the Renaissance; it did not influence folks in antiquity or the Middle Ages. It's only been a staple of higher ed for 200 years. Good to know!

Assignment #3: Humanism

What the hell is humanist theory? Who are its big names, and what have they said that was so darned influential?

This seems a natural, if brief, launching point out of antiquity...

- - - - - -

A mini-response

As usual, a concept is better illuminated when held in contrast to its opposite. I mean, I feel like humanism is a concept I could have articulated in high school; I was fascinated by the Renaissance back in the day. But by reading William Wordsworth's 1802 introduction, "Preface to the Lyrical Ballads," I feel I can quite nicely grasp how the paradigm shifted, so to speak.

Based on my futzing around, the theories of literature put forth by Plato and Aristotle were pretty much uncontested during the Middle Ages (during which Aristotle's Poetics was barely read, anyway). Sir Phillip Sydney's "Defense of Poetry" is on my list, as being often cited as an example of burgeoning literary theory in the 16th century... SPS evidently defended poetry on the grounds that it could teach us something useful and morally upstanding, which is of course at odds with that jerk, Plato. The point seems, for me, to be the perpetuation of classical discourses as the absolute authority on art.

Artifice and elevation: the triumphs of Greek (and Roman?) civilization. Like a cold marble statue, it's technically perfect stuff - and I'm not trying to knock Homer, but I believe that Wordsworth blows my mind precisesly because he, too, would be the guy in the museum next to me, saying "Yeah, it's beautiful... but damn, it's so... cold." Where's the humanity?

So, humanism allowed us, as human beings, some agency in the creation of art (rather than chalking it all up to God's grace or whatnot). That was a good thing. But the values and blind reverance for the past still strikes me as terribly iffy. Concurrent with such fetishism was a rather elite ideal, that art furthermore could only be produced - and appropriately enjoyed - by those with the education to enjoy it. Ergo, very few actual people; only the assholes who had the money for Greek tutors (not that I'm bitter).

To read Wordsworth's Romantic manifesto is a refreshingly real kind of revolution. People, real people, and emotion - powerful, inspirational, raw - these are the heart of poetry. W-dawg famously describes the poet as "a man speaking to men;" this kind of statement takes on a whole level of incredible-ness once you really consider the traditions which preceded, and surrounded the poet. I love that W is a bit snotty, digging in to the pretentious poets of his day - their contrivances, their artifice, and their weak regurgitation of what the Greek and Romans were actually good at.

For me, W's poems are sadly, something of a let-down. I mean, sure, "Tintern Abbey" has its moments, but the passion, the meditation, the superhuman poet transcending and translating the raw of life into tiny little, rhytmmic words -- well... it just never works for me, as a whole. I guess a 21st century American woman and a 19th century Englishman might just be turned on by different things (I personally distrust the countryside, being full of Republicans, shotguns, and strange, large insects).

It's nice to see that W knew his classics, however. The little scamp almost openly defies Aristotle, by declaring that the expression and production of feeling, above all, is a poem's purpose - not its plot, its characters, its action, its diction. Pretty much everything the great Greek philosopher insisted on, and which consequently shaped Western culture for the next 1K years. So, who finally told Aristotle to f*ck himself? Why, William Wordsworth does!

Humans were placed nicely back in the center by Romantic humanists such as Wordsworth and Coleridge. Even if their adoration of nature/pastoral feels a bit trite today, it's fascinating to think of how their world was changing - industrialization and the spread of daily newspapers, for one. Who wouldn't react with anxiety against such a rapidly changing world? And it must be said that despite his praise for the everyman, W hung on to a distate for the mob and its unpalatable, untrained "thirst" for "sensationalism." Discrimination, training, taste, education - it all laid a nice ground for Matthew Arnold, some 50 years later.

But that's a whole other story, and I have dinner to make.

Assignment #1: Literature...

Why study literary / cultural theory? What does it have to do with literature or our world in general?

What is literature? How do you recognize it?

Do you currently use a literary theory to evalute literature?


Good questions, Dr. Spiegel! What are some reasonable responses to such profound questions?

Core Texts

First off, Spiegel's syllabus is awesome, and contains many useful links.

I'm tracking down her suggested required text:

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-friendlly Guide. NY: Garland Publishing, 2nd Ed., 2006.

I've also got...

Eagelton, Terry. Literary theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983.
Gutting, Gary. Foucault: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP, 2005.
Hall, Vernon. A Short History of Literary Criticism. NYUP, 1963.
Klages, Mary. Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed. Continuum, 2006.
Ryan, Michael. Literary Theory: A Practical Introduction. Blackwell, 1999.
Story, John. Ed. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 4th ed. 2009.

And surely, internet sources will be handy and citeable as the learning goes on.

Exciting Introduction!

This summer I aim to acquaint myself with modern literary theory. Usually people take classes in this sort of thing, but I find that I'm pretty motivated to get the books, do the reading, and learn it without forking over $x00 to the University of X.

But, I'm a teacher, and I know that reading alone is not really enough to truly learn. You need colleagues and communities, and projects which demand your articulation. You need to put in the work of tracking down resources, engaging them, and seeing how they react to one another. If any of my friends want to join me by posting on this blog, it'd be awesome - if not, I'll be chatting with myself, as per usual. :) All participation is voluntary, for your own interest, and there will be no grades.

Using an online syllabus available from Dr. Kristi Siegel, a professor of English at Mount Mary College, I hope to use her organization as a prompt for my own investigation into literary theory. Every week I'll try to get a feel for the major literary theories typically covered in a university course.

Goals:
To articulate ways in which literary theory applies to my culture, global culture, and my own life.
To apply various theories to works of literarure and pop culture, as demonstrated by my blog posts.
To articulate nad reflect on the ethical and philosophical issues which critical theory elicits
To compare and synthesize theories studies (maybe at the end of summer... wheee!!