Lit. Crit. Conversation

A War on Christianity?

2008-04-28T15:48:00.000-07:00

"That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong."
2 Corinthians 12:10 (NIV)

After our class discussion on Thursday concerning a change of the name and content of the English Literature Department here at Messiah, I have spent a lot of time thinking about how Christianity is viewed in our world today.

I must first admit that I am torn at the thoughts of making the English Department at Messiah wholly centered on Christianity and Christian Literature. I worry about what this will mean for me when I graduate. What will it mean to tell a possible employer that I graduated with a degree in Christian Literary studies? Will this gravely affect how, when, and where I get a job? How will I be able to explain that I am still just as qualified as the next person to teach English Literature even though my degree has the word Christian in front of it? Will employers judge me because of the Christian label I posses?

There are so many personal and selfish worries I have over the change of name for our English Department at Messiah. However, that is just what they are: Selfish. I have come to the realization through being obsessed with these questions that I fear persecution in the name of Jesus Christ, the man I claim to give my life to and follow. What does this mean for my Christianity? If I am not willing to allow my studies to be Christ-centered because I am afraid of how the world will respond, what does this say about my faith?

Simple. I am a coward.

Christians in other parts of the world are physically tortured, sexually abused, beaten, and killed because they proclaim themselves to be Christians. This is not even close to the same level of "persecution" that might be endured if Messiah students endorse Dr. Power's proposal for the English department. So maybe we will have a difficult time finding a job at first. Is this really too much of a hardship to endure for the sake of truly owning and proclaiming our Christianity?

I know it would be easy to say that there are other ways we as Christians can make this proclamation and it should be left out of our English education. However the truth is, our Christianity should be the center of every single aspect of our lives. We go to a Christian school, a Christian school named Messiah College. Why as students, did we choose to spend $30,000 to come here. Maybe for some it was for the facilities or a specific major or the scenery. I know for myself, it was to be in an environment where my faith can permeate every single particle of my life; most importantly, my education.

Why are we as Christians so afraid to own our Christian label? We stand by and let the world assume we are all close-minded, judgmental fanatics. By not standing up and saying "I am a Christian, and I am going to break the mold of what you believe a Christian is" we endorse the secular view of Christianity which is forcing us to be silent.

As students at Messiah College, we represent the next generation of Christians in this nation. Will be choose to silently endorse a negative view of Christianity or learn what it means to own our faith and endure hardships because of it?

I know this seems like a heavy topic to come out of our class discussion of the English department, but these are the issues I believe are the heart of the issue.

Just some things to think about....

Also, I found some articles discussing what some would deem "a war on Christianity." I am not exactly sure how I feel about this topic yet but wanted to share what I found in case anybody would like to do some further reading:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-26-religion_x.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/02/07/war-on-christianity.htm
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/29/153253.shtml

Dr. Power's Proposal

2008-04-22T12:47:00.000-07:00

This blog is going to be a short one because, as some of you know, I could go on about this topic for hours...

I came to Messiah College as a freshman carrying great expectations as to what it would be like to receive a Christian college education. It did not take long for disappointment came crashing down on me. In an effort to strive for worldly recognition and coincide with other universities' standards of political correctness, Messiah College has hidden it's light under a bushel. It has become dangerous and wrong to analyze and see the world through Christian eyes, for in doing so, it seems to some that we unjustly and unlovingly reject other people or tell them they are wrong. So, biblical analysis, interpretation, and application has become scarce at this Christian college.

It is because of this observation that I am excited about Dr. Power's proposal of the abolishment of the English Department at Messiah. Of course, like so many others, I have my reservations about this new approach, most of which center wrongly about what this new education will mean when I graduate (getting a job, living up to literary knowledge expectations, etc). However, further than this fear, I believe it is pertinent for Messiah to return to our roots which, in this case, is education that creates a vision of the world based on biblical truth and faith. I am interested to hear what others have to say about Dr. Power's proposal as I am open to other opinions which may help strengthen and sway my own.

Double Standard?

2008-04-22T12:23:00.000-07:00

I wanted to take this blog to expand on the comment I made in class today concerning Ngugi's article as well as connect it to the comment Danielle made relating her concerns about the same article. As I read Ngugi's proposal, I am struck by, and very appreciative of the fact that he is so balanced in his view of literature. Although Ngugi does seem to reject English literature, he does this only so that African language and literature can become the center and focal point of literary studies at the University of Nairobi. Ngugi then goes on the affirm the belief that other works of literature (including English and French pieces) can and should be studied at the University but only in relation to the Kenyan culture which stands on it's own, separate from European influence and thought. For a man who has seen many of the affects of Colonization in his country, it is incredibly impressive to me that Ngugi still maintains such a rational and intellectual views of the function of literature and a department of literature.

My issue with Ngugi's article stems from the fact that the majority of people in the world cannot see past their own bitterness and beliefs to be as rational as Ngugi is. People are constantly moving from one extreme to another and do not automatically address a situation with a balanced, two-sided view. An example of this occurred at the beginning of class today. Dr Powers prefaced our discussion of Ngugi's article by affirming that fact that some may have felt Ngugi was completely rejecting any study of English literature or just white people in general. Although we know now that this is not the case, it was easy for even well-read, intelligent English students to jump to this irrational conclusion from reading Ngugi's article. Once these conclusions occur, the next step is putting up a defense, and usually this means taking one's belief in the complete opposite direction so as to counter that which seems wrong.

This same pattern of behavior can and may occur when other Kenyan's read Ngugi's proposal. Although some can think rationally, not all have this ability and it would be easy from Ngugi's article to call for a rejection of all European literature. This then would lead to a group of people who are elitist and believe that one form of culture or literature is better then another. So this thinking becomes a vicious cycle. If Kenyan's take Ngugi's article the wrong way, history may repeat itself, except this time European culture and literature might be on the opposite end. I know this is only hypothetical, but it is a concern I have with Ngugi's article.

A connection to this can then be drawn to the comment Danielle made today in class. As a reminder, she brought up the idea that if Americans ever took the stance Kenyans did concerning literature we would most likely be considered elitists and receive reprimand and hatred for it. Why is this? If Kenyans can study literature from their own cultural perspective, should not American be able to do the same? This is where a concern about repeating the past comes into play for me. It seems that ever so subtly and slowly, American culture and thought is being suppressed under the argument that our culture is suppressing others. How long will it be before even more extreme views are created and English/American literature is silenced and oppressed like African culture was in our history?

Trying to Fit in Someone Else's Shoes.

2008-04-22T11:59:00.000-07:00

"If there is a need for a 'study of the historic continuity of a single culture,' why can't this be African? Why can't African literature be at the centre so that we can view other cultures in relationship to it?" (Ngugi, 2093).

Reading Ngugi's On the Abolition of the English Department was an incredibly informative and enlightening experience for me. I went into the essay knowing a minor amount of information about this author, but enough to understand the point from which he was coming from. After reading the essay, I tried to take some time to imagine what it would be like for Americans to be in the situation that literature students in Africa are in today. Let's say, for instance, that instead if winning the Revolutionary War, early American lost this battle and thus became subjected to all the laws and influences of not England but solely France. Because of this, your entire life you are raised to speak completely in French. This means that when you write a paper, speak to your friends, or do anything pertaining to language, it is done in French, a language that come from a faraway country that has oppressed and hurt you and your family. Because of this French government all your father can do is farm, and half of his crops and money are taken away from him every year, leaving your family poor and hungry. However, despite this injustice, you are still told in school that you must worship and follow the words and linguistics of the French language. So there is a discrepancy between what you dislike and what you are told you must like and/or follow. Thus your own language and thoughts become slaves to another more powerful system's and you are left to wonder what life would have been like had you possessed the ability to retain your English-speaking roots from your fathers who came over from England, all the while continuing to feed into the French culture which has placed you in a position of poverty. ouch. that would not be fun at all.

I think it is difficult for those on "our" side, the side that some claim is being attacked or rebelled against in literature, to even begin to understand the other side of the situation. For this reason I would like to encourage every student from class to take time to really contemplate what life would be like if the above situation did indeed take place. I know this contemplation does not even come close to the real thing, but it is a good starting point, for anybody who wants to understand Ngugi, to try to put themselves in a Kenyan English Student's shoes. For as these students press forward in their education, which is something needed to gain sustenance and success, they are being forced to lose their identity. As Kenyan students study, they are pushed further away from their roots. This is something Western World students could never even begin to fathom. It is not our fault that countries like Kenya have been oppressed under Western education. However, it is our duty to make sure it does not continue to happen and that all cultures are given an equal opportunity for expression and opinion through literature in their own language.

The Female Version of Story Telling

2008-04-08T11:41:00.000-07:00

During our literary criticism class today, we had a small discussion about how the short story seems to be modeled after the male sexual experience. Within a short story there is the beginning (the conflict) which eventually rises up to the climax. The short story structure then slowly descends as the climax has been revealed and the story come to a close. Before class today, I had never thought about this parallel and I have to say I am intrigued by what could be a very true (or false) claim. I just recently finished reading a book called How Stella Got Her Groove Back and I am amazed with how this book, written by a female African American fiction writer, resists the normal layout of the short story. As myself and a friend read this book, we found ourselves becoming extremely agitated with the way the book plays out. It is impossible, we feel, to find a climax anywhere in the book. This because there is literally so much going on in the story that there could be six or seven different climatic points of the novel. The author's (Terry McMillan) writing style is not set in the structure of the normal story, but in fact, jumps all over the place. In my own societal ignorance, I finished the book feeling dissatisfied with not being able to identify the most important part of the book. However, after class today, I have been given a completely new perspective on why McMillan chose to do this in her writing. For a woman author writing about the life and story of a woman, it would make no sense what so ever to follow the normal and male-dominated sequence of events in storytelling. Now, looking back, I find this to be an amazing and important way of writing a novel like How Stella Got Her Groove Back.

Here is a link to the Amazon.com page for the book How Stella Got Her Groove Back. I'd encourage you all to read some of it (an incredibly easy, funny read) if for nothing else than just to see how the normal nature of story telling is defied:

Stella

Cixous' Biases

2008-04-08T11:19:00.000-07:00

"A world of searching, the elaboration of a knowledge, on the basis of a systematic experimentation with the bodily functions, a passionate and precise interrogation of her erotogeneity. This practice, extraordinarily rich and inventive, in particular as concerns masturbation, is prolonged or accompanied by a production of forms, a veritable aesthetic activity, each stage of rapture inscribing a resonant vision, a composition, something beautiful. Beauty will no longer be forbidden." (Cixous, 2040)

Despite our discussion in class today, I am having a difficult time believing that eros love and Cixous constant reference to female masturbation as liberating, goes beyond a sexual reference to other ways women can explore their bodies, such as in sports. From the above quote, I seem to get the sense that Cixous is equating eros to passion and sexual exploration. In the quote, Cixous equates the "interrogation of her erotogeneity" with "masturbation" and at the same time equates masturbation to the "beauty which will no longer be forbidden." In class today Prof. Powers explained that Eros is supposed to encompass all acts that happen with the female body, not just sex. However, from Cixous point of view, I have a difficult time believing this to be true. The rest of Cixous' essay, The Laugh of Medusa, refers to the creative ability of women in a solely sexual way. Not once does Cixous reference other ways in which women can be liberated (such as by their intelligence, wisdom, athletic ability, or compassion for the world). I feel that in equating a woman's freedom to her sexuality Cixous is actually adding to the warped culture that places men above women. Sexuality seems to define humans in this world and it is something that has gotten all of us into trouble. Instead of focusing so much of this one aspect, it would be so much more beneficial for Cixous and other feminists to focus on the true abilities that can liberate and define who women are and are to become. For a Poststructural feminist who is so interested in saying something "dynamic" in her writing, Cixous falls short by failing to look beyond the bias of Western art as being containing sexual connotations.

Thoughts on Kolodny

2008-04-07T06:23:00.000-07:00

"We must reexamine...the inherent biases and assumptions informing the critical methods which (in part) shape our aesthetic responses" Annette Kolodny

After reading Ms. Kolodny's essay, Dancing Through the Minefield, I find the quote above to be very interesting and somewhat controversial. If human beings, as both readers and critics of literature, are supposed to ignore and throw away all of the assumptions and judgements we have grown up being taught and learning, then what does this leave for us to interpret a work of literature with? I understand that Kolodny is trying to remind us all that it is important to put aside biases and read text from a neutral perspective, but quite frankly, I think this is virtually impossible. The word in the above quote which undermines Kolodny's desire is "inherent." I was incredibly confused by this statement because if something is inherent, it usually means that the person who it is an inherent thought or quality to has no concept of the idea what so ever. This then, would make it extremely difficult to pinpoint and do away with those social constructs which define the way a certain individual reads and interprets a text. I also have an incredibly difficult time with this concept because I believe, to some extent, that biases are important to the interpretation of literature. All human beings have grown up in different contexts. The way I interpret a particular poem is going to be incredibly different from the way somebody who has grown up in a completely different environment is going to interpret that same poem. And this is the beauty of discussing literature! Because we have grown up in completely different contexts and because we have different biases, we each bring new elements to the text that others can think about and learn from. Now, I understand the danger in biases as well, because some people's biases overrule them completely, only allowing them to have a closed mind when interpreting text. However, when used in a good way, with an open mind and communication, the biases and social contexts from which we look at the world can provide a great learning experience for both ourselves and other literary critics that we engage in discussion with.

I think my real problem with Kolodny's above quote is, again, her use of the word inherent. This word just throws me off because to me, if something is inherent, it cannot be or is extremely difficult to identify within oneself--making it even more difficult to get rid of.

On another note, I really appreciated Kolodny's view that the "individual success of some women is not enough." I think one of the main issues with bringing women into the light as great writers who should have their voices heard is that when one woman gets published or has her voice heard, she feels so has achieved success and stops there. I agree with Kolodny that there needs to be a community effort when it comes to allowing women's voices to be heard. If every woman just looks out for herself and her own voice, nothing is going to be accomplished.

Where are you Ms. Shakespeare?

2008-04-01T12:53:00.001-07:00

Let me just say that I really struggle with Feminism and Feminists. Do I think it is important for women to have an equal place as men in this world? Yes. Do I think that men and women in the past have both been responsible for the favoring of one sex over the other? Yes. Do I think this was wrong and a perversion on the relationship God intended for men and women to have with one another? Of course. However, what really gets me fired up is when feminists make generalizations which they believe can be applied to all women of the world. It drives me crazy. After reading an excerpt from Virginia Wolf's Shakespeare's Sister, I was left with a feeling that this woman made an absolutely ridiculous argument which ended in a girl who does not even exist in the first place killing herself because she cannot write a play. Um, what? Who is Virginia Wolf to think that she could decide what would come of Shakespeare's sister? And quite frankly, it is an insult to me that Virginia Wolf would think that a girl would kill herself because she sewed and cooked instead of writing seductive and vulgar theatrical plays. What is Shakespeare's sister actually liked to cook? Is that such a novel idea!?! I find it very interesting that Ms. Wolf just assumes Shakespeare's sister would have a desire to be like her brother. To me, this setup does not show any kind of independence for the woman, but rather demonstrates more social constraints as Wolf thinks the only way for Shakespeare's sister to gain significance is to do the things her brother did. Hmm...a little contradicting? I think so.

Recently in my Women's Literature class we learned about how women who were oppressed found ways to express their art through what society forced them to do each day (cooking, sewing, garden work, etc.). I like thinking about the fact that women who could not voice themselves through writing were clever enough to find other ways of expressing their thoughts and individual art. These women, unlike Wolf's ridiculous portrayal of Shakespeare's sister, cleverly and intelligently took what they had and turned it into a form of expression that was remembered in a recipe, a quilt, or a blooming garden for generations to come.

And where is Shakespeare's sister's impact? Nowhere. Because she thought she had to be like her brother.

Torn on Bourdieu

2008-04-01T12:10:00.000-07:00

"Even in the classroom, the dominant definition of the legitimate way of appropriating culture and works of art favours those who have had early access to legitimate culture, in a cultured household, outside of scholastic disciplines, since even within the educational system it devalues scholarly knowledge and interpretation as 'scholastic' or even 'pedantic' in favour of direct experience and simple delight" (Bourdieu, 1810).

After our discussion of Bourdieu in class today I have to say I am having a difficult time deciding if I stand with or against the ideas Bourdieu is communicating about art in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. On the one hand, I am completely against social inequality and can understand Bourdieu's claim that the social hierarchy has, in a sense, corrupted the meaning of Art. On the other hand, I feel that Bourdieu's complaints point towards relativism in Art as a social. This is a notion I am highly against.

Today in class, Danielle made a comment pertaining to Bourdieu that I have thought about and would like to expand in a little more. Danielle inquired as to why it is that rocket scientist or ingenious mathematicians are praised and admired for their great work while artists or poets who are exceptionally talented in what they do are scrutinized by social and cultural theorists like Pierre Bourdieu because their masterpieces are complex, pieces that must be interpreted with a prestigious way of thinking. This led me to wonder what sets art (and more specifically literature) apart from other educational subjects such as math and science. The answer, I feel, to this question can be found in the fact that art is creation by the people done for the people. Math and science are subjects that (besides being incredibly boring) do not encourage any type of social interaction or facilitate any kind of social discussion. When performing math or science, participants do not contemplate humanity and do not have to look to incorporate aspects such as human suffering into their work. On the contrary, math and science require one to follow the directions and complete the problem. Plain and simple. Art and literature, however, are subjects that are completely enveloped in societal issues. Art and literature depict different aspects of humanity and are used to connect human beings to one another through emotion and understanding. It is for this reason then, that art is scrutinized in terms of social constructs while math and science will be left to their theorems and formulas.

However, despite this explanation, I still resonate with what Danielle was concerned with in class today. Bourdieu spends much of his article explaining how art can be such a negative thing because it caters only to the wealthy. However, if there is no standard to judge art by, we will all fall into relativism where everything is accepted and even crappy art is seen as amazing because heaven forbid there should be any kind of cut off. I think the general problem I have with Marxist theology is that it is idealist and there is so much time spent complaining about what is wrong but never any new ideas formulated of how society can do it right (sorry for the sidetrack).

Although I agree with what Danielle said, I also found what Dr. Powers explained at the very end of class with the story from the Minnemingo review to be very interesting as well. In Bourdieu's favor, I do agree that education in general depersonalizes literature to a point where a person's own emotion in reaction the the poem takes a backseat to the wordy language and eloquently described poetic devices of pieces of literature. Although I do not think all of literary analysis should be focused on feelings, I do think it is said to know we live in a society where personal emotions are not highly valued in the study of art and literature.

A Method to the Madness.

2008-03-31T19:56:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-03-26T13:20:00.000-07:00

"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

2008-03-26T12:04:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-03-25T11:48:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-06T11:50:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-03-05T19:02:00.001-08:00

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?

2008-03-04T13:12:00.000-08:00

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.

I have no title for this post...

2008-02-28T13:59:00.000-08:00

As a continuation of my last post, I have to say that although I respect Todorov's ability to break down a literary work into a kind of scientific formula, his view of literature is a prime example of why I worry that indulging in too much literary critique and analysis can be a dangerous thing. As I read through Structural Analysis on Narrative I shuddered at how Todorov was able to take the shear joy and delight out of reading by turning it into a simplistic and mechanical explanation. As much as I appreciate and see the importance of rationality, I feel as though Todorov has fallen into the abyss I was talking about in my last post, one that does not allow for any pleasure in reading what-so-ever. My first instinct is to resist this kind of literary explanation. I don't know what other's think about Todorov, but I would love to hear your thoughts.....

Personal Thoughts

2008-02-27T16:06:00.000-08:00

From the start of our Literary Criticism class, we have been studying and re-studying what it is literary scholars have written in order to answer the three questions What is Reading? What is the Author? and What is Literature? I have to be quite honest and say that after reading through the opinions and ideas of writers such as Emerson, Shelley, Arnold, and Eliot, I am disturbed by how disinterested, and frankly, bored, I have already become with this subject. This is not to say that I do not think it is important to ask these questions. I think it is very important for Literary Critics, and critics of any kind, to always be asking questions in order to gain a better understanding of what it is that is being critiqued. However, I have found that since we have begun discussing these subjects, I have become increasingly disinterested in the texts I am reading for my class as well as books I am reading in my own time for pleasure (something that I, unfortunately, rarely have the time to do). This leads me to the question: At what point does criticism and questioning of literature overexert itself to the point that those who might be affected by such works become disenchanted with the bigger picture of what they are taking in? Does literary study and criticism cause students to teeter dangerously on the edge of an abyss which, if entered into, would leave them forever floating in a quiet sea of discontent with the literature being studied and read? My personal answer to this is yes, as I see myself coming increasingly closer to the edge where I am in danger of no longer being affected by the things I read. This thought has deeply saddened me, as I am one who has taken so much pleasure out of reading ever since I have been able to. I was reminded of the childlike abandonment I used to give myself over to in reading this afternoon when, while reading for another class, I stumbled upon a poem which was undoubtedly the origin of one my all time favorite songs. Never had I made the connection that Sweet Afton, by the folk group Nicklecreek, was actually a song written by Robert Burns (Sweet Afton poem/lyrics), a historic Scottish poet who was a source of inspiration for romantic writers such as Wordsworth. I cannot even begin to express the shear delight that rose up within me as I felt a real and pure connection with Burns through his poetry. Call me a nerd, but I pulled up my iTunes program on my computer as quick as I possibly could, searched through song selections, and finally pressed play to listen to Sweet Afton as I read along in my Norton Anthology with what Burns had written so long ago. And as I listened to the song while reading the poem I thought to myself "this is what literature is and always should be-a connection" Because the fact that a 21-year old college girl can connect with a Scottish farmer/poet from so long ago is, after all, what makes reading worth while to begin with. But, my excitement was quickly smoldered as I was brought back to reality, realizing a better pick up my pen and start underlining, because heaven forbid I should get to class on Friday and anybody question the integrity of my work ethic because there is not an ink stain on any of my pages. This cultural construction and jaded view of "education" makes me long for days when I would have been able to sneak off to an orchid or garden somewhere and devour a book of MY choice on MY on time, learning as I go, whatever it is that sticks out to me or makes an impression on me the most. It is sad for me to think those days are gone (and I am scaring myself because I sound like Emerson-which I don't like). The truth is, this "education" we receive is not really an education at all, but rather a regurgitation. I always wonder to myself why I am so eager to be done with college and my education and I realize not that it is because this has not been a freeing or thought-provoking experience for me at all, but rather something more closely resembling imprisonment...And I am ready to think for myself, I am ready to be free.

The Leech Gatherer as an answer to the question: What is the Author.

2008-02-26T11:55:00.000-08:00

I don't know about anybody else, but I am a reader who can really appreciate and enjoy an extensively well-written and descriptive metaphor, especially when it relates so well to the question we have been discussing at length in class, namely, What is an Author/Poet? Recently for my Romantic Period class, we read a poem by William Wordsworth (love him) called the Leech Gatherer. I have to admit that when I read this poem I saw nothing special or ordinary about it. Actually, I was a little appalled that Wordsworth would decide to write a poem about such a grotesque occupation and did not even consider that the poem might have a deeper meaning. However, upon our discussion of the poem as a class, my eyes were opened to the fact that this poem does have a deeper meaning and I became fascinated with what Wordsworth was trying to convey about himself, and more generally about what defines a poet (romantically), through his description a man who wanders around catching leeches to sell to doctors and medical institutions (I have attached a link at the bottom on the blog to the poem for those of who would like to read it in order to better understand what I am talking about). First, I have to say that I was struck by the amount of times Wordsworth alludes to loneliness when speaking of the Leech Gatherer. If we apply this reoccurring theme to the idea of what makes up the author, it is easy to conclude that, in Wordsworth's opinion (as well as in the opinion of other romantic writers-Emerson) that the poet is a man who stands apart from other men and leads a rather solitary and lonesome life. I was also taken back from the lines in the poem where the Leech Gatherer is explaining his occupation and says: "gathering leeches, far and wide / He traveled; stirring thus about his feet / The waters in the pools where they abide" When I read this I pictured a man stirring up a pond and all of the dirt and grime from the bottom coming up and revealing itself. When applied to a poet, I took this metaphor to mean that a poet is somebody who is responsible for stirring up and revealing, perhaps the darker and less visible sides of humanity to those around him. I thought this was incredibly interesting and, although we have discussed similar ideas as attributed to the Poet through Emerson's prose, I really appreciated being able to identify with and understand the Romantic view of the author through an image of a leech gatherer. Hopefully this poem will be able to help others gain a clearer picture as it did with me.
The Leech Gatherer by William Wordsworth

Wordsworth's Contribution

2008-02-22T17:45:00.000-08:00

In one of my very first blogs I discussed my frustration with the language of Emerson's work as I felt as though the form of his prose did not, in fact, reinforce the content which he was aiming to express. I found Emerson's work more frustrating than pleasurable to read as it, quite frankly, made me feel idiotic in my understanding of the make-up of the English language. Perhaps, in it's own way, this frustration has been a good thing for me as it has taught me the necessity of having an extended vocabulary. However, I can honestly say I found no pleasure in reading Emerson, apart from wondering at his unique way of placing words next to one another. On the contrary, I found him, and have always found him, rather prideful and thus, to use more modern language, a turn off to literary theory and literature as a whole. Although this may sound like blasphemy to some English students and professors, I know for a fact there are many other students who feel the same way as I do, giving me the courage to state out right that I do not like Emerson or his writing.

After coming to this conclusion, it has been refreshing for me to discover a Romantic author who appreciates the importance of speaking the "common" language and goes even further to exalt simply vocabulary. In an amazing quote taken from his Preface to Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth expresses this importance beautifully when he so eloquently (and simplistically) states:

"Accordingly, such a language, arising out of repeated experience and regular feelings, is more permanent, and a far more philosophical language, than that which is frequently substituted for it by poets, who think that they are conferring honour upon themselves and their art, in proportion as they separate themselves from the sympathies of men, and indulge in arbitrary and capricious habits of expression, in order to furnish food for fickle tastes, and fickle appetites, of their own creation" (Wordsworth, Preface to Lyrical Ballads).

Could this statement be any more beautiful or true? So many "poets" waste their time writing in vain only to prove how brilliant they are instead of using their gifts to relate with those around them, a feat which possess far more brilliancy than any over-done sentence I have ever read. The most wonderful part about Wordsworth is that all of his poem reinforce this opinion. In all of Wordsworth's poetry easy and simple poetry is used to express that which he has experienced and felt. But doesn't this make the poem dull? you might ask. On the contrary! To me it makes each line and stanza beautiful in a pure and elegant way. When I am done with Wordsworth I can say that for once my reading experience has been a pleasurable one! Everybody knows that rare, intellectual-sounding words are supposed to make a writer look like a genius. But that is just it, he will only look like a genius. True genius is found in an author who can create beauty and intelligent meaning out of ordinary, common language. And, not only will he be a genius, but he will be a hero of the common people as well.

*Excerpt from Wordsworth taken from the The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Romantic Period.

Links:
Wordsworth's Poems
Wordsworth Poetry Archive

An Answer To Barbara Christian's Question

2008-02-20T06:43:00.000-08:00

I know I have discussed Feminist Critic Barbara Christian's article "The Highs and Lows of Black Feminist Criticism" before in a previous post, but I wanted to bring up a question she asks in her article because I feel it fits well with T.S. Eliot's discussion in Tradition and Individual Talent. In her article, Christian calls on feminist critics, and more importantly artists everywhere, to remember to recognize the "low" places where are is created, such as in the home. Christian displays a considerable amount of frustration with critics who focus most of their time on the classic writers. She asks the slightly comical but incredibly insightful question: "Why are we so riveted with male thinkers, preferably dead or European?" When I first read this question I could really resonate with what Christian was expressing. However, after reading T.S. Eliot's essay, I have seen a completely different side that could quite possibly answer Christian's question.

In his essay on Tradition and the Individual Talent, Eliot expresses that "No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead" (Eliot, 1093). I found this viewpoint very interesting. Does this mean that a poet cannot really be a poet unless he has been measured and exceeded those who have gone before him? What if a poet, for some reason, cannot measure up to or be compared easily to the dead poets? Does this make his art and poetry irrelevant or unacceptable? Refusing to accept the poetry of a man because his creation does not in same way relate to the writings of men who have passed away does not encourage new ideas of any kind and to me, seems a little dangerous and neoclassical. Eliot states later down the page that "[poetry's] fitting in is a test of it's value" (Eliot, 1093). This again I feel is dangerous, as "fitting in" suggests to me that poetry has to be created a certain way for is to succeed. I don't really like this idea at all.

I wonder what it would be like for Christian and Eliot to talk over these issues. I can almost imagine the conversation in my head and can predict that it probably would not go so well...

Emerson vs. Lamb

2008-02-19T11:55:00.000-08:00

When reading an essay for my Romantic Period class over the weekend, I was delighted to come across an article which I am almost positive Emerson would be absolutely appalled by. Charles Lamb's article entitled Detached Thoughts on Books and Reading is almost comical in the way that is reinforces Emerson's problem with reading and at the same time fights against Emerson's snobbery and intellectual idealistic view of what reading should and should not be. In the first paragraph of the essay Lamb boldly points out that he reads exactly the way Emerson says one should not read, stating: "I dedicate no inconsiderable portion of my time to other people's thoughts" (Lamb, 504) and "I am reading; I cannot sit and think. Books think for me" (Lamb, 504). Wow. Can't you just seem Emerson cringing at these statements, and, in an intellectual temper tantrum writing even more about what reading should not be? The funny part about it is that Lamb is blatantly poking fun at what some would deem Emerson's intellectual snobbery.

There are a few areas where I do think Lamb and Emerson might form some kind of agreement about reading. For instance, Lamb states praises literary artists of his time, saying: "the names of some of our poets sound sweeter, and have a finer relish to the ear-to mine, at least-then Milton or Shakespeare" (Lamb, 507-508). I do believe Emerson would agree with Lamb in this regard simply because Emerson sees these historical writers as being poets that men have continually imitated instead of thinking and creating for themselves. It is interesting how, although completely disagreeing on how reading affects its audience, Lamb and Emerson might agree on something.

Probably the entire reason I wanted to post this blog is to share a poem from Lamb's Detached Thoughts on Books and Reading that acts as his conclusion to the article. Personally, I found this poem so insightful and witty and a very personal attack on the thoughts of intellectuals such as Emerson. I have become increasingly frustrated with Emerson's thoughts on reading as we have studied them in class and this poem helped to relieve a little of that frustration :)

"I saw a boy with eager eye
Open a book upon a stall,
And read, as he'd devour it all;
Which when the stall-man did espy,
Soon to the boy I heard him call,
'You, Sir, you never buy a book,
therefore in one you shall not look.'
The boy pass'd slowly on with a sigh
He wish'd he never had been taught to read,
Then of the old churl's books he should not need.

Of sufferings the poor have many,
Which never can the rich annoy:
I soon perceiv'd another boy,
Who look'd as if he's not had any
Food, for the day at least-enjoy
The sight of cold meat in a tavern larder.
This boy's case, then thought I, is surely harder,
Thus hungry, longing, thus without a penny,
Beholding choice of dainty-dressed meat:
No wonder if he wish he ne'er had learn'd to eat"
(Lamb, 509-510)

To Lamb, reading is like eating, it is a life giver and sustainer and to not read is just as bad as to not eat. I thought this to be very clever and more along the lines of what I feel about reading.

(all excerpts from Lamb's work were taken from The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Romantic Period)

Arnold's Distinction

2008-02-15T11:15:00.001-08:00

After reading an excerpt from Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy, I became fascinated by the level of insight and reasoning the author has placed on the importance of discerning a unique and perhaps more profound way of defining the word "culture". After becoming frustrated with Emerson and quite frankly struggling through Shelley, Arnold's insightful discourse on the definition of culture came as a breath of fresh air to me. I was especially fascinated by the way in which Arnold related culture to religion through similar objectives. This curiosity led me to wonder about Arnold's personal religious background as way of understanding more about how he links culture to religion. I found from further reading that Matthew Arnold, although not rejecting religion altogether, did in fact reject Christianity to become agnostic and believed the bible to be completely metaphorical. Arnold also rejected the idea of the supernatural, focusing more on how religion, and more particularly Christianity, had a positive or negative moral affect on society. This information was incredibly helpful to me in understanding the way in which Arnold speaks of religion within Culture and Anarchy. In one section of his writing, Arnold even warns against spirituality, stating: "Faith, in machinery is, I said, our besetting danger; often in machinery most absurdly disproportioned to the end which this machinery, if it is to do any at all, is to serve; but always in machinery, as if it had a value of itself" (Culture and Anarchy, 829). Arnold rejects all cases of faith or the supernatural and is concerned more with the community instead of the self, reinforcing religious ideas which focus on he betterment of society and culture instead of the individual. I thought this to be an interesting understanding of the relationship between religion and culture.
Just a few links I found:
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/index.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/bio.html
Quotes by Matthew Arnold-You Can Listen!

The Importance of a Form which reinforces Content

2008-02-13T06:51:00.000-08:00

Before coming to my main topic, I wanted to share thoughts I have had recently on similarities that can be drawn between Emerson's thoughts on authorship as expressed in The Poet and the ideas of William Blake. We have recently been studying Blake's writing in my Romantic Period class and to be honest, had I not been reading Emerson and Blake simultaneously for two different classes I would have never seen a relation between these two distinct writers. Where Emerson is highly intellectual and eloquent, creating a hopeful, wild tone, Blake is dark and foreboding as even his collection of poems in Song's of Innocence seem ominous is some subtle and not-so-subtle ways. However, if I am understanding these two intellectuals correctly-which there is a large possibility that I am not-it seems as though both men share the same belief of what an author is, expressed by Emerson as the "true poet" and by Blake as the "poetic genius". In a complex argument named "All Religions are One" Blake begins his reasoning with an explanation of the Poetic Genius, stating that "the poetic genius is the true Man, and that the body of the or outward form of Man is derived from their Genius." This strongly reminded me of Emerson's argument in The Poet in which he expresses the idea that beauty and poetry are higher beings of their own and the True Poet is only a vessel by which such poetry is expressed. Both men seem to reject that human flesh as having any significance if its own and instead claim that the body and mind of Man is only used to express poetry. I thought this similarity was very interesting, especially because Emerson and Blake are two authors I would not normally pair together.

Moving on-the real reason for this blog is to express a frustration I have developed for Emerson in the last couple of days. Let me preface this explanation with a little background so you might full understand where I am coming from. I am currently in a class at Messiah taught by Jean Corey called Women Writers. Although the class focuses primarily of feminist criticisms, I have found so far that some of the material we have read/discussed has been helpful to me not only in understanding Women's Literature but also in understanding cultural and social status quos which define literature in general. An article we recently discussed in the class, The Highs and Lows of Black Feminist Criticism by Barbara Christian, has opened my eyes to recognize the wrongs we as a society value within art and literature and has also helped me to truly embrace what is means to learn and be educated from and by every human being we come in contact with. Using simple and straightforward language, Christian discusses what it really means to embrace the "High World" and "Low World" of literature-forming her argument from Alice Walker's piece, In Search of Our Mother's Gardens. In essence, Christian calls on women and the world to be conscious of our definitions of "woman" and "education" as we may, in trying to define the terms, rule out areas of life (home, casual everyday life) where important forms of art and literature take their inspiration and their flight. What I really loved and appreciated about Christian is how the writing style of her argument reinforces what she is trying to say. Christian is writing a "criticism" and yet she begins by explaining her own personal feelings and emotions, continuing on to make lists and incorporate a poem right into the middle of her writing. In the standard world of literary criticism, this would be a definite mistake. However, Christian is trying to get across to her audience that emotions, feelings, and everyday reactions are just as important as educated, intellectual theories and arguments. This them leads me to my frustration with Emerson which is this: I feel as though Emerson contradicts himself because the form of his writing in The Poet does not seem to reinforce his content. Here is a man who-if I have interpreted correctly-is discussing the True Poet which is essentially alive in all of us, denouncing the idea of a social hierarchy which allows for every person to individually express themselves, and yet his writing is so think, so intense, so eloquent that only those who have had a great amount of formal education can truly delve into what he is trying to say. So the True Poet lives in all of us-put only the people who have the ability to read what I am writing-the educated-will be able to understand this and thus, use it for there advantage. Does anybody else see even a hint of what I am trying to express? Or am I completely off?

Emerson's Author

2008-02-11T20:09:00.000-08:00

"The sign and credentials of the poet are that he announces that which no man foretold. He is the true and only doctor; he knows and tells; he is the only teller of news, for he was present and privy to the appearance which he describes. He is a beholder of ideas and an utterer of the necessary and casual. For we do not speak now of men of poetical talents, or of industry and skill in metre, but of the true poet." Emerson, The Poet, pg 726

As I read and re-read Emerson's explanation and critique of what he calls the "true poet" I am struck by the complexity and yet, simplicity with which he defines the word. From the quotation above, one can see that Emerson does not regard any casual human being as possessing the ability to be so poetically inclined, for he clearly distinguishes those holding some "poetic talents" within the industry from those who capture profoundly new ideas and contemplations within language. Emerson implies the true poet to be a person of intelligence and one who possesses a great deal of formal, or perhaps informal, education. This is clearly identified when Emerson compares the true poet to a doctor. Commonly, doctors have endured a great deal of schooling and life experience, thus making them well-rounded and knowledgeable in all aspects of humanity. This wealth of intelligence, when expressed to others, assists those in need in understanding how to better care for themselves and sustain a healthy lifestyle. In essence, when Emerson speaks of the true poet as being a doctor, he is suggesting that this talented individual helps humans to better understand themselves in order to live long in good health. It is interesting to think that what a doctor can do with medicine, so also the true poet can do with words.

Although, up until this point, Emerson's description of the true poet seems thick and extensive solely from the small passage recorded above, there is one phrase that causes me to believe Emerson might hope all people could be their own breed of the true poet, for although this revolutionary is required to present new ideas, he/she is also responsible for speaking "the necessary and the casual". This small suggestion subtly implies that although the true poet is supposed to be extensive and radical, he/she must also be able to resonate with and express that which is commonplace and regular in everyday life. Each human being has an understanding of both what is necessary and what is casual by their own standards of living and the incidents they have endured, thus humanity, on the individual level, meets Emerson's credential regarding what the true poet must be able to do.

After examining Emerson's view of the true poet through this particular passage, it becomes clear to me how this literary master might answer the question: "What is an Author?". Emerson's credentials may at first seem overwhelming, but when one takes a closer look it becomes evident that each human being contains a small portion of the true poet, for just as he/she announces new ideas and speaks of the necessary, so also people, through their own situatedness, have necessities to explain and new ideas to express.