Ewww Pervert! March 14, 2007

I need to begin this blog with the fact that I am sooooooo unbelievably happy with the weather we’ve been having.  On that happy note, I’m also really enjoying this book so far.  I’m glad we’ve gotten away from the text book and into an actual piece of literature.  While I enjoyed Watchmen because it was different, I think I’m going to like this even more because I love reading.

 

The quote on pages 3-4 that he shares from his Communications 101 textbook I thought was rather interesting.  “‘Human society has created language in order that we may communicate our thoughts, feelings and intentions to each other.’”  I feel like it’s déjà vu with Saussure all over again.  I read this and actually laughed out loud.  Then I felt kind of weird because I’m in a single and my neighbors were probably thinking I’ve got crazy, so I quieted down.

 

I really don’t think I like Professor David Lurie.  He seems like he’s lost.  Who else would sleep around like he does?  I felt like there was way too much time focused on how he met Soraya and how he feels when he’s with her.  I understand that she’s become an important fixture in his life, but do we really need to know how many times he’s going to bang her?  I felt it was a little much.  I liked the line, “But then, what should a predator expect when he intrudes into the vixen’s nest, into the home of her cubs?” (10).  I felt that it accurately portrayed the kind of man Lurie is: a predator.  That is proven with his student Melanie.  I can’t believe he actually slept with her.  It all seemed so sketchy to me.  Like he’s just this sexual deviant that needs to keep luring young women into his den.

 

I think so far this book has been pretty easy to read, I’m going to have to re-read what I’ve done so far because I want to make sure that I’m getting all of what is being said.

I hate that word March 14, 2007

I have to say that Franz Fanon was a bit of a shock to me when I read Black Skin White Mask.  I absolutely hate the “N” word, and to see it used in the first line of the piece pretty much made me not want to read the rest.  Nevertheless, I pushed through and finished Fanon’s essay.  I actually didn’t find it too hard to understand, which made me feel better about myself.  I like when I don’t feel like a complete and utter idiot when reading for this class.  Hooray!

 

Fanon says, “Ontology-once it is finally admitted as leaving existence by the wayside-does not permit us to understand the being of the black man.  For not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man.  Some critics will take it on themselves to remind us that this proposition has a converse.  I say this is false.”  (110)  Fanon discusses how black men are seen as black in comparison to white men.  White men, however, do not need to compare themselves to black men.  Yet, I have to wonder, if black men had never seen white men before, how could they compare themselves to anything but themselves?  The same applies to white men. 

 

He also goes on to discuss how a Jewish person can hide their true identity from the world if they choose to.  Because they are white, they can hide their “Jewishness” that has caused them to suffer for years.  However, because he is black, there is no way to hide who he is, and therefore, he must suffer the consequences of what he looks like.  “I am the salve not of the “idea” that others have of me but of my own appearance.” (116).

 

There were many interesting parts to the Fanon piece, and I’m glad I was able to understand it from the beginning.  I still hate the fact that that word was used, but other than that, the piece was very interesting.

Midterm Report: We’re Halfway There!!! March 12, 2007

If you had told me at the beginning of the semester that I would live to see this moment, I would have laughed in your face. But, here we are, just getting done with spring break, and the end of the semester is looming. Amazingly, I’m still alive, and theory hasn’t done me in.

The reading for class this semester has been nothing like what I’m used to reading for my English classes. It has been very complex at times, and very frustrating to me because I am used to understanding what I read on either the first or second read-through. My mind doesn’t like the fact that I’m not “getting” what I’m reading right away, and then it makes it even harder for me to try to soak in what’s on the page before me. I think I’m finally getting the hang of taking the stuff we read, and breaking it into smaller chunks as I go along. It makes it that much easier to digest.

I have to say that before this class, I had never blogged before. I wasn’t sure what this was going to be like for me. Was I going to like it? Hate it? I’ve found that blogging is a good way to let off the anger I have inside from what we’ve read. I have found myself on numerous occasions wanting to bang my head against a wall because I don’t want to think anymore. By writing down what my frustrations are or what I actually get and can go with, I’m finding that it’s helping me to understand the text more than if I just read it and then went to class the next day. I’m sure I still don’t remember all of what I read, but if I’ve written something interesting I found down, I’m more likely to remember it the next day when I go to class so I can share it with everyone else.

Conversation during class, and through the blogs has also been a great help with delving into the meat of this material. I find that by bouncing ideas off one another, we’re more likely to understand what we’re doing, and take something away with us. I feel that the conversations during class have helped me greatly, because people point out things that maybe I hadn’t caught when I read it. Or perhaps they’ve interpreted something differently than I had, but it makes me think. We’re building our ideas off one another.

Our groups have been great for learning from each other as well. Breaking into our carnival groups during class has helped not only with us formulating new ideas, but also new relationships with one another. I feel that my group has grown closer since the class began, not only because of the carnival we put together, but because of the learning we have shared together.

 

In order to help myself get better at understanding what we’re reading, as well as doing better in the class, I feel that I need to ask more questions during class. I’m pretty shy when it comes to speaking up in class, and it sometimes takes me up to ten minutes to work up the nerve to add to the discussion or ask a question because I feel like I’m going to say something stupid. So I need to work on my communication with the class as a whole. I know my group well enough now that I’m not as nervous talking to them.

i hate theory February 26, 2007

I’d like to start off with the fact that I’m sad I no longer get to look at pictures for my theory homework. It was a cruel step back into reality when I picked up this book last night. On that note, I think I hate Althusser.

I went into this with an open mind. How bad could it be? But after the first two paragraphs I was ready to punch someone. How many times can we fit production and produce and productive into a sentence? I’m beginning to hate theorists that decide to use one word to write their works. I feel like I’m back to Bakhtin where I didn’t know what the hell was going on.

I did kind of enjoy the part where he talks about school and education and children. “Somewhere around the age of sixteen, a huge mass of children are ejected ‘into production’: these are the workers or small peasants. Another portion of scholastically adapted youth carries on: and, for better or worse, it goes somewhat further, until it falls by the wayside and fills the posts of small and middle technicians, white collar workers, small and middle executives, petty bourgeois of all kinds. A last portion reaches the summit, either to fall into intellectual semi-employment, or to provide as well as the ‘intellectuals of the collective labouror’, the agents of exploitation (capitalists, managers), the agents of repression (soldiers, policemen, politicians, administrators, etc.) and the professional ideologists…” (1494). He discusses how children are brought up to go to school, but there is a point where they suddenly can break off and begin their own lives that don’t revolve around education. Some continue to learn, while others fill our world’s jobs. If we continue the way we are, the pattern will never be broken.

I really just didn’t like most of what I read. could be that I have theory coming out of my ears from the project this weekend, but I don’t really want to read anymore.

the end. February 21, 2007

I was actually kind of sad to be ending The Watchmen. It was such a change from what we read before, that I’m sad to be done with it. That said…

I was disturbed by how Archimedes killed the “pirate” and his “whore.” Looking at the pictures of the couple as they walked closer to him and his raft, she didn’t appear to be anything but a decent woman. He obviously had issues with the other man, but he says as he’s strangling her, “A buccaneer’s whore deserved no pity.” I just found this to be a bit harsh.

Then it switches back to Rorschach and Dreiberg. I felt really bad for the couple who were trying to get together next to the bomb on the ship. What a way to go. I was actually kind of suprised to find out the Veidt was responsible for everything. I really wasn’t sure who I thought was doing it, but it wasn’t him. I loved the full page pictures of the distruction on Earth. I felt that making them full pages was the best way to show it.

I am still a little shocked that Jon killed Rorschach, but I think I’m coming to terms with it. I really enjoyed this book, and I know this isn’t very well thought out, but I can’t wait to discuss it in class!

Watchmen, Part II February 19, 2007

I loved getting the snow we got last week because it meant no classes. I didn’t like finding out my hermit crab Walter had died though. So, after a really crappy weekend of getting my car inspected, and then having to pay $800 to get it to pass the inspection, I was ready to forget about what’s been going on and actually read this book.

Now that we’re into our second reading of The Watchmen, I have to admit, I kind of really like this book. It’s so completely different than what I’ve read before. I have never read a comic book or a graphic novel, so I’m really enjoying the novelty of it. That being said, this week’s reading was a little intense.

When Dr. Manhattan relives how he came to be what he is today, I was shocked at what they chose to portray. Most of it was very violent. The part where he gets locked in the test chamber was a little intense. I wasn’t expecting to see his body exploding, and then coming back together.

But now I can understand him a little more than before. Although I stand by my earlier statement about how the naked blueness is a little much. I felt that the entire chapter while he’s discussing how he came to where he is at the moment was rather interesting by the way he told it. He constantly went back and forth between past, present, and future terms. While he and Janey are together after the carnival, he says, “It’s 1985. In one hundred minutes, the meteorite shower begins.” (6). It was an interesting way to read the piece, to be switching time frames constantly. At the end of chapter 4, Dr. Manhattan questions whether or not he became what he is due to his father, the fat man, or because it was destined to happen anyway. I thought this was an interesting way to look at it. Does each person choose their own destiny, or is it already planned? Dr. Manhattan can see the future, he knows what will be. Does he choose to keep it the same? Or can he change it to the way he wants it to be? And in that case, if he changes it, hasn’t he already seen it changed?

The entire time I have been reading this book, I have been noticing that words are boldfaced in the different text boxes. To me, boldfacing a word means that it is emphasized more than the words around it.

I also have to say that Rorschach is a really freaky guy. When he shoved the guy into the fridge to get him to talk, I thought he was actually going to leave him in there. I also noticed that he didn’t talk in complete sentences during his entire time in Jacobi’s house. It really annoyed me, but maybe because I’m an English major.

Naked Blue Guys were a little much… February 12, 2007

When I first saw that the book we were starting to read for this week was a graphic novel, I was a little stunned. I have never read one before, and never saw the need to do so, but I actually enjoyed most of what I read. It was a little weird for me at first, mainly because I haven’t read a “picture book” for fun since I was little.

I have to begin with the fact that I really didn’t like Rorschach at all. He seemed like such a pompous asshole to me. Who walks into a bar and then breaks the fingers of a man just to see if anyone knows who killed someone? I can kind of understand how he is upset that the world has taken a morally inept path, but to be so bitter about it? It doesn’t make much sense to me. I’d also have to say that turning the page and seeing a giant blue, naked man was pretty disturbing to me. I’m still not used to these pictures.

I was a little confused as to why Rorschach was the only superhero of the group that was still active in his search for justice? Everyone else seems to want to forget what has happened in the past, yet he visits all of them and makes them remember. Some, like Laurie, are bitter about the past, others just don’t seem to care. I’m really interested to see who plays a part in the death of the comedian, and whether or not some of the former superheroes return to what they were.

I Love Parodies and Jameson February 7, 2007

Okay, so maybe I don’t truly love Jameson, but as far as the authors we’ve studied go, he ranks at the top of my list.

 

When I first began reading Fredric Jameson’s Postmodernism and Consumer Society, I wanted to make sure I at least knew what the topic was supposed to be about. So I went online and looked up postmodernism. After doing this, I felt I was at least on the right track.

 

Jameson states that “This list would seem to make two things clear at once: first, most of the postmodernisms mentioned above emerge as specific reactions against the established forms of high modernism, against this or that dominant high modernism which conquered the university, the museum, the art gallery network, and the foundations.” (1961) To me, he was saying how there will always be a modernism that accompanies a time period, and there will always be a postmodernism that follows it. To one generation, the art and literature may seem racy and shocking. To the next, it is old and everything the newer generation is fighting against.

 

“The second feature of this list of postmodernisms is the effacement in it of some key boundaries or separations, most notably the erosion of the older distinction between high culture and so-called mass or popular culture.” (1961) He discusses how the newer generations don’t treat the boundaries between high culture and popular culture like their predecessors did. Instead, the newer postmodernists try to blend the higher culture with the pop culture in order for more people to be able to access it. His main example is the practice of theory, and how today it is becoming more common place which is a “manifestation of postmodernism.”

 

 

Jameson then moves on Pastiche and Parody. He says, “Both pastiche and parody involve the imitation or, better still, the mimicry of other styles and particularly of the mannerisms and stylistic twitches of other styles.” (1962) He feels that today’s literature has become an easy target for parody, while past authors were not so easily copied. Parody isn’t just found in literature, it’s found in all art forms. My personal favorite would be the show Saturday Night Live. This show is widely known for taking political situations and making parodies of them. One of my favorite parodies would be when Will Farrell played President George W. Bush.

Pastiche is defined by dictionary.com as “A dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists, often with satirical intent.” Parody is “A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.” To me, the pastiche is not considered to be as humorous as a parody is. Will Farrell’s parody of President Bush takes the cake if you ask me.

 

To me, this piece of reading was the easiest for me to understand out of everything we’ve read so far this semester. I honestly felt intelligent after I was done because I wasn’t sitting here going, what the hell are centers or rhizomes? I think the discussion about Jameson will be easier to have during class tomorrow than the conversations we’ve had so far. Hooray for not being dumb!!!

 

Derrida and his wonderful centers February 5, 2007

Okay, I wasn’t going to watch the Super Bowl because my beloved Patriots lost to those stupid Colts two weeks ago. I wanted the Bears to crush Peyton Manning and make him hurt. I started reading this piece of work by Jacques Derrida and decided that watching Manning run the poor Bears all over the field would be better.

 

I think it took me about 15 minutes to read the first page and a half because quite frankly, it felt like I was going in circles. Derrida says, “The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality has its center elsewhere. The center is not the center.” Excuse me, but, WHAT? I honestly felt like I wanted to punch the man. Unfortunately he’s dead, so no such luck.

 

He constantly talks about the center, and then how nothing has a center. To me, this made absolutely no sense. He talked about how there was a rupture. “…before the rupture I spoke of, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of center for center, as a linked chain of determinations of the center. Successively, and in regulated fashion, the center receives different forms or names.” (916) To me, this seems to be focusing on the different genres that literature holds. I could be completely off base here, but I feel like Derrida is trying to say that literature is the center, and the various genres are the links that bind it together. However, within each genre, there is a new center. Therefore, the center has a center that surrounds it. Please let me know if I’m way off base here.

 

In short, I have to agree with Keva and say that I’d rather read Bakhtin than read Derrida again. And that’s saying a lot.

 

PS – I hate the Colts. GO PATS!

Falling asleep in my chair was my first mistake… January 31, 2007

Okay, so I started reading Saussure last night after I got back from my night class. As I was reading, I could feel my eyelids closing over and over. It wasn’t because I found him boring, I actually was enjoying what I was reading. But the English portfolio was due yesterday and having all the stress of the last two weeks finally, I was exhausted. So I decided to put Saussure down, (I didn’t think he’d mind) and went to bed. Now I can write my blog without falling asleep where I sit.

 

I felt that Saussure was a little easier to read than some of the other critics we have read for this class. I enjoyed the idea he presented that language and speech were two separate identities. He says, “Language, unlike speaking, is something that we can study separately. Although dead languages are no longer spoken, we can easily assimilate their linguistic organisms.” I felt that this was something I kind of already knew, but it finally was pulled to the surface when I read this. He feels that language is when we connect a verbal prompt to an image. I just thought that this was a very interesting point of view.