A Method to the Madness.

In light of our recent class conversations centered on oral narration and storytelling, I wanted to share some of the key points I received on the topic today when sitting in on guest speaker Peter Wasamba's Roundtable discussion. Mr. Wasamaba is a professor of history at the University of Nairobi in Kenya. As a man dedicated to social change in his country, Wasamba has taken to using what he calls Oral Literature, the stories of the poor around him, to create references policy makers can use when creating policies for this recently war-torn country. What I found to be so refreshing and inspiring about Professor Wasamba's view oral literature is that it speaks to the very heart of what all literature was meant to do and should continue to do...inspire social change for the betterment of society. I feel that globally, we as human beings have forgotten what the primary function of literature should be which is to connect people to one another. Wasamba, however, has not forgotten this foundation at all but instead uses what he knows of literature for the betterment of the world he lives in. 

Not only, Wasamba asserts, does using Oral Literature inspire social change and help politicians to understand how they can better serve the community, but listening to other's stories, especially those stories told by the hurt and oppressed, creates an outlet for those who have been affected by violence. I found this to be incredibly interesting, encouraging, and truthful. Wasamba has heard many stories of those who have been hurt badly by the recent conflict in Kenya, and each time the people he has spoken with have been so thankful that there is somebody who takes them seriously and is willing to listen to what they have to say. Wasamba also has found that Oral Literature becomes a kind of therapy for those telling their stories because they finally come to terms with and can share what has happened to them and then move on from there to experience healing. 

I was so appreciative and excited about what Mr. Wasamba had to say about Oral Literature. I feel as though he spoke so much truth concerning the importance of storytelling and also listening to those who have things to say. I believe we can all learn something from the way in which this professor has chosen to carry on the practice of Oral Literature for the benefit of a brighter future for his country and the world. 

blame it on the capitalist society...

"To summarize: a small group of book buyers formed a screen through which novels passed on their way to commercial success; a handful of agents and editors picked the novels that would compete for the notice of those buyers; and a tight network of advertisers and reviewers, organized around the New York Times Book Review, selected from these a few to be recognized as compelling, important, "talked about." (Ohmann, 1884)

Let me preface this blog by saying that I have a lot of pride for the country I live in. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that my father has served in the military for over 25 years. Nevertheless, I proud to say I live in America and feel incredibly blessed to be given the opportunities I have been given because I am a citizen of this country. This does not mean I completely agree with every decision our government has made or that I stand behind ALL of the notions America seems to stand for. It simply means I know the cost and weight of the freedom I possess to live the lifestyle that I do. This being said, I have a difficult time with Ohmann's complaint that our capitalist nation has become nothing more than a censor for which only those with the highest degree of wealth of power make the decision of what is popular and what is not. I am aware of the fact that SOME of the books that have been chosen as "best sellers" have been selected by an elite group. I am also aware of the fact that monopolies like the New York Times Book Review do need to do  more in order to incorporate a more realistic and balanced view when it comes to deciding what literature is worth being read. However, I also feel that there is not enough emphasis in Ohmann's writing placed on individual decisions. Although we can attribute some of the decisions made about books to the imbalance of power, we cannot forget about human nature and individual will. Yes, marketing does play a part but when I walk into a bookstore I don't find myself at the "20 Top Books" stand but way back in the corners where the books that are not so popular are sold (most of the time this is because I think that the books being produced today are garbage and I am skeptical-and also because I just like to look at the cookbooks-haha). I understand Ohmann's argument but feel it is somewhat unbalanced. After all, we all make choices everyday which determine affects that happen in the bigger picture. Even when discussing society and literature, this fact cannot be overlooked. It is easy for people to complain about America and blame so many factors in our world on Capitalism. To some degree I can resonate with these issues and concerns. However, I also feel that people and the world cannot use capitalism as an area to place the blame for poor individual decisions made. Yes, we are all a community. But each member of the community makes decisions that effect the community as a whole so individual choices cannot be overlooked  and blamed on the community as a whole. I don't even know if I am making any sense at this point...but I just wanted to offer a counter-argument to Ohmann's conclusion.

Thoughts on Ohmann

When reading The Shaping of a Canon: U.S. Fiction, 1960-1975, written by Richard Ohmann, I found myself becoming increasingly convinced that if I were to take up literary criticism at all in my life (not likely to happen) I would focus most, if not all, of my time on how literature has affected and been affected by culture and society. I think it is incredibly interesting to draw parallels between events in history, social attitudes/status quos, and literary creations. To see the way that daily life can have such a huge impact on everything a human being does is a good reminder, to me, of just how interconnected everything we say and do, both as individuals and as a community, really is. I think society in general has kind of lost the understanding of cause and affect. Studying literature with a cultural and social emphasis is what will remind us all of this not so radical phenomenon.

In Ohmann's essay, he starts off by stating that "Reading a book becomes meaningful when, after completion, it is shared with others" (Ohmann, 1881). This statement was both refreshing and interesting to me. First, it is refreshing because Ohmann is acknowledging that human beings desire and create meaning through social interaction. It is by communicating and connecting with others that human beings derive a sense of purpose and understand themselves as well as others on a deeper and more intimate level. Secondly, I found this statement to be interesting and intriguing because Ohmann is turning reading from an Introverted practice to an Extroverted one and, in doing so, has defined Reading (Question: What is reading?) as a social tool which allows for interaction between individuals and groups of people. It is funny that a practice looked at as internal and solitary actually becomes the center force in how and why people communicate with one another. I also think that Ohmann echoes the thoughts of both Barthes and Foucault in their Structuralist approach to literature and the author. If reading lines on a page becomes a meaningful practice only when it is shared with others through social interaction then the author really does die and the "writers" of the novel become those who talk about the text and apply meaning to it. Overall, it makes me incredibly excited to finally read an essay where reading (and this, writing) becomes a way of drawing people and society together-this is a purpose for literature that I feel is so important but has been lost in deep theological discussion because some critics think literature as a way of connection just is not a good enough reason for literature and there must be some deeper meaning and purpose.

Finally, going back to my post from yesterday (March 25, 2008) I wanted to share a little more on Storytelling as I think it is an important means of communication that English majors should, as preservers of all kinds of literature, strive to protect and encourage. I wanted to include some links to some stories and information on storytelling for anybody to enjoy and gain a better understanding of how important storytelling is and will continue to be despite it's decreasing popularity:

Traditional African Storytelling

Storytelling Theory and Practice

Biblical Storytelling-Samson

On A Sentimental Note...

After our discussion in class today on Storytelling, I have to admit I walked away feeling a general sense of sadness in the loss of a great oral tradition. After thinking about stories I have heard and what the purpose of these stories have been I have noticed an incredibly important and special trend. Every single time I have heard a story it has acted as a type of glue that binds the listeners together with one another and with the storyteller. In other words, the purpose of the majority of the stories I have heard has always under the surface been told for the sake of creating a bond and understanding between people. This kind of connection is incredibly important in our culture today. Everybody in the world, and especially in our American society, has a real sense of individualism. We are all always running in ten different directions trying to figure out what we want to do with our lives, how we can make the most money possible, how we can get the most out of live, etc. etc. All of these thought processes or goals are centered on the success of the individual. The idea of community has taken a backseat to selfish ambitions and desires. Because of these individualistic mentalities it has become increasingly difficult for human beings to relate to one another. Storytelling then, can be therapeutic for our society because it reminds us all why we are here to begin with....to connect and build relationships with one another. Back to my original thought-I was reminded of all of this today in class as we discussed storytelling and the lack of it we see in our culture today. If our society is turning away from storytelling and towards an information culture, what does this mean for the human's ability to relate and connect with another person? Thinking about this too much is a scary thought. I wish there was a way we could all return to storytelling as a means of understanding and learning rather than just being asked regurgitate information that literally sits in our brains offering no stimulation at all. I think educators and people in general would be surprised at how storytelling could be an incredibly useful tool not only for education but also for social development as well.

A Restricted View of the Author

In light of our discussion in class today, I wanted to point out an observation I have made about how we as readers and thinkers view an author's piece of work once we have received information on his or her background. A few weeks ago, after reading the poem "We Wear the Mask", our class discussion turned toward how our reading of the poem was affected by the knowledge that the author was an African American slave. Many of us, including myself, said that these facts altered the way we read the poem. Where before it has seemed the author was speaking of the hardships of humanity, now it seemed he was speaking more specifically to black slaves when he wrote the poem. It was not until one students pointed out that just because the African American slave was just that does not mean he was writing specifically for one group of people that I realized how often we take information and apply it to the author as being absolute truth and base the author's writing on his background. This same exact thing happened today in class when we were discussing the author of the Cherokee novel who was really a racist and white supremacist. After discussion of how much this knowledge undermined this author's work in his Cherokee novel, a student pointed out that just because he was known for being a racist does not mean he was one at the time of writing the novel. Do we see a pattern forming? All of us, at one time or another, have learned a bit of information about an author and have undoubtedly applied that information to the work of literature being studied without thinking about the fact that maybe the information can only be applied to one part or area of the author's life. This means, then, that there a strong amount of validity in theorists like Eliot's argument that the author should play no role in analyzing a work of literature because it seems that we are all so quick to take the information and apply it where it may not be applicable at all.

What does this mean for our Author?

The first issue I want to bring up in this post has to do with applying our faith and Christianity to the stance that has been taken by Structuralists such as Barthes and Foucault who strongly believe in "the death of the author". Although I do see some weight in the idea that the reader creates the meaning and not the author, I wonder what this kind of thought process implies for the "Author and perfecter of life", namely God, that we have all chosen to follow hard after. If the God is considered to be the Author of life, does this theory of literature, when applied to all of life, mean that God does not create the meaning of life but we, as human beings, decide what value life holds? If so, this seems like a dangerous stance to take, as it could allow for a lot of blurring in the lines between what it right and wrong, truthful and deceitful. I know some might be thinking as they read this that it is unnecessary for people to take theories and criticisms applied to literature and apply them to more general thoughts about life and purpose. However, I strongly believe that if you are going to take a stance or opinion on something, you must stand by it in all aspects of life, not just one or two. Doing this will allow your argument to be most convincing since you can defend it all walks of life. So again, what does this view of the author mean for Christians when it comes to God as the author? Maybe I am straying too far off the main topic of literature, but I just thought it was an interesting question and one we should challenge each other to consider as fellow believer's in Christ.

The second issue I wanted to address in this blog is the sense of comfort I received in an article I found in which a writer/philosopher known as Unamouno struggles between the two extremes of "writing as life giving substance and guarantee of immortality and seeing it as a dead remnant" (Wyers, Unamuno and the 'death of the author'). In the main body of the article the author, Frances Wyers, discusses how Unamuno contradicts himself in his writing and he moves from one extreme to the next and expresses his intense emotional strife in realizing that the author is not supposed to be the main subject of the piece of literature. Maybe Unamuno was just experiencing an identity crisis and he realized others were saying his vocation in life really did not matter at all in terms of his own importance. However, my concern was not with whether or not this man contradicted himself, but more with the fact that a contradiction could be made, which shows what I was talking about in my last blog about the two extremes in class. I am thankful to find a scholar who struggled so much with the concept of the death of the author. First because his emotion over the subject shows how much he really did care about his writing and was attached to it. Secondly, because Unamuno's controversy over the concept of Barthes and Foucault echoes my own frustrations with the extremes that have been studied in class so far. When will the author AND the reader both be equally as important in the writing process? I am happy to see I am no the only one distressed over this issue.

Moderation Anyone?

During our discussion of Structuralism and Formalism in class today I started to think about the extremes to which all the criticisms we have studied so far this semester have gone to when defining the terms Author, Literature, and Reading. On the one hand there are the Romantics who are madly in love with the author as a way of elevating themselves to a higher position and who also take the the stance that reading is dangerously unimportant. On the other hand there are the New Critics and Structuralists/Post structuralists who call for the death of the author and in doing so elevate the reader to become the "writer" of the text. Romantics place so much weight on the emotional experience a poem can elicit while Formalists and Structuralists do not focus on emotions at all but only on the raw material that is before them and how it contributes to the development of the poem as a whole. With these two extremes, I have to say I walked away from class today thinking: "Where is the balance in all of this" Growing up, my dad has always taught myself and my siblings that moderation and balance is important in life. This is not to say I do not believe in extremes. Taking a stance for something you believe is true is important and very valuable. However, I have also been taught that it is important to have a balanced perspective on life. So, when I look at these two or three types of criticisms we have been discussing I cannot help but see the men we have read as ignorant. While one scholar says emotion is everything, another states that it means nothing to the value of the work. This is confusing, extreme, and a bit idealistic on all parts. I am just wondering when we will reach a criticism in class with a more moderate perspective which takes into account internal and external factors as being important to the value of a piece of literature. For now, I cannot really respect an author who does not have a balanced perspective about the criticism of literature. I am looking forward to a time in our class when I can.