Maybe a bit random......

I have a feeling Plato would not have been too thrilled with the book Don Quixote....

After our discussion in class on Wednesday, I have thought about Plato's notion that "imitative art has no place!" Especially when I consider where I am, page 172, of Don Quixote. DQ has just finished freeing criminals who were on their way to the galley under the kings order and, upon insisting that the newly freed men travel and present themselves to lady Dulcinea, he receives a shower of rocks in response. What is truly fascinating throughout this book is who DQ believes himself to be and the power that he believes himself to have......This can be seen in the passage on page 170 when DQ asks the guards to unchain the men and says,

"I ask this quietly and calmly because if you comply, I shall have reason to thank you, and if you do not comply willingly, this lance and this sword, and the valor of this my arm, will force you to comply against your will."
And then we also read some key lines spoken by one of the guards in response, "He's finally come out with it! He wants us to let the king's prisoners go, as if we had the authority to free them or he had the authority to order us to do so."

What I must ask is, in reality is he not really just imitating a certain kind of man with a certain kind of power? It seems as though Plato would assert that the book is useless because all it represents is a man who lives his life with the purpose of being that which he is not, or, in other words, imitating a knight---that which he would like to be, but never will be. The guards obviously refuse to submit to DQ, because no matter how much power he believes himself to have, it really is only an imitation of power and therefore it lacks power itself.

Why not just follow all the blogs....

Since our class began, I have been doing my utmost to follow everyone's blogs. There are great bits of insight, class notes (thanks to Rosanna), great pictures, comical thoughts, and other such helpful tools that make this class interactive and more understandable. As a result, I don't know specifically which person's blog to discuss. I am learning from all of them and being encouraged to think deeper about each topic that we have discussed thus far this semester. I will continue reading them, however, and respond to them through my page when the need arises.

---A side note: I have added the blogs from our class to blogs that I am following, so every time I go to make a new post or change the layout or something, it shows me anything new that people have written and how recently. I just thought I would let you all know, because it is very helpful for me and keeps me from having to constantly check everyone's blogs to see if they have posted anything new recently.

Hayden White

According to Wikipedia, Hayden White is "an historian in the tradition of literary criticism, perhaps most famous for his work Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (1973). He is currently professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and professor of comparative literature at Stanford University."

I am looking forward to finding out more about this man and what he has lent to the field of literary criticism.

DQ ....somethin different!

I know this is kinda different.....but I have decided to refer to Don Quixote as "DQ" from now on because, even though it is taking forever to get through all 940 pages, I do consider it quite a delicious treat to have the opportunity to read literature of this quality (not to mention being able to read at all) and with such complex characters!

I am currently on page 144 and wishing that I had more time to read......
At this point in the story, Sancho is finally wising up to the fact the DQ is in a fantasy world and, as a result, the only way to compel him one way or the other is to feed into that world. He does a good job of it too.......DQ wants to ride off and leave Sancho (against Sancho's pleas that he do neither) so Sancho ties Rocinante's forelegs together in order to keep the horse from moving. The cleverist part of the scheme, however, is when Sancho tells DQ that heaven must be keeping the horse from moving and in order to keep from risking the wrath of fortune, he should stay.

I find it interesting how well this book ties into the modes that we have been discussing in class of late. Especially when considering that DQ is living in the reality of the low mimetic/ironic mode, yet all-the-while longing to be in the romantic mode of knights errant, great ladies, fierce battles with giants and ogers, and heros. This can be seen in quotes such as the one on page 142, first paragraph,

"Sancho, my friend, know that I was born, by the will of heaven, in this our iron age, to revive the one of gold, or the Golden Age, as it is called. I am he for whom are resreved dangers, great deeds, valient feats. I am, I repeat, he who is to revive the Knights of the Round Table, Twelve Peers of France, the Nine Worthies, he who is to make the world forget the Platirs, Tablants, Olivants, and Tirants, the Phoebusese an Belianises, and the entire horde of famous knights errant of a bygone age, by performing in this time in which I find myself such great and extraodinary deed and feats of arms that they will overshadow the brightest they ever achieved."

If it wasn't for Frye, I feel that I would view this story very differently and not understand as well the significance of the things taking place.

My Box---Low Mimetic tragedy

-------LOW MIMETIC TRAGEDY-------

Low Mimetic tragedy is based in a very firm dose of reality. This is the reason why it appeals to our pathos (emotions) because we can identify with what the protagonist or central figure is dealing with. This figure is often taken out of the societal picture and looked at on an individual level. An obvious difference that separates this mode from others is that it doesn't take pitiful, weak, fearful, etc. individuals and find pleasure in their suffering, nor does it take out the suffering altogether; rather, it causes us to view the circumstances in a way that elicits an emotional sensation that brings tears, or at least sympathy.
It reminds me of the movie "No Reservations" in that, amidst the hectic restaurant setting, we get an individualized look at a woman who lives her life fearful of change, who is almost pathetic in her lack of social life, and who loses her sister in a tragic car wreck. Rather than look at her life an laugh at her suffering, I can't help but identify with it and, as a result, I find myself crying while I watch it every time. There is no doubt that it appeals to my emotional side....it elicits a sympathy and response of tears from me because what this woman suffers is so real and could happen to anyone. Plus, it reaches into a similar tragedy that I have experienced. That is the power of this mode, it separates the suffering of an individual and, in a way, makes the audience feel the emotions that accompany the suffering.

Literature+systematic and organized study = a science?!

"So while no one expects literature itself to behave like a science, there is surely no reason why criticism, as a systematic and organize study, should not be, at least partly, a science." -The Archetypes of Literature


This class has rekindled and ushered in old thoughts and ways of looking at life that I have, for a time, set aside. I am minoring in writing, but I am a Fish and Wildlife major, so the majority of my time over the past few years has been spent in the sciences. As a result I have looked at everything through a pair of science glasses (hypothetically speaking) that have kept me focused mainly on analyzing, studying, hypothesizing, etc. data in order to come up with new ideas and/or conclusions. I have now come to find out, thanks to this class, that not only is everything literary (even my books on Mammology and microorganisms !!) but the process of criticism can also be considered a science.

Up to this point, I had separated my two fields of study almost completely, not seeing that (as Fry suggests) the process by which we read and "criticize" literature is much like that of a scientist. With literature, we can also analyze, hypothesize, search for new ideas, and systematically study the words, the meanings, the language, and the rhetoric used within the writings, just as we do in the field of biology with its unique data. What a concept....to think that I have been engaging in science across the board of my education, in both the areas of Wildlife Management and English. This realization has shattered the small box that I had consequently put myself into, and helped me to create more of a oneness between my fields of study.

Hmmm......

In The Archetypes of Literature it states, "It is therefore impossible to learn literature: one learns about it in a certain way, but what one learns, transitively, is the criticism of literature."

Reading this line makes me think about how backwards the world views literature. I have heard from teachers who have said, when asked what they do, "I teach literature." Hmmm....in order to be under one who "teaches literature" you have to technically be "learning literature" don't you? Not so according to Frye. In fact, because literature is what it is regardless of what people call it, we can do nothing more than systematically study as we attempt to attach meaning to it---or in other words, criticize it. This is an interesting, yet true, notion! When I took English my Freshman year of college, I distinctively remember my teacher standing up in front of our class "teaching" us about Shakespear's Hamlet----now that I think about it, however, all she was doing was giving her interpretation of the play, as well as asking for ours. In reality then, what she was transitevely passing on to us was not about the literature itself, but more about how to criticize it and get out of it what WE want- regardless of what Shakespeare intended.



Within the same paragraph as the line quoted above, Frye goes onto say that criticism, then, can basically be considered a science...........more on this to come!

Grid of Frye's Modes

I made a grid of the modes per Dr. Sexson's request, yet I wasn't sure if I had done it correctly or not. I searched through commentaries written on Frye's modes, wrote a definition based on what made sense to me, and then perused my literature books and other sources to try and find examples that matched each mode. In class yesterday I showed it to Dr. Sexson and he asked if I would post it on here as well as bring a copy to class for everyone. I was unable to get the whole thing posted, so I will just bring a copy tomorrow.

Just as a note-- some of you may not understand why I picked the examples that I did, but that is why you all get to pick your own examples! =)

Scrambled thoughts....

I have sat down at my computer countless times in the last few days to blog, but alas the thoughts milling about my mind have refused to come into any semblance of order so that I might share them. On account of this I have decided to simply write and hope that my fingers somehow discover a way to articulate what my mind cannot.......

Last Friday in class a new idea began to unfold in my mind upon Dr. Sexson's utterance of the words "ecstatic critic!" I have grown up viewing criticism in two different ways:

Destructive-tears people down and strikes deep blows to their self esteem

Construcitve-encourages growth, helps build stronger ideas, more character, etc.

I had never previously considered criticism in any other form but these and, in fact, have really never given much thought at all to criticism. As a result, hearing about the concept of an ecstatic critic sent my mind into a flurry of activity.
There are so many unique individuals, opinions, thoughts, and ideas, that we are constantly enveloped by. It is easy to see then, why people so often go around criticizing those who differ from them in a way that is not beneficial nor productive. I believe we get trapped by a pattern of thought about something, and we often cannot find the way out of our own ideas in order to understand or value the thoughts and expressions of others. This is where my thoughts may become a little obscure and hard to follow.... it occurred to me that many people are trapped in a labyrinth of their own mind, created by opinions, thoughts, and ideas that they have formed about life.

Labyrinth "an intricate combination of paths or passages in which it is difficult to find one's way or to reach the exit (dictionary.com)."

I find this fascinating because, as Dr. Sexson suggested, what makes a good critic is someone who is able to stand outside of them self. It seems to me that the reason why people would be a more affective critics when stepping outside of themselves is because of this "trap" that our minds can create. They can keep us from looking at things objectively or being able to escape from our own thoughts and ideas. This concept brings to mind a time some friends and I went to a rather large maze...while inside of it, we continued to take the same paths, get trapped in the same corners, and remain in a state of confusion and an inability to see much beyond ourselves.....it wasn't until we climbed the stairs to the different lookout points above the maze that we were able to see the whole picture, and therefore find our way out. I believe this is what Frye has learned to do (and what every good critic should). He steps outside of the traps of his own mind and, therefore, is able to see the whole picture in order to objectively criticize that which he is examining.

Thank you all for baring with my barrage of thoughts and I hope you did not consider them "lame" or incredibly "boring." =)

First Revelation of Many!

Upon entering room 222 I quickly found my seat in the already crowded room. I was quite tired from the morning I had experienced thus far so it was not till I heard Dr. Sexson's compelling voice that I lifted my eyes from the notebook in front of me. Not only did the tone draw my attention, but also the words being spoken. To consider everything that uses words to be "literary" was an idea I had never fully entertained. I was instantly drawn by the opportunity to examine textbooks, phone books, scribbled notes, etc. in a different way. How marvelous to be enlightened and intrigued on the first day of class! I anticipate more of these revelations in the future as we move forward into the semester.