In-Class Question #4

Do all readers have authority to interpret text or do scholars have greater authority based on their greater expertise?

For some texts, yes. Especially if its a historical text or a text in another language than the one the reader knows.  We all have some authority for certain things based on our personal inventories.  For example, I have authority with texts written by 21-year-old caucasian girls from the subburbs of America.  I might be able to interpret this type of text better than my English professors to a certain extent.  I might not, however, be able to compare it to similar writings of the past because I haven’t studied them or had the opportunity or time to do so to the extent that my professors have.

So what about the Bible?  The Bible is supposed to be accesible to everybody of all nations, but I don’t think it really is.  I think that the nature of Christ exists outside of the Bible often, and those who are illiterate can still feel that faith without reading the Bible.  Scholars in this case, Biblical scholars, do have more authority over the Bible as a historical text. If we were to sit down and read the Bible front to back it wouldn’t make any sense.

In-Class Question #2

When interpretations arrive at a different meaning for a text, does this suggest that the meaning of the text is uncertain or that it has been read incorrectly by one or both parties?

When we first were given this questions, I though, “of course not, a variety of interpretations means a text is versatile.”  The only “incorrect” interpretation, which is pretty much an educated opinion, is one that was arrived at without any work, with lazy support, and without justification.
Just about any interpretation can be made about a text, but it’s not really worth considering if the interpreter doesn’t defend it.

Next we approached this question as if we were interpreting the Bible.  All the sudden, it matters if people arrive at different interpretations because the Bible, for Christians, is our instruction book for this life and the next.  But then again, the Bible is a written text just like any other written text, words on a page. written by humans.  The interpretation of the Bible though, especially in this country which was founded on Christianity, is crucial.  How the powers at be decide the Bible is interpreted can determine personal freedoms.  For example, if the majority this the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, then the laws will state that a man cannot marry a man and a woman cannot marry a woman.  I think its dangerous to jump to any conclusion about a text, but especially the Bible.

Ngugi & Postcolonial Lit

“Here then, is our main question: if there is 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?” From On the Abolition of the English Department by Ngugi, Liyong, Owuor-Anyumba

The purpose of this essay, which we found out was written for Africans not Europeans, it seems is to demand that Africans study the African classics. Makes sense, right?  Literature is just one way to study cultures, and if a whole continent full of African students are studying European cultures, what will happen to their own identities? I read Devil on the Cross by Ngugi and did a pretty close study of it for a group presentation.  In this book Ngugi writes a long and somewhat confusing story about a gathering of the top theives and robbers meeting in a cave in Africa to argue why they think they are the best theif.  These characters are all African big-wigs that are European pawns, exploiting the poor peoples of Africa.  One character puts robots of white children in the window of his school to attract the rich African families to pay money for a less than great education.  This book I think was written for multiple audiences, but mostly for Africans.  I don’t think many of us realize that in other countries, they often study the same classics that we do exclusively.  I’d appreciate more requirements for world literature than what we have now.  I know at least I learned more important truths in my Postcolonial lit class than in med ren.

Potential “Question at Issue” for Critical Essay

So if anyone has time to read over this and help me think of more expansive questions, that would be fantastic.

Here’s what I’m thinking…most of my favorite books/poetry collections are translations from Spanish, Russian, etc. So my question is:

“When held in comparison to their original version, do translated works of poetry owe credit to the original author or to both the original author and the translator (assuming they are two different people)?”

Expanding questions:

Does an author have less control over their translated works or less credibility for them?

Should work ever be translated, especially poetry, when the words are essential and specific?

(This then starts the argument of accesibility)

Hmm. We’ll see. In the mean time, I’d like to recommend you watch the stop-action film Sergei Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf. It’s great. It’ll make you feel better about life.

virginia woolf is zaney!

“any woman born with a great gift in the sixteenth century would certianly have gone crazed, shot herself, or ended her days in some lonely cottage outside the village, half witch, half wizard, feared and mocked at.” from Shakespeare’s Sister

I think that these woman genuises might have been smart enough to find a man willing enough to let her use his name to publish her work. I know there are examples of this but I’m not smart enough to remember them. I just hope that not all of these women of the sixteenth century went insane with fury because of the inequalities. But Woolf does have a point. I remember studying Shakespeare in one class and it was mentioned that some believe he did recieve help from a female writer for some of his work. Here’s a link to someone else’s blog :

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/07/the_sweet_swan_.html

And the book he talks about:

http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Swan-Avon-Woman-Shakespeare/dp/0321426401

“I don’t get it.” Should art/literature be accessible to everyone?

Today’s discussion, literally ending 10 minutes ago, got my wheels going about intellectualism and issues of class. In Bourdeiu’s “Distinction,” he writes that “scientific observation shows that cultural needs are the product of upbringing and education: surveys establish that all cultural practices (museum visits, concert-going, reading etc.) and preferences in literature, painting or music, are closely linked to educational level” (1809).  Whether you think this is “ok” or “morally right” doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. It is true, from what I’ve experienced. There’s a specific South Park episode with Will Smith and his children, who speak eloquently and talk about going to the theater with the South Park kids who rather blow things up and steal neighbor’s pets.  I think it is a serious problem that your upbringing and class status affects your taste in the arts and essentially controls it.  It seems that those in higher classes have the freedom to decide their tastes and those in lower classes do not.  Richer families can afford private language tutors and have their children fluent in French and spend weekends at the movie theater watching obscure French films.  Lower class families may be limited to viewing movies that are only shown in local cable channels.

somtimes you get far behind and blog 13 times to catch up

I thought I’d share my definition of a classic, that actually ended up being similar to Benjamin’s definition:

(taken directly from my free-writing exercise in class):

A classic stands the test of time. Continues to be influential with the changes in culture, has something important to say in different eras, applies to a broad range of readers, inspires future study and analyzation, scholars are never “finished” with the classic because it is infinitely interesting.  Whenever classic literature is mentioned, I think of Moby Dick, A Tale of Two Cities, Huck Finn, etc. 

I wonder what great works of literature from my generation will be considered classics? It seems that to be classic, you have to last a long time. So time then has to pass.  Yet we already have classic rock and classic movies that were produced in the 20th century (?)

T.S. Smeliot

Personally I found Eliot a huge relief; the romantics were starting to cause my brain to cloud up with all this discussion of the world beyond our own and reaching divinity through poetry. Eliot’s perspective puts humanity back on the ground for me. Here are a few of my favorite passages:

” 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.”

I don’t think there’s anything dangerous in imitating our favorite artists, poets, etc; to “stand on the shoulders of giants” and let their genius guide us in a way to find our own. Further, I really liked this sentence, “…and suggested the conception of poetry as a living whole of all the poetry that has ever been written.”

I don’t know if I buy the idea that art takes us closer to the divine, because that makes some people in a sense “better” than others because they can create this catalyst or more in tune with their art to reach the divine. Instead I think creating art should be seen as an act of worship or a recognition of humanity, not a recognition that certain artists are moere than human.

one last note in emerson

“This is the reason why bards love wine, mead, narcotics, coffee, tea, opinum, the fumes of sandalwood and tobacco, or whatever other procurers of animal exhilaration…the spirit of the world, the great calm presece fo the Creator, comes not forth to the sorceries of opium or of wine…so the poet’s habit of living should be set on a key so low that the ocmmon influences should delight in him” (733-744).

I’m wondering what everyone thinks about the topic of drug use to enhance creative ability. A friend and I had a recent conversation about how certain drugs cause parts of the brain to function that normally are never used.  Then we discussed whether or not this temporary opening aids or harms the creative mind; whether or not the breif moments of “enlightenment” are worth the long-term,  irreversible damage to the brain that these drugs cause.  Emerson clearly thinks that these external additives are a false and cheating way to find creativity. The true poet operates with  a clear and perfectly clean mind.  I think that some people use drugs to find that clearness in a loud and busy world. What would Emerson think of Jimi Hendrix’ live performance at Monterey, where he is reputadley on acid? What do you think of it? See below, and enjoy.

Emerson “The Poet”

Here are few quotes & my comments/questions:

 pg. 724 “But the highest minds of the world have never ceased to explore the double meaning, or shall I say the quadruple…of every sensuous fact”

pg. 725 “The man is only half himself, the other half is his expression.”
pg. 278 “Since everything in nature answers to a moral power, if any phenomenon remains brute and dark it is because the corresponding faculty in the observer is not yet active.”

pg. 735 “The religions of the world are the ejaculations of a few imaginative men.”

To Emerson, poets and writers are those that are ordained to illustrated the world to everyone else, to give name and label to all things material and immaterial that otherwise would be unknown and uncomprehended.  He believes that all people have the desire to express what is within, but not necessarily through art or writing, and those compelled to the arts are the artists and poets. For some reasons these certain people want to be the namers and labelers, want to find the quadruple meanings in words and connotations.  I would argue against Emerson that the existence of things doesn’t rest quite so heavily on human understanding of it, yet maybe the opposite, that our existence depends on the discovery of our surroundings that have been there all along.

As far as his take on religion, Emerson could be right, and he could be wrong. I think many religious thinkers would argue that something well beyond their imaginations inspire them and couldn’t begin to take full credit for the religions they follow.